One day soon, human clones will walk among us. Does the thought send a shiver up your spine? How about the notion of eating french fries from a potato engineered with jellyfish genes to make its leaves bioluminescent? We should consider our responses to both issues now, before reality comes knocking at the door. Several groups have announced intentions to clone humans, and the bioluminescence gene has already been successfully incorporated into potato plants.
If those prospects make you squirm, you’re not alone. The public’s emotional response to the issues of human cloning and biotechnology far outstrips its response to global warming and widespread species extinction. When Dolly the sheep was first cloned by Scottish scientists, political leaders around the world sensed the negative reactions among their constituents and moved to pass legislation banning the new technology in humans. Any new developments in the area stir up fresh controversy, such that the cloning issue is frequently featured on the front page of major newspapers. These articles seem to suggest that apart from a few mad scientists, most everyone agrees that cloning humans is wrong.
But why is it so wrong? Consider the Monitor’s quotes from the experts. Professor Chen, vice-president of Beijing University, says about human cloning, “There isn’t a controversy. There’s no real discussion. We know it’s wrong and not natural.” John White, who is secretary for science policy at the Australian Academy of Science, is equally willing to speak authoritatively on the issue: “We clearly oppose cloning whole human beings. There are too many troubling ethical and moral issues.”
Realism Theory and Narcoterrorism
Former President Fernando Belaúnde Terry of Peru first defined the term “narco-terrorism” in 1983. The term was first created to describe terrorist-type attacks against Peru’s anti-narcotics police. President Terry used to the word “narco-terrorism” to attempt to describe the narcotics trafficker’s use of violence and intimidation to influence the policies of the government. However, the word narco-terrorism has more than just one definition. According to the DEA, narco-terrorism is defined as, “participation of groups or associated individuals in taxing, providing security for, otherwise aiding or abetting drug trafficking endeavors in an effort to further, or fund, terrorist activities.” However, the latest definition of the term narco-terrorism is now defined by the UNSC as “terrorist groups that rely on narcotics to finance their operations”.
While conducting research about narco-terrorism and it’s history, involvement, and impacts I have decided to narrow the focus to the impact of cocaine in Latin American countries, specifically Bolivia, Columbia, Peru, and Mexico.
Every nation in the world is involved in narco-terrorism whether it is directly or indirectly, licitly or illicitly. Because funding of narco-terrorism is based on …
… middle of paper …
“Treaties.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2011. Web. Feb. 2013. .
The Transnational Institute, The Bolivian Documentation and Information Center, and Inforpress Centroamericana Guatemala. Democracy, Human Rights, and Militarism in the War on Drugs in Latin America. April 1997. Web. Feb. 2013.
United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. Global Illicit Drug Trends 2002. Web. Feb. 2013.
June 2002. http://www.odccp.org/odccp/global_illicit_drug_trends.html.