Iran's Nuclear Issue

K and W Assignment 2:

Iran “Must Discuss” Nuclear Issue

In this article we learn about how the two countries, Iran and USA have different issues to be concerned with. Iran offered comprehensive talks but not on its key nuclear programmes, while USA wishes to discuss the Nuclear deal, especially Iran’s nuclear issues. Both the countries have different concerns and are unable to understand the others’ issues. They have different motives and perspectives, which results in both not agreeing on the same issue.

The point of difference arises form the fact that Iran offers to “embark on comprehensive talks” but does not mention its nuclear programme; this ambiguity and procrastination is leading US to be suspicious of Iran’s nuclear intentions. Iran is conveniently ignoring the nuclear issue; and the only reason why US has agreed to participate in talks is if Iran discuses its nuclear programmes. Iran’s dealing with the nuclear issue is making USA agitated and the US wants a clear “ head on “ answer. The discussion between USA and Iran over the Iran’s nuclear issues has not been very successful in the past and therefore the US has taken drastic measures by inviting Iran to the P+5 Group Meet, where the US hopes Iran will discuss the its nuclear programmes.

The P+5 Group consists of UK, China, France, Russia, Us plus Germany. These countries are all developed and industrialized nations and are also declared as nuclear enriched nations. All these countries have common ideologies and manifesto regarding their nuclear issues. The six countries expressed their shared concerns about Iranian nuclear activities as well as their expectation that Iran will be prepared to have “serious and substantive discussions” when all the parties meet in Geneva October 1. They also state that they have a shared commitment to “a dual track of engagement and pressure” in the group’s efforts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This shows that they already have a prejudice or pre- conceived notion that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons. Even though Iran has said before that its programme is “ for civilian purposes only”, the other countries have their own perspective on the matter from before hand and are not ready to believe what Iran is saying. Although Iran’s not discussing the issue makes its intentions even more doubtful. But Iran also wishes to discuss its social and economic problems for which America has no time. This complete disregard to issues faced by Iran will create resentment among Iranians.

Also it is hypocritical for them to state that Iran does not have a right to nuclear technology since they themselves refuse to discard their nuclear weapons. Like in the League of Nations, one of the points was that if any member country committed aggression, serious consequences would be there but the countries that laid down these conditions were the ones that committed the aggression like Japan and Italy. Looking at this scenario from a neutral point of view it is hard to believe and reason out that the use of nuclear weapons in Iran is dangerous but in other South East Asian countries, their use is absolutely safe. It is believed that Czechoslovakia is the biggest producer of illegal weapons and Pakistan of illegal nuclear technology. But they face no confrontation? This arises from the fact US supports Pakistan and is just biased towards Iran.

This article elicits the major difference between the Western idea and Arabic countries in the use of nuclear technology. When one looks at it from the Western perspective, it is hard not to believe that Iran is misusing nuclear arms and technology. Iran is situated in a perpetually volatile environment in the Middle East and with such technology misuse, it is always possible that the procurement of a nuclear weapon may make the Middle East more powerful. It is also a threat to world peace as it might start of a nuclear war and may bring the world to the brink of extinction. But Iran on the other hand stays by it stand that it is using it for nuclear purposes. Looking at it from Iran’s point of view, America is a danger to other countries as earlier it has attacked Iraq for because of its oil monopoly and in the future if Iran does not agree to America then America might take harsher steps to contain nuclear use in Iran by attacking it.

Therefore both sides are doubtful and their motives are suspicious. Iran’s decision to talk about all issues other than its nuclear programmes make a reader like me suspicious of its intentions and America forcing Iran to only talking about its nuclear issues shows that it has concealed motives.

Therefore a country like Iran must talk mire freely about its nuclear technology use and America must hear Iran’s other issues. Both the countries' issues are important and should be dealt with a more open mind without any premature judgment, as the misuse of nuclear power is a major threat to world peace.

Source: http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/September/20090924155018esnamfuak0.8528253.html?CP.rss=true

What i learnt new in IB History?

Three things I never knew before coming to BD:

A lot of things changed for me when I came to BD. I was forced to change my opinion and point of view on many things, in particular, HISTORY. In my previous school, we learnt about various things such as the First and Second World War and we had almost eight chapters on Gandhiji and the good that he brought and did for the Indian society. But when I came here I learnt that things were very different. The knowledge gained from my textbook was on the basis of one of the points of view on history. Today I learn various perspectives on the past and understand the concept of a counter argument.

For example in the First World War we had learnt that the immediate cause of war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. But we never individually looked at how the countries had a role to play in the war. Germany would have never involved France and Britain had it not executed the Schlieffen Plan and invaded Belgium. We learnt the intricacies of the causes of the First World War. I learnt that Russia had to play a major role in the World War. I always thought that Russia was a communist country and it was bad for the people and was a bad type of government. But the capitalist government was also harmful in its own way. Russia had to divert its domestic tensions away and its only hope to maintain peace was the war and the aftermath of the war resulted in socialism.

Another example is Gandhiji. All my life I have heard Gandhiji as a man who fought the for freedom and today we are free citizens only because of him. But we don’t know that Harijan Upliftment Movement he conducted was a ploy to prevent another uprising from the Harijans and to establish and maintain peace in the country. It was only because of the salvation of the Hindu caste, did the Shudra caste become non – existent. Infact Br. Ambedkar, a prominent harijan leader always fought against Gandhi. How is this possible? The man who fought for freedom of Harijans was rebuked by a Harijan?

Lastly I had this pre misconception that the leader of the Weimer Republic, Gustav Stresemann was a noble, loyal and moralistic figure in history that helped Germany in paying back the loans and rising fro the depression. This was what history textbooks portrayed him to be. The truth behind him however is that while he showed to the US and European nations that Germany was working towards disarmament, in the USSR, German soldiers were being trained with the most modern equipment available.

This information made me change my viewpoint on these three events or figures of history.

Anybody can make history. Only a great man can write it.

“Anybody can make history. Only a great man can write It. “ – Oscar Wilde

What is history? History seeks to study and explain the significant events of the past on the basis of currently existing evidence. History seeks to make a connection between the past and the present. It defines what was important in the past and those certain historical events that we should probably know about. It is important to know these events as they might leave an impression on our lives or in some way or another shape our lives and opinions. More importantly each individual creates some sort of a mark in his or her life, which is defined by the person’s experiences and outlook towards life. Some marks these people left become are known as recollections of the past of history. Without these we cannot find out the ultimate truth of the past and our conclusions about this past become distorted.

History is a source of knowledge for the past. Each version of history is different from one another, as each individual is different from one another. It is more than just a catalogue of events and the main job of a historian is to interpret and explain the past. When it comes to writing history, the historian will usually have to make a selection from the available evidence. Since primary sources are themselves a selective interpretation of the events, this shows that history is a selection of selection of events.

The fact that our knowledge of the past is filtered first through the eyes of the one who witnessed it and then through the eyes of the historian who wrote about it makes it difficult to establish the truth. The writing of history is also dominated by the era in which it is written. The passage of time is constantly adding new pages to the book of history, and this means that what has gone before will be reassessed by each new generation in the light of subsequent experience. History is made up of micro – histories and macro -history which is generally written in the textbook. This macro -history is a generalized version of that particular event, deducting all the small stories and articles associated with it.

There are few accounts of history that overrule the others, and those are the ones written by people in power or influenced by people in power. These particularly are history textbooks written and published by those who intend to set a good example for the society or country and try and glorify the country’s past, deducting the flaws. An example is the CBSE history textbook where all the content completely changed when the party changed from BJP to Congress. Gandhi was glorified even more. This was stimulated by political power and propaganda. Another common example is the Indian and Pakistani history textbooks. In our textbooks, Pakistan is regarded as the country responsible for the partitions and in their books; India is regarded for the division. This shows how both stances to one story are different but the history textbook will only consider one side in accordance with the country and party’s situations. Hence it can be said that history is written by people in power.

This is a sham, as people who are powerful often misuse the past and history as a way of gaining personal benefits. There are many fatal conspiracies in the past, which are uncovered, and many questions unanswered. These truths are known by powerful people but not disclosed to the public. Gandhi is known as our step to freedom but his Harijan upliftment movement did more bad than good to the Harijans as Gandhi met with much resentment from a prominent Harijan leader, Mr. B.r Ambedkar. Neil Armstrong’s landing on the moon is a huge conspiracy and now is also regarded as a CIA hoax. But in order to glorify one’s country, such realistic facts are concealed.

Therefore history is a mixture of good and bad events but the fallacy lies in the fact that great writes write history which is a record of the good events, completely devoid of the true essence of history.