Threats to Food Security and the Common Agricultural Policy

Question 1 

The food industry is regarded as the largest enterprise in the United States. First, it encompasses several entities, such as food production, restaurants, manufacturing, and institutions, making it a significant area of concern. The industry contributes to about 20% of the country's gross domestic production (GDP) and one-quarter of the workforce (Potter & Hotchkiss, 2012). Secondly, the food and agricultural industries in America are responsible for producing enormous amounts of food. The industries are responsible for a wide array of roles, including the growing, processing, transportation, and distribution of food materials. Thirdly, the advancement in science and technology has significantly improved agricultural production in the country. Besides technology, the industry has also witnessed an increase in the application of fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals (Potter & Hotchkiss, 2012). Genetic improvements in plant and animal rearing remain another aspect of consideration for the sector. Fourthly, food transportation occurs using various transport forms, including road, air, railway, and truck. Lastly, the government has also significant invested in warehousing as a mode of storage. 

Regardless of the success shown in the American food industry, several significant threats exist. Kwasek (2013) identifies several areas of concern, including the ever-growing population, increased demand, food prices, food wastage, and disappearance in some agricultural plant species. The US, and the indeed the global population, is on the rise. Although the population increases exponentially, food production does not match such growth. Therefore, a high likelihood exists that food shortage will be a problem in the coming years. Global food prices have steadily increased since the aftermath of the 2008 recession. The US has not been left behind on the bandwagon. Food wastage remains a significant problem in America (Kwasek, 2013). The wastage in food is against sustainability measures. More importantly, it directly contributes to environmental pollution. The disappearance of some type of crops could also cause a food shortage in the future. Lastly, agroterrorism remains another significant threat affecting the food and agricultural sector in America. Keremidis, Appel, Menrath, Tomuzia, Normark, Roffey, & Knutsson (2013) define agroterrorism as "The deliberate introduction of animal or plant pests to generate fear, causing economic damage, and/or undermining social stability" (pp.17). The phenomenon directly contributes to the problem of short-shortage. 

Question 2 

Investigations showed that the material responsible for the death of Alexander Litvinenko was a radioactive material known as Polonium 210. On slowing, the compound is highly toxic and triggers a complex reaction in the body that results in death (Ansari, McCurley, & Nemhauser, 2012). Alexander died immediately after having tea with his Russian friends. Within the timeframe he was in the hospital, Alexander experienced adverse symptoms such as continuous vomiting, hair loss, and blisters on the mouth region. The body quickly deteriorated, leading to his untimely death. Alexander worked as a Russian intelligence agent at the time of his death. The perpetrators of the criminal activity conducted the crime in London, one of the world's cities with the best medical infrastructure. 

The close links with Russia as a secret service agent and his eventual move to London played a significant role in his murder. Alexander was categorized as an effective spay on matters of criminal activity and governance. The death strategically came when he was involved in investigating a former Russian journalist by the name Anna Politkovskaya. Therefore, many believed that the poison could have emerged from Russia (Ansari, McCurley, & Nemhauser, 2012). Further investigations on the radioactive material helped solve the theory as to who might have been involved in the murder. A large percentage of the isotope involved in the making of the compound is manufactured in Russia. 

Question 3 

Nuclear energy is the source of one of the most devastating weapons globally, with the potential of causing mass destruction. President Obama envisioned a global crisis that would happen if the terrorists had access to these kinds of weapons. Already, terrorists worldwide continue to terrorize people resulting in mass killings with the little weapons they have. Therefore, nations worldwide must come together to mitigate any opportunity that terrorists will access these weapons (Iqbal, 2018). Obama's caution has significantly influenced US policy. Traditionally, the US uses three main policy strategies in an attempt to combat terrorism in the country. The methodologies include counterproliferation, nonproliferation, and tactics aimed at directly combating terrorism. In response to Obama's statement, the US increased its intelligence operations by explicitly focusing on the world's nuclear weapon dynamic (Iqbal, 2018). Primarily, the US has paid significant attention to the sub-state transfer and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Through law enforcement and military interventions, the US has instituted tight policy measures to prevent the WMD's potential cross border movement. 

As the president of America, I would also make several policy changes to the national security to limit terrorists' acquiring the weapon. I would first call for a foreign policy that would create an integrated system of policing featuring all the security agencies from countries with a nuclear weapon. I believe that the war on terrorism has always depended on cooperation. Member states will demonstrate their commitment not to share the weapons with terrorists. The inter-country security agencies will specifically work on assessing the terrorists' behaviors regarding the acquisition of the weapons. I will also pay significant attention to international trade routes. The country's security agencies must protect the country from the outside by evaluating potential routes for transportation. 

Question 4 

The signing of the Iranian Nuclear Deal was seen by many as a landmark victory in global diplomacy. It sent a message across the world that peaceful international relations are part of the global fabric. Analysts showed optimism and increasingly believed in diplomacy's power in solving some of the long-standing issues in global affairs (Javed & Ahmed, 2016). The advantage of the deal stems from the fact that it prevents Iran from acquiring and continuously engaging in nuclear weapons. The deal places a halt to Iran's enrichment program and sets the world on a path of peace and diplomacy. Most importantly, the deal allows Iran to engage with the west. The country can easily bolster its economic and social well-being by engaging with America on trade (Javed & Ahmed, 2016). The deal also serves the world's best interest as it prevents the nuclear weapon from falling into the hands of terrorists. 

However, some have viewed the deal in a different light other than the one about global peace. Although the deal came as a result of years of negotiations, Iran made the most significant compromise. Most of the impositions placed on the country's enrichment project jeopardize their integrity and autonomy as a country. The concept of territorial integrity significantly came into question. Several countries across the world, such as China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom, all have a nuclear weapon mechanism. However, the deal symbolizes that whereas some countries have ongoing nuclear projects, others should only be allowed to have nuclear plants under strict guidelines (Javed & Ahmed, 2016). The US paternalistic attitudes towards Iran set a bad precedent in global relations. Foreign entities should not influence whatever happens within the domestic realms of another country. 

Question 5 

WMDs are dangerous and can cause mass destruction of people and property. More nations are continually getting access to weapons, including rogue ones such as North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran. Fears exist that such states might provide these weapons to non-state actors including illicit groups like terrorists and militia groups (Iqbal, 2018). Terrorists across the world are becoming deadlier than ever before. They are on a constant mission to acquire more weapons with more adverse effects on people and property. The legal entities founded to protect the non-state actors from acquiring weapons continue to underperform. As explained by Iqbal (2018), “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is inadequate and provides no reliable protection against the risk of nuclear terrorism by non-State actors” (p.3). Also, most of the rogue countries cannot be trusted. The nations harbor some of the most radical terror groups in the world. Secondly, these countries do not enjoy the best relationship with their western counterparts. Therefore, fears exist that they might pass the weapons to the non-state counterparts deliberately and use it as leverage to specific issues of global significance. 

Terrorism remains one of the well-organized forms of crime in the world. Terror groups across the world have surpassed and circumvented some of the most secure places in the globe. The non-state actors might not find it challenging to access weapons within their country based on their experience and intelligence. The threat of non-state actors accessing these weapons is, therefore, a reality. Countries like the US have remained cautious that most of these states are not competent to hold the weapons. The Iranian Nuclear Deal was premised on these assumptions. Despite the risks, all efforts, both nationally and internationally, should be directed towards curbing non-state actors' possibility to acquire the weapons. 

References 

Ansari, A., McCurley, C., & Nemhauser, J. (2012). Murder by radiation poisoning: implications for public health. Journal of environmental health , 74 (10), 8. 

Iqbal, I. (2018). International Law of Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation: Application to Non-State Actors.  Pace Int'l L. Rev. ,  31 , 1. 

Javed, F., & Ahmed, A. (2016). The Iran nuclear deal. Defense Journal, 19 (8), 17. 

Keremidis, H., Appel, B., Menrath, A., Tomuzia, K., Normark, M., Roffey, R., & Knutsson, R. (2013). Historical perspective on agroterrorism: lessons learned from 1945 to 2012.  Biosecurity and bioterrorism: biodefense strategy, practice, and science ,  11 (S1), S17-S24. 

Kwasek, M. (2013). Threats to food security and common agricultural policy.  Economics of Agriculture ,  59 (297-2016-3503), 701-713. 

Potter, N. N., & Hotchkiss, J. H. (2012).  Food science . Springer Science & Business Media.