This harm, realistically, is minimal. Those who want to buy guns would still buy them illegally without 3D printers. Guns can be cheap in the black market since they can be mass produced, and to print a gun one first has to purchase a printer, the materials and often also the blueprints. This is similarly the case for other illegal substances. The risk that things can be used for harmful purposes is not a sufficient reason, because those who want to harm themselves or others have the means to do so already. That is why the Madrid bombers were able to develop their own bombs from the internet before 3D printers had been developed: where there is a will, there will always be a way, and it is the will and not the way that it is ever useful to tackle.

Private 3D printers make it impossible to regulate illegal products  As the technology develops, it seems likely that guns like the one created by Defense Distributed will continue to appear, becoming cheaper, more functional and more accessible. While the US succeeded in promptly removing the blueprints, removing blueprints from the internet will quickly prove impossible as the phenomenon inevitably becomes more widespread.5  This is dangerous for all the same reasons that we do not allow people to produce their own weapons: we cannot ensure criminals or mentally ill people do not gain access to them, and we cannot track them after they have been used to commit a crime. Furthermore, they can be made of plastic, thus making them essentially undetectable to most security scans. When weapons become so easily accessible, crimes become easier for terrorists or criminals to commit, and thus more crimes take place. By banning printers before blueprints spread, we could avoid disasters such as the 2004 bombings in Madrid, in which the bombs were produced from instructions on the internet6.  Similarly, the production of drugs and other illegal substances becomes impossible to regulate when anybody can produce anything in their own homes from plans on the internet. Restricting the spread of blueprints online is impossible, so the physical means of production must be regulated before they become irreversibly accessible. Banning household 3D printers, therefore, is a necessary step to uphold the rules we find important to our safety.  [5] Winter, Jana. “Homeland Security bulletin warns 3D-printed guns may be ‘impossible’ to stop”, FoxNews.com, Fox News. 23 May 2013.   [6] “Online University: Jihad 101 for Would-Be Terrorists”, Spiegel Online International. 17 August 2006.

If you purchase a poor quality product, you are the one to blame: this is already the case now if one chooses to buy a cheaper product from a less reliable source. Under a 3D printer market you are still likely to be purchasing most of your products from reliable brands with an incentive to keep producing quality products as they want you to return and buy more of their products. If you choose not to, you are aware of the risk you take, and can easily inform yourself of the risks on peer review websites and forums before making your choice.

Solid piracy will become as problematic as virtual piracy  Intellectual property law is split into copyright, design protection, patents, and trademarks. All areas can be easily infringed by 3D printing.13 There is no meaningful way of sustaining these laws against individuals who choose to use 3D printers to benefit from the hard work of others. Much in the same way one can steal music online, blueprints for products can be decoded or stolen and subsequently reproduced at almost no expense. It may be impossible to determine where this has been done.14 This is unjust in itself, but it also creates a large deterrent from innovating by removing the profit incentive. Corporations and individuals will be pushed away from creating high quality innovative products if they know their blueprints can be pirated and spread online for free or for less than they themselves charge, making their effort in creating them worthless.  [13] Gehl, Mary. “The Implications of 3D Printing”, Technology, Koinonia House. September 2012.   [14] Lawrence, Jon. “3D Printing: legal and regulatory issues”, Economic Frontiers Australia. 8 August 2013.

3D printers promote uncontrolled consumerism  While 3D printing may revolutionise professional manufacturing and lead to less waste, in the household it promotes mindless consumerism. By producing anything desired cheaply and more accessibly, without even having to leave your house, they encourage people consume much more than they otherwise would. This happens because individual consumers tend not to be concerned about the sustainability implications of every purchase: they will do so even less when 3D printers allow instant gratification.  On one hand, it can make people more dependent on material possessions, which makes it harder for them to attain more sustainable forms of happiness. Additionally, this eventually leads to more waste and overproduction, reversing all the potential benefits of industrial 3D printing.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

For the people for whom the illegality of piracy is not a deterrent, the illegality of owning a domestic 3D printer will not be an obstacle either. Banning 3D printers may only result in large scale 3D printer manufacturing piracy.  Under this model, on the other hand, even if there is a slight infringement on intellectual property, a tax can be imposed on the private ownership on 3D printers that is used for rewarding innovation.15  [15] See “This house would abolish intellectual property rights”, Debatabase.

This argument ignores the massive impact 3D printers can have on long-term sustainability, by providing access to the goods the Third World needs to get out of poverty.10 Food, water, medicine and shelter are examples of things that are expensive to transport and difficult to spread, and yet can be produced by 3D printers at a much lower cost. When the things that are scarce in the third world become less scarce, developing countries will be able to compete more fairly with the Western world.  Even in the short term, these harms will not happen. The only short term consequence will be a shift from this labour-intensive form of production into another labour-intensive sector. A massive surplus of cheap labour will still attract new investors in other sectors where 3D printers do not have a monopoly. This is already the case with investment into call centres in India and the Philippines11, and tourism throughout the developing world12.  [10] “A third-world dimension”, The Economist. 3 November 2012. www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21565577-new-manufacturing-technique-could-help-poor-countries-well-rich-ones  [11] McGeown, Kate. “The Philippines: The world´s hotline”. BBC News. 17 July 2011.   [12] Samimi, Ahmad, Sadeghi, Somaye, and Sadeghi, Soraya. “Tourism and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: P-VAR Approach”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research. 2011.

Technology should not circumvent consumer protection laws  The great appeal of 3D printers is that they make consuming more efficient than normal methods: however, normal methods are inefficient in part because they undergo important checks and balances. Without proper regulations, standards are quickly dropped to save money and the health of thousands of consumers is put at risk. Such is the case in China, where consumer protection regulations are inefficient.7 Through 3D printing this becomes a global problem. Any company, real or fake, can sell products online without them having been approved. This means that people may buy dangerous products from unidentifiable, and thus legally unaccountable, companies. Shifting the burden of ensuring safety standards away from companies and onto consumers, who have significantly less information, is a threat to consumers’ health and safety.  [7] “China again heads EU’s dangerous products list”, EUbusiness. 16 April 2010.

Household 3D printing can, in the short term, destroy developing economies  All nations to develop economically depend on the importation of capital. In most cases, this takes the shape of labour-intense manufacturing. In fact, scarcely any countries have developed without transitioning through having a large manufacturing sector.8 It takes time for these countries to develop the capital and infrastructure to enter higher barrier to entry markets, such as the service sector. Transitioning without of manufacturing is therefore not an option for the majority of developing nations, and the exceptions that have succeeded in creating economic growth without large scale manufacturing, such as India and Sri Lanka, relied on spectacular luck.9 As a result, many developing nations depend on exporting cheap products to the developed world, where consumption is the highest.  If demand for the goods they produce is satisfied in the developed world, such countries will be unable to export. Because of the labour intensiveness of the manufacturing this will affect a large number of people. Short term drops in growth are particularly harmful in the developing world, where social security is too underdeveloped to cushion their effect. People who work long hours for minimal wages do so because unemployment is not an option. Were these factories to have to close suddenly, the social consequences would be devastating.  3D printers provoke this to happen by satisfying all demand for cheap products. When individuals in Western liberal democracies can get access to cheaper products from their own home, developing nations will be unable to compete, and their exports fall substantially. 3D printers should remain at the industry level, where companies are more likely to rationally prefer importing cheap products over the extra costs of using 3D printers, such as electricity, and are likely to continue trade with the Third World.  [8] “Breaking In and Moving Up: New Industrial Challenges for the Bottom Billion and the Middle Income Countries”, Industrial Development Report, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). 2009.   [9] “The Service Elevator”, The Economist. 19 May 2011.

The difference is minimal between only companies having 3D printers and extending them to households. Printer owners would, for example, still have to purchase and transport printing materials. Many printers still involve large levels of waste19, and these are probably the lower quality printers that individual consumers are more likely to afford. Furthermore, household printing can actually harm the environment by provoking people to consume more than they would if price and convenience were deterrents. Industrial printing on its own can make a significant difference in terms of eco-friendly production: this should not be compromised by dropping all limits on production.  [19] Faludi, Jeremy. “Is 3D printing an environmental win?”, GreenBiz. 19 July 2013.

There is still a need for expertise: although they make manufacturing easier, 3D printers require knowledge that most people do not have. Most people will still be unable to create most products from scratch (and it may be dangerous to try). Individuals will therefore still have to rely on companies for their everyday needs. It is also untrue that they will never have to leave their home, since they will also need to purchase and transport printing materials.

Banning 3D printers wastes a chance for innovation  Right now, there are large barriers to entry for individuals and small companies trying to enter any market. Economies of scale make it hard for them to compete with large manufacturers, and they are additionally bound to slow and inefficient quality regulations. This severely limits any kind of innovation. The collective possession of 3D printers would facilitate creation. Anybody could have an idea and implement it into a solid product, which is cheap to produce in your own home without economies of scale. There are already examples all over the world of people creating innovating prototypes and attracting investors16. 3D printing therefore means that anyone can set up in manufacturing without large start-up costs. This means that the flow of ideas in society and the discussion that accompanies it – such as people posting blueprints on blogs and forums and improving each other’s products – would develop infinitely faster than when it is limited to large manufacturers.17  [16] Palermo, Elizabeth. “10 Amazing 3D-Printing Startups”, Business News Daily. 18 June 2013.   [17] Wainwright, Oliver. “Is DIY design more than a passing fad?”, Architecture and Design Blog, The Guardian. 24 July 2013.

The state should refrain from imposing bans  In Western liberal democracies, we generally consider an individual’s private sphere to be worth protecting. We only give the state license to violate it when something is objectively largely harmful to that person or to society. When something is not very clearly harmful we let people make their own decisions because the state is not infallible in its judgements about what lifestyles are better than others.  Therefore, simply saying that there is a risk that printers will be misused is not sufficient grounds for banning them altogether. If technology makes it easier for people to do what they want, this is a good thing; if people then want to do things that we consider harmful this is a problem in itself. The solution is not to ban an entire means of production in order to stop a minority from producing dangerous things, but to educate people about the risks so they can freely make better decisions. Making it harder for people to do bad things is useless, furthermore, since those that wish to purchase a gun or take drugs can already find ways of doing so without 3D printers. One may even argue that it is better for everybody to have access to a gun, for example, and not only those who are willing to break the law to get one.

3D printing opens the doors to a post-scarcity society  Industrial 3D printing allows for a cheaper, faster and more sustainable form of production, but somebody still has to sell and purchase the products. Household 3D printers give people the possibility of producing otherwise inaccessible things for a minimal cost, up to hundreds of times cheaper than their current store price20. Numerous websites, such as Thingiverse21, already act as databases for free printable designs. This trend would allow people to save thousands on necessities: food, appliances, medicine, and human organs are some examples. Even systems for power production or more efficient ways of collecting sustainable energy could be created. This would make scarcity disappear as we know it, and thus tackle one of society’s greatest problems. This is a very long way off even with 3D printers but if it is to occur it is essential that the means of production not be monopolised by companies.  [20] Kelly, Heather. “Study: At-home 3-D printing could save consumers ‘thousands’”, What’s Next, CNN. 31 July 2013.   [21] Thingiverse, Makerbot Industries.

Household 3D printers would reduce the environmental harms of consuming  The more is produced by 3D printing, the better: it makes consuming much more environmentally friendly. They involve less transportation costs, no large scale factories, and by involving additive manufacturing, they can use as little as only a tenth of the material that subtractive manufacturing would require.18 When households, and not only companies, have access to 3D printers, companies will no longer have to move products around the world, but can sell electronic blueprints instead. Furthermore, things are only actually produced after they have been purchased, reducing waste even more.  [18] “Print me a Stradivarius”, The Economist. 10 February 2011.

The restrictions on what the state can ban are only valid inasmuch as they protect fundamental right. The supposed right to 3D printers is not fundamental, but is derived from a right to own good things, if they are available. If the state can provide an alternative that yields similar benefits it does not actually infringe any fundamental right by banning their domestic use. For example, industrial 3D printed manufacturing also provides cheap and innovative products. On the other hand, the potential harms of domestic printers are exponential, and we do not have a right to anything that causes harm to society. The state therefore has a mandate to ban 3D printers in households.

Democratising manufacturing gives people more freedom  Individuals are the most fit to decide for themselves what they need and what they want to be happy. When corporations attempt to match demand they do so imperfectly because they have to cater to large numbers of people. Letting people create and customise whatever they want gives them, quite literally, an infinite selection to choose from. This maximises freedom for the consumer and leads to a better quality of life: most of your needs can be met exactly as you want them, without even having to leave your home.

A post-scarcity society is unrealistic. 3D printers still come with large costs, in terms of machinery, materials and blueprints. Those that can afford the more complex printers and the higher quality materials will benefit much more than others. While these costs exist, and there is no near future in which they do not, scarcity will continue to be a problem. This is especially the case since the need for expertise remains. The vast majority of products of reasonable quality will still be produced by corporations with a profit incentive, and available only to those who can afford them.

Household 3D printers will, in practice, hamper innovation both from companies and individuals. Firstly, individuals will still be faced with the large barrier to entry of lacking sufficient expertise to produce much of what they want. Any “flow of ideas” that may arise will only be composed of low-quality designs. Secondly, individuals will have less incentive to innovate when the market is out of control and free designs are floating all over the internet. Any attempt at differentiation is impossible.  Thirdly, and more importantly, the problems with copyright law once 3D printers are domestic will deter both companies and individuals from innovating. Revolutionary products require effort and knowledge to design: they will not be created without a profit incentive.

Despite Ethiopia’s economic dreams, demand risk may mean a shortfall in profits. Internally, supply may exceed demand once the GERD is complete. The unaffordability of energy has led to low demands for electricity in the past. The possible reductions in subsidies to repay loans for building the dam will increase prices, which will then lower demand further [1] . Exporting the energy may not work either. To export power Ethiopia needs neighbours with developed transmission lines and a willingness to buy the electricity. The weak economic position of countries like Sudan [2] and poor relations with others suggest that international buyers won’t be too forthcoming.  [1] Wikipedia ‘Dams and Hydropower in Ethiopia’ date accessed 12/12/13  [2] World Bank ‘Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 26.44 Million’ 20 November 2007 p.20

Economic benefits of the dam for Ethiopia  The dam will produce significant economic potential for Ethiopia. In 2013, Ethiopia had to import 125,000 metric tonnes of coal to fuel its power stations. Over 50% of the country’s imports are orientated towards meeting its fuel demands [1] . If Ethiopia can replace these imports with its own energy then it can make significant savings. The diverted money could be contributed towards development, which would be assisted by greater accessibility to electricity. In addition to this, 12,000 jobs will be created [2] and Ethiopia will become an energy exporter. The excess energy from powering Africa will be enough to supply the surrounding region, making energy a viable export market for Ethiopia to tap in to [3] . In combination with the greater access electricity dependent to income-generating activities, these factors give Ethiopia hope of a positive economic future.  [1] Tekle,T. ‘Ethiopia imports $1 billion in fuel from Sudan via Djibouti’ in Sudan Tribune 30 March 2013  [2] Joy,O. ‘Earth, Wind, and Water: Ethiopia bids to be Africa’s powerhouse’ CNN 8 November 2013  [3] Ibid

GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia.  [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13

The dam is predicted to provide energy for all of Ethiopia  When the dam is in full effect, it should be able to provide the entirety of Ethiopia’s population with electricity. The United Nations Foundation placed access to energy as a high priority for developing countries, it enables access to key services and enables more income-generating activities [1] . If Ethiopia discontinued the project, then they would deprive their citizens of economic and health security. Using energy from a dam will have its own benefits. The energy will be renewable source and will provide energy security for this developing state, thus justifying the project.  [1] The United Nations Foundation ‘What We do: Achieving Universal Energy Access’ data accessed 10 December 2013

While in theory the 6,000 MW dam can power all of Ethiopia, the reality is quite different. Areas of Ethiopia, such as Ogaden and Eritrea-Ethiopian border, are relatively unstable; making it hard to build a sufficient power grid in these regions. In Ogaden, instability in the past led to the withdrawal from the oil fields [1] , and this conflict-zone will most likely make the completion of a national grid a problem. The hurdles to producing the means to provide energy to these areas means that there probably will not be universal access to the GERD’s electricity.  [1] Wikipedia ‘Ethiopia: Exports’ date accessed 10 December 2013

Environmental Benefits of the GERD  GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia.  [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13

A contender to Natural Flow Theory is the Doctrine of Reasonable Use. This theory states that water can be used as long as it does not cause unreasonable damage to the flow. While there will be some loss of water to evaporation in GERD reservoir, it is predicted to be minimal compared to other dams in the region [1] . The threat from the irrigation projects can also be mitigated by developing more efficient techniques, which is a high priority of the Nile Basin Initiative [2] .  [1] Water Technology ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project’ Data accessed 12/12/13  [2] ‘Nile Water: Downstream versus upstream countries’ 27 May 2010

The colonial era agreement is outdated and does not apply to the modern world. Ethiopia’s population has now exceeded 90 million, which is more than Egypt’s 83 million, and yet it only has a small claim to the river. Many upstream countries, like Uganda, feel that the downstream countries have constrained and damaged them by denying access to majority of the Nile’s water [1] . These states have created a new agreement the Cooperative Framework Agreement in which there is a “principle of equitable… utilization” and each “state has the right to use within its territory”. [2] The upstream countries argue supersedes the old colonial treaty if it ever had any validity. [3] The Ethiopian government has assured Egypt and Sudan that they will receive enough water to live off comfortably. Sudan has been satisfied by the rearrangements [4] which implies that Ethiopia will not deprive downstream countries of access to the Nile.  [1] Schwartzstein, Water Wars  [2] ‘Article 3’, Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework, International Water Law, 2010  [3] Ibrahim, ‘The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement’, p.302  [4] Peppeh,K. ‘Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt meet again to discuss GERD’ Zegabi 8 December 2013

Ethiopia does not need another hydroelectric dam  Ethiopia’s decision to become an energy hub has led to the construction of unnecessary dams in the face of viable alternatives. Ethiopia has already constructed nine dams which produce more energy than the country consumes [1] . A significant disadvantage of these dams is that droughts can lower their energy output which, combined with lower river levels for nine months of the year, results in the dams being ineffective [2] . The Ethiopian government has already announced plans for a geothermal plant being built for 2018 to offset the disadvantages of the current dams [3] . The geothermal plant costs $0.7 billion less than the hydroelectric dam, and the company constructing it claim it will produce twice as much energy as the hydroelectric dam when the latter is at its peak [4] . It would be more viable, therefore, to invest in thermal energy rather than another hydroelectric project.  [1] US Energy Information Administration ‘Ethiopia’ 30 April 2013  [2] International Rivers ‘Ethiopia’s Biggest Dam Oversized, Experts say’ 5 September 2013  [3] Wikipedia ‘Energy in Ethiopia’ data accessed 11/12/13  [4] Maasho,A. ‘Ethiopia to get $4billion investment for leap into geothermal power’, Reuters, 24 October 2013

Natural Flow Theory  Natural Flow Theory (NTF) is the concept that every riparian user (land touching the water) has a right to the water unaltered and undiminished [1] . Dams tend not to disrupt water flow directly, however water use and evaporation from the large reservoir upstream from the dam could reduce the flow of the Blue Nile. In turn, this could affect downstream countries. Evaporation from the Aswan dam in Ethiopia amounts to around 14 billion cubic metres [2] . The GERD will face similar problems, meaning that the downstream countries will have a reduced water flow. The reservoir will also become a tempting target for large agricultural businesses as well. These companies, many of them foreign, have taken part in ’land grabbing’ to secure water before for large irrigation projects [3] and could potentially tap in to the large reservoir. A similar example is the Colorado River, where dams and irrigation projects have reduced the flow of the river and impacted heavily on the river delta [4] . These threats to the Blue Nile’s river flow demonstrate the likelihood of decreased access to water in the downstream countries, violating the major principle of NTF.  [1] Smolen,M., Mittelstet,A. &amp; Harjo,B. ‘Whose Water is it anyway?’ Southern Region Water Program August 2012  [2] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13  [3] Fisher,S. ‘Africa for Sale’ International Rivers September 2011  [4] Wikipedia ‘Colorado River’ date accessed 12/12/13

Egypt and Sudan will have their legal rights infringed  The two downstream countries have a combined claim to a majority of the River Nile’s water. Through the Nile Waters Agreement, an old colonial treaty, Egypt and Sudan are owed 48 billion m³ and 4 billion m³ of water from the Nile respectively [1] . Each country also has a veto on any upriver activity. Both of these rights are known but ignored by the Ethiopian government, in violation of an internationally recognised treaty. This has led Egypt to be particularly prominent in claiming that their rights are being abused as 70 billion m³ of water from the Blue Nile (which they are dependent on) is used by the Ethiopians. This is a violation of the Nile Rivers Agreement and demonstrates Ethiopia’s poor position to justify the GERD construction.  [1] Azikiwe,A. Water and the Geopolitics of the Nile Valley: Egypt confronts Ethiopia, GlobalResearch.ca

Geothermal power plants have their own drawbacks as well. Prime sites are often far away from population centres which means that there are losses of electricity between the plant and the customers. Drilling into heated rock is a difficult process and once complete there must be constant management to ensure that the source is not overused [1] .  [1] Siegel,R.P. ‘Geothermal Energy: Pros and Cons’, Triple Pundits 15 June 12

Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective.  [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.

Hydroelectric dams provide cheap access to renewable energy  In 2010, about 1.4 billion people had no access to electricity. [1] Hydropower provides a source of energy that is cheaper even than conventional coal. [2] Large dams can last for over a hundred years [3] and are easy to switch on and off according to demand, making them very cost-effective. Given that having no access to electricity makes work and study nearly impossible, alleviating global poverty by giving access to electricity is an important step to take.  [1] IEA, Access to Electricity, 2010  [2] Wikipedia. Cost of electricity by source.  [3] WWF, Dam Right!, 2003

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002  [2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions  Hydroelectric dams burn no fossil fuels so emit no greenhouse gasses at all in producing energy. Suppose we replace all coal fired power stations with hydroelectric power stations. In 2010, over 42% of global electricity production was produced through coal, accounting for over 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions. [1] Since there is more than enough potential capacity for hydropower, [2] we could hypothetically completely replace coal and even other fossil fuels for electricity, thus helping cut down greenhouse gas emissions massively.  [1] IEA, Power generation from coal, 2010  [2] Energy Consumers Edge. Hydropower dams pros and cons.

Hydroelectric dams don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dams currently hold off about 15% of global freshwater runoff. If we want to sustain biodiversity and river-related goods and services, we can’t easily increase the number of dams. [1] Also: building dams requires cutting down forests, which themselves are important tools in combating greenhouse gases, since they consume and ‘lock up’ carbon dioxide. Plus, the construction of the dams themselves releases carbon dioxide. Finally: global energy demand is expected to continue increasing, [2] meaning that hydropower will probably just be added to the supply and not replace coal.  [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.  [2] IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2010, Executive summary

Hydroelectric dams can be used to provide flood control and irrigation  The large water reservoirs created by hydroelectric dams can provide facilities for water sports and can become tourist attractions themselves. The reservoirs can be used for irrigation to help farmers and can be a means for flood control. A prime example of this is the Tennessee Valley Authority, an organisation responsible for flood control, electricity generation, economic development and even fertilizer generation in the Tennessee Valley in the U.S., spanning parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. [1]  [1] Tennessee Valley Authority, homepage.

Hydroelectric dams don’t destroy communities, governments do. Building dams only violates human rights if the governments building them do so. That’s why we never heard of large-scale human rights violations when the Hoover Dam in the United States was built. Moreover, responsible dam builders in the International Hydropower Association have taken steps to ensure they build dams with the utmost respect for human rights, through the guidelines mentioned above.

Hydroelectric dams can mitigate methane emissions. Dams can capture the methane released from their reservoir and even use it to their benefit: an experimental project in Brazil showed that hydroelectric dams can capture the methane and burn it to produce even more energy, whilst at the same time preventing the methane from being released. [1]  [1] BBC News, Earthquake risk from dams, 2002

Hydro electric dams destroy existing ecosystems  Large dams wreak havoc with the environment: they destroy habitats and ecosystems both further upstream and downstream. They prevent salmon from swimming upstream to spawn. The water going through them is often warmer and devoid of nutrients, depriving downstream riverine wildlife of their natural habitat. A shocking example is China’s Three Gorges Dam, which Scientific American called ‘an environmental disaster’. [1]  [1] Scientific American, ‘China’s Three Gorges Dam: An environmental disaster?’ 2008

Hydroelectric dams destroy communities  What applies to the environment, also applies to the human communities. Building dams often involves relocating people and removing them from their ancestral homelands. For example, China’s Three Gorges Dam involved relocating 1.3 million people, [1] involved severe human rights abuses [2] and has had dire social consequences. [3]  [1] CBS News, ‘China Completes Three Gorges Dam’, 2009  [2] International Rivers, Human Rights dammed of at Three Gorges, 2003  [3] New York Times, ‘Chinese Dam Projects Criticized for Their Human Costs’, 2007

Hydroelectric dams increase methane emissions  Hydroelectric dams emit a lot of methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. This happens when the plants and vegetation submerged in the reservoir start to rot under water: they then produce methane which bubbles up and is released into the atmosphere. On balance, some dams produce more greenhouse gasses than conventional power plants running on fossil fuel. [1]  [1] New Scientist, ‘Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed’, 2005

Hydroelectric dams can mitigate the ecological impact. Hydroelectric dams can take steps to mitigate their environmental impact. For example, for salmon, dams these days have ‘fish ladders’, allowing them to reach their spawning grounds. For these and other sustainability measures, the International Hydropower Association developed several guidelines and protocols to minimize ecological impact as far as possible. [1]  [1] International Hydropower Association, Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol.

Climate Change, by dint of the complexity of the model, is virtually impossible to plan for. Developing an adaptation regime would simply create an ever-changing model while removing necessary intellectual and economic resources from the prevention regime that is already in place. This would not only mean transferring research resources there is also government and regulatory activity as well as industrial compliance structures and other outlays.

The shifts required will take decades to plan and implement, they are already urgent  Transforming entire sectors of the economy and the resulting shifts in patterns of migration, training, employment and resourcing will be both complex and complicated and require a massive logistical effort. Waiting until the world’s grain baskets are already dustbowls or Manhattan is underwater is simply unrealistic.  Instead, nations individually and collectively need to plan and begin to implement the necessary changes now. Even the process of achieving political agreement on some of the likely changes could take decades. 2050 has been widely seen as the date when the ravages of Climate Change will be all too obvious; 30 years is no time at all in diplomatic and industrial terms [i] .  The financial costs of inaction on Climate Change have been estimated at $74tn, however that pails into insignificance with the broader human costs [ii] . Against that the World Bank has estimated that the costs of adaptation at a wildly varying but still relatively modest $4bn - $109bn a year [iii] .  [i] BBC Website. Temperatures could rise by 3C by 2050, models suggest. 25 March 2012.   [ii] Friends of the Earth. “Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction” 2006.   [iii] The World Bank. “The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change”.

This argument is predicated on the idea that it is possible to build a model that would allow for adaptation. In the light of some of the challenges currently posed by Climate Change that seems improbable. Without a clearer idea of what adaptation would look like or what it could even potentially achieve, making it a priority against something that can be shown to work seems reckless in the extreme.

Prioritising prevention hasn’t worked  It is a demonstrable fact that efforts to reduce carbon emissions haven’t worked. Despite the conferences, the treaties and the pledges; global carbon emissions continue to rise – up 6.7% from 2009 to 2010. [i] The world’s largest economies continue to be the worst offenders and, with the BRIC economies joining their ranks, that look set to continue.  If you’ve been trying something for over 20 years with no notable success, then it seems sensible to try something else.  Added to which, many scientists, such as James Hansen, [ii] believe that a tipping point in the climate and broader ecosystem is imminent – with some suggesting that it has already been passed [iii] . We need to accept that Climate Change is not something that may happen in the future but something that is happening now. Extreme weather events are happening now, glaciers are melting now; the climate is shifting now, as is shown for example by the sea ice levels which in 2012 were at their lowest extent since we started monitoring it, the previous lowest extent was only set in 2007. [iv] Managing that reality to mitigate its impact on humanity and the rest of the ecosystem is the most responsible thing to do [v] .  [i] Rogers, Simon, and Harvey, Fiona, ‘Global carbon emissions rise is far bigger than previous estimates’, guardian.co.uk, 21 June 2012,   [ii] Hansen, James, ‘Tipping point: Perspective of a climatologist. In State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans.’ E. Fearn, Ed. Wildlife Conservation Society/Island Press, pp. 6-15.   [iii] Fred Guterl. “Searching for Clues to Calamity”, New York Times. 20 July 2012.   [iv] Doyle, Alister, and Chestney, Nina ‘Arctic summer sea ice might thaw by 2015 – or linger for decades’, Reuters, 30 August 2012,   [v] UNEP Progress Towards Meeting Internationally Agreed Goals. 2011.

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

The necessary research alone will take time and should be a priority  There are significant research challenges that need to be addressed in terms of envisaging what an adaptation regime would look like. For example how adaptation would tie into to other types of change – social, economic, demographic, etc. Answering these questions, alone, will take time but are a necessary precursor to building a realistic adaptation routine [i] .  The urgency here comes from the fact that it will take time to establish new systems to work on this at an international level. One of the difficulties demonstrated by the experience of initial studies of climate change was that it needed to be conducted on a global scale, frequently involving complex and expensive modeling systems. There are several backstages to establishing this and the majority of relevant academics are currently working on prevention models rather than designing an entire new framework of prediction.  Developing such frameworks will require the focus of governments, in terms of research funding policies and agreeing enforcement and delivery models.  Given the choice between building a framework that can work and focussing on one that hasn’t, the choice seems to be fairly obvious [ii] .  [i] National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility website.   [ii] See also the UN site here

Renewables always looked like being ‘too little, too late’ and that now appears to be the case. Carbon based energy sources remain, massively, the major players of global energy production and that looks set to continue to be the case. It is time to take a mature response to that reality and manage the problem rather than pretending that a magical solution is going to be produced in the form of technological breakthroughs in nuclear or other energy technologies.

Opposition concedes that adaptations will happen as individuals respond to climate change, it is only fair and sensible that governments should make sure those changes happen in a managed fashion. To take one, small example; the increasing unwillingness of insurers to accept the risks of flooding for homes and businesses in some parts of the world requires a governmental response; many of those who bought homes that may be affected by flooding bought that property before they would have known about climate change.

The focus on prevention should not be diluted  It has taken three decades to drag most polluting business and many governments – and some are not yet there – to this stage of accepting that mitigation is necessary. Many remain unwilling to accept reality and are only making those grudging efforts they have undertaken because of the full force of global public opinion and the efforts of some governments and international bodies. Moving that focus simply allows those who weren’t happy about the challenges of carbon reduction to go back to the bad, old days.  Equally it allows industries such as coal off the hook at the very point when the pressure is really starting to count [i] . Some of the myths about clean coal or the supposedly environmental sensitivity of uranium mining are now sinking into the public consciousness – saying ‘let’s do this instead’ would run the risk of a return to business as usual.  [i] Michael McCarthy. UK to push for global Green accounting system. The Independent. 10 February 2012.

Adaptation is likely to hurt poorer nations  Pollution is a global problem, with the greenhouse gas emissions of richer nations impacting on their poorer neighbours. Adaptation would most likely take place on a predominantly national basis, allowing those with the resources – built on their historical use of carbon energy – to find ways to adapt to some of the problems caused by Climate Change, while poorer nations are left without the capacity to do so.  Only a global focus on combating the basic causes of climate change will tackle the problem in a fair and equitable way, as richer nations cut back on their carbon-enriched lifestyles while developments in technologies offer benefits to the world as a whole rather than those who are already carbon rich as a result of geological or historical accident [i] .  [i] See the Jamaica Declaration 1994.

Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be focussing on alternative energies  The pressure to invest in carbon-light forms of energies is starting to bear fruit as costs of oil make them financially viable. There are still enormous infrastructural costs but allowing carbon energy-based sectors to shift over to either shale gas or oil by taking the focus off prevention will mean that these incredibly polluting fuels are used – as the infrastructure is already in place and it is more financially palatable – rather than keeping up the pressure in favour of carbon reduction, energy efficiency and the growth of renewables. Germany and Denmark have proved that an effective renewables market can be the focus of a mature economy but that only happened with sustained political pressure. Scotland is moving in that direction as are some US states and other nations. Removing that pressure now would be a huge missed opportunity.

Some of the required adaptations are impossible  In some Climate Change scenarios – for example, a diminution of global oxygen output as a result of the effect of desalination resulting from melting polar caps or enforcing reduced consumption of resources through their more equitable distribution – are either impossible in biological or practical terms [i] .  As a result, the only available option is reducing the carbon footprint of humanity as a species. Overwhelmingly, scientists agree that this is the only solution. Adaptation is, in reality, an attempt to hide from ‘an inconvenient truth’. Nobody likes being told that there is simply no way around the problem but that is the reality.  Some adaptations will, no doubt, happen naturally as people adjust but the focus of governments should remain on prevention.  [i] Stephen Leahy. “Climate Change Threatens Crucial Marine Algae”, Inter Press Service. 8 May 2012.

Seeing the fight against Climate Change as some panacea for international inequality has always been a non-starter. The rich nations are simply not going to give up their competitive advantages in terms of production. However, a sensible global response to issues such as the migration likely to result from some of the outcomes of changing climates, might mitigate some of their worse excesses.

The mono-focus on prevention has, effectively, blinded the world’s governments to the real issue – that climate change is happening and will continue to happen. That is a process that will require great adaptation on behalf of everyone. As with any significant change, it needs to be managed. Economies and societies have been dramatically altered in the face of significant changes such as warfare. It’s time to face up to that reality.

Nuclear power is no better placed to deliver the amount of energy required. There is an unrealistic focus on nuclear power as a magical solution to climate change. Despite increasing demand the amount of electricity being generated by nuclear is projected to fall not rise. The share of nuclear energy will decrease from 30% to 25% in electricity generation by 2020. According to current projections, the nuclear generation capacity in the EU would fall by as much as 33 GWe by 2020; this fall would mostly have to be met by dirty power plants using gas, or particularly coal [1] .  The focus on nuclear power diverts attention from other renewables. In reality going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Business Patricia Hewitt said in a Commons debate on a 2003 Energy White Paper: 'It would have been foolish to announce …. that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both energy efficiency and in renewables' [2] .  [1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels.  [2] The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008

Energy demands are increasing exponentially and nuclear power is the only renewable source capable of matching it  Although EU countries are using energy more efficiently, demand for energy continues to rise, especially in the new eastern European member states. The demand for electricity is expected to rise by 8-9% by 2020 meaning a much more urgent need for generating capacity [1] . At the same time world energy consumption is projected to expand by 50% from 2005 to 2030 leading to high oil and gas prices [2] . The production of renewable energy is not growing at a fast enough pace to replace fossil fuels; wind, wave and solar simply cannot provide the quantities of energy required. It is possible – indeed, desirable - to combine nuclear power with other renewables, but nuclear energy is a crucial part of that mix as the only option capable of producing the quantity of energy required. Nuclear power is actually more efficient than any other power source: a gram of uranium 235 contains as much energy as four tons of coal [3] .  [1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels.  [2] International Energy Outlook 2008, Energy Information Administration, June 2008, Chapter 1.  [3] Max Schulz. "Nuclear Power Is the Future". Wilson Quarterly. Fall, 2006

Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1.  Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built.  1The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns "devastating" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns "devastating" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,

Alternative renewables are inefficient for the cost  Nuclear power is the most practical renewable energy source as all the others face major difficulties either in scaling up to provide enough to be a major component of nations energy mix, don't provide energy all the time, the 'base load', or cause other environmental problems. Nuclear is a proven technology with large firms that can build large amounts of nuclear energy generation capacity.  The most efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power, however, this usually creates more problems than it solves. Building a large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can displace thousands of people. There are also enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical example is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the Nile. Not only did many thousands lose their homes but the yearly inundation of the Nile, which fertilised the surrounding land for thousands of year, was also stopped; the subsequent silting up of the river destroyed much wildlife1. A similar story of ecological destruction and human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three Gorges dam project in China2.  Wind, tidal, and solar power are all affected by issues of reliability. The tendency of wind power, in particular, to be a volatile source of energy, means that other power sources such as fossil fuel power stations have to make up the shortfall when wind levels drop. Tidal power technology is still in at an early stage and may take years to become profitable. It also has the potential to cause environmental problems in the marine environment. For a large area of the European Union, there is not the potential to exploit solar power as there are not enough hours of sunlight.  "Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple."3  1 'Environmental Impact of the Aswan High Dam', 2 'Three Gorges Dam is a disaster in the making, China admits' by Jane Macartney, Times Online 27th September 2007, 3"Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case", by Patrick Moore, Washington Post. April 16th, 2006:

Nuclear power is itself inefficient: For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge1.  It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough. Not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. We need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be put to develop natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations.  1Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs." Union of Concerned Scientists

There is almost always one renewable resource that a given country can exploit with sufficient investment; tides for islands, the sun for equatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions. Any given country can in principle become self-sufficient in terms of renewable energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so than fossil fuels) and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. Kazakhstan became the world's number one supplier of uranium in 2009, and other major producers such as Russia, Namibia, Niger and Uzbekistan may not be reliable1. It is far from inconceivable that uranium could be subject to the same kind of monopoly that the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) places on oil.  1 'Kazakhstan plans to become global leader in uranium production by 2009', Silk Road Intelligencer, 23rd July 2008,

Nuclear power is clean and emits significantly less CO2 than other renewable energy sources  In many senses nuclear energy is the cleanest of renewables. It does not produce emissions such as CO2 and greenhouse gases, which are harmful to the population and the environment. Roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions are avoided each year in the United States by generating electricity from nuclear power rather than some other source; according to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is nearly equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars [1] .  It is true that it does produce radioactive waste but since this is in solid form it can be dealt with relatively easily and stored away from centres of population. Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently [2] )  [1] Max Schulz. "Nuclear Power Is the Future". Wilson Quarterly. September, 2006  [2] ‘Breeder reactor’, Wikipedia.

Nuclear power gives countries energy security and self-sufficiency  In addition, the use of nuclear power reduces our foreign energy dependency. The European Union is a net importer for energy, and as such is reliant on Russia and Norway, predominantly, for oil and gas supplies. Events such as the dispute between Russia and the Ukraine over gas supplies demonstrated that the EU's energy can easily be disrupted by political situations outside its control1. It also means that the EU could be drawn into disputes between Russia and neighbouring countries because it has a vested interest in the region. This could set a dangerous precedent, where the EU could be intimidated by Russia, because the EU relies so heavily on Russian gas. Building more nuclear power stations would ensure a more secure supply of energy, thereby avoiding the potential for energy supply to become a politically charged issue on an international scale.  1 'Russia-Ukraine gas dispute', Wikipedia

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.  This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.  1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive.  Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great.  1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009,

Promoting continued nuclear research is against our security interests  Spreading the peaceful use of nuclear power brings important security benefits. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose signatories include every state in the world apart from India, Pakistan and Israel (plus North Korea and Iran whose membership fluctuates), is largely a provision for the sharing of nuclear power technology, which it promises to share among members who do not produce nuclear weapons (or, in the case of the 5 nuclear states, who commit to a gradual and continual reduction in weapons stockpiles). This has seen states including Brazil and Argentina abandon their nuclear weapons programmes, in order to gain access to nuclear power technology1. It is in our interest to promote peaceful use of nuclear technologies, encouraging scientists to find employment in an industry which is both peaceful and useful rather than selling their skills to the highest rogue bidder. The treaty also establishes and sets the remit of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which all members are bound to grant unlimited access to in order to facilitate inspection of nuclear facilities. This ensures that facilities cannot surreptitiously be used to facilitate the creation of nuclear weapons.  1 'Nuclear weapons not appealing to all countries' by Renee Montagne, npr, 17th April 2006,

Nuclear power is potentially extremely unsafe  It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has a bad reputation for safety. This is undeserved. The overwhelming majority of nuclear reactors have functioned safely and effectively for their entire lifetimes. The four historic nuclear disasters (1957 Windscale Fire, 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl, 2011 Fukushima, Japan) killed fewer people than the oil and coal industries have1. "The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year"2.  Further, the two major nuclear accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, were both in old style reactors, made worse in the latter case by poor Soviet safety standards. The Chernobyl disaster took place at a time when our understanding of nuclear issues was much lesser than it is now, and was the result of poorly trained staff in the plant's control room. Power stations today are better staffed, better maintained and better understood, and because the effects of an attack upon them are acknowledged, they are better defended and monitored by the armed services. No system can be 100% safe, but solid design principles can minimize risk.  Perhaps the best guarantee of safety standards in the nuclear industry is the increasing transparency with which the industry is presenting itself. Many of the problems in its early days were caused by excessive control due to the origin of nuclear energy from military applications. As the gap between the two separates so the nuclear industry becomes more accountable. The question is, is the slight risk of a nuclear accident a worse danger than the inevitable climate catastrophe that awaits us?  1 'Risks of Nuclear Power' by Bernard Cohen, University of Pittsburgh, 2Patrick Moore, a prominent environmentalist and founding member of Greenpeace, "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case", Washington Post, 4/16/06"

The supply of uranium needed for nuclear power is not actually unlimited, renewable or sustainable  The projected lifespan of uranium must be compared to that of oil, gas and coal which are irrefutably running out. Uranium supply is expected to last for over 200 years, which could be extended to 30,000 with modern technologies. There has not been sufficient research undertaken to explore new potential sites, new forms or ways of prolonging the life of that which we already have access to. For example, it has been claimed recently that there are potential alternatives to uranium which could be used in the nuclear process: "There is also almost always thorium, a lightly radioactive metal, in the same ores, and it has to be disposed of." This disposal would create the same amount of energy as nuclear fission. The USA and Australia have potentially very big mines for rare earths and they are going to be producing Thorium as a waste product anyway, what better way to dispose of it than by creating energy?1  1Tim Worstall, You Don't Bring a Praseodymium Knife to a Gunfight, Foreign Policy, 29/9/10, See also:

Nuclear power is very expensive  For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive.  Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great.  1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009,

The nuclear industry has a shameful safety record and it is haunted by the constant risk of meltdown or explosion. "No reactor in the world is inherently safe. All operational reactors have inherent safety flaws, which cannot be eliminated by safety upgrading. Highly radioactive spent fuel requires constant cooling. If this fails, it could lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. They are also highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage, including terrorist attack"1. Chernobyl and Japan's Fukushima plant has shown the world what happens when cooling systems fail.  The effects on the local people and the environment are devastating. It cannot be a coincidence that the rate of occurrence of certain types of cancer, such as leukaemia, is much higher in the population around nuclear plants. It is perfectly true that modern nuclear reactors are safer but they are not completely safe. It is not worth the risk.  The dumping of nuclear waste also presents a host of problems. The Nuclear Inspectorate in the UK has been very critical of safety standards within the industry; it is too dominated by the profit motive to really care about safety and too shrouded in secrecy to be accountable. According to Agenda 2000: "The problem of nuclear safety in some candidate countries causes serious concerns to the EU... and should be urgently and effectively addressed. It is imperative that solutions, including closure where required, be found to these issues in accordance with the Community nuclear acquis and a "nuclear safety culture" as established in the western world as soon as possible"2.  1"End the nuclear age." Greenpeace. October 2008 2 European Nuclear Threats Old and New, Nuclear Monitor, November 2003, pp.3-5,

Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at present. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons1.  Even if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorism, in both the developed and developing world. If a 9/11-style bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even today a simple "dirty bomb" (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to many thousands of people. Encouraging the spread of nuclear technology enables the spread of nuclear weapons.  1 'Reactor-grade and Weapons-grade plutonium in nuclear explosives', US Department of Energy Publication, January 1997,

While Africa may not have the resources now to pay for adaptation costs of $50billion or more after another fifty years of economic growth it may do. Africa could afford the current $7-15billion if it were considered necessary.

Africa does not have the resources to protect itself from climate change  A report by the United Nations Environmental Project estimates that adaptation costs to Africa per year could already be $15billion, reach $50billion by 2050 and anything up to $350billion by 2070. Funding for adaptation to Africa in 2011 was only $454milliion. [1] This is not a gap that Africa can make up itself; in 2010 all spending on education was less than $50billion. [2] Africa can’t afford to adapt itself while responding to an expanding population as well as its existing problems of poverty and disease. It is clear that developed countries that do have the resources have to step it and take responsibility.  [1] Schaeffer, Michiel et al., ‘Summary’, Africa Adaptation Gap Technical Report, United Nations Environmental Project, 2013  , p.xi  [2] ‘Public spending on education; total (% of GDP) in sub saharan Africa’, Trading Economics,  , ‘Gross domestic product 2010’, World Bank,

For most of the time they were emitting the west did not have any idea of the consequences. The developed world therefore cannot be held responsible for emissions before the 1980s. On the other hand knowledge of the effects has not prevented developing countries from immensely increasing their emissions. Clearly the developed world is still responsible for more emissions but they are also responsible for developing technologies to reduce emissions such as renewable power.

The developed world has the necessary skills  Many of the areas of adaptation are areas where the west has the relevant expertise; seasonal forecasting, adjusting farming – perhaps by engineering hardier plants, weather insurance etc. Africa does not have experience or experts in many of the relevant areas, for example Africa lags behind in bioscience, [1] so it makes sense for the west to provide these experts. And while they do so the west might as well also pay the cost of these expertise and also provide the necessary skills education and training to overcome these problems.  [1] Wafula, Kevin, ‘Africa still lags behind on bioscience capacities, says Scientist’, Africa Science News, 2011,

Climate change is already costing lives  Lives are already being lost to climate change; a report by Climate Vulnerability Monitor estimates that already almost 5million are lost per year to climate change, even without the distorting numbers from pollution there are 400,000 deaths per year. [1] While attributing individual events to climate change is difficult research by climate scientists suggests that the lack long rains in Somalia in early 2011 is between 24 and 99% the result of greenhouse gasses. This famine has killed between 50 and 100 thousand people. [2] With lives being lost the urgency of funding adaptation to reduce these loses is clear.  [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012,  , p.17  [2] Straziuso, Jason, ‘Global warming may have fueled Somali drought’, Phys.org, 15 May 2013,

Yes there are almost certainly some casualties already to climate change but almost certainly considerably less than either of these numbers; there have always been casualties due to ‘Heat &amp; Cold Illnesses’ (35000) but are all these attributable to climate change? Probably not. There were extreme weather events even before climate change. Even if there are such deaths this does not amount to meaning the developed world should fund adaptation; just like not every outbreak of violence in Africa should be considered the responsibility of the developed world not every natural disaster is.

The developed world will no doubt be willing to provide expertise and some may even be willing to work pro-bono while doing work for poorer countries. The developed world should not be paying for such work. Providing money to pay for western workers in Africa both invites corruption and is really for the benefit of the developed countries by providing work for western firms. [1] Instead the focus has to be on the transfer of skills to Africans so that they can meet the challenges from climate change themselves.  [1] Moyo, Dambisa, ‘Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 March 2009,

Why should developed countries pay because Africa happens to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change? Western countries have nothing to do with Africa’s geography and climate change vulnerability.

The developed world has the responsibility to help others  The IPCC says that it is “extremely likely” that human activities are the cause of the temperature rise. [1] This means the biggest historical emitters have a responsibility to pay for the consequences. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China’s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much. [2] History matters as much of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades or hundreds of years. It is the responsibility of those who caused the problem to protect innocents from the fallout of their actions.  [1] Harvey, Fiona, ‘IPCC climate report: human impact is 'unequivocal'’, theguardian.com, 27 September 2013,   [2] Vaughn, Adam, ‘A history of CO2 emissions’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009,

Africa will be among the hardest hit  The IPCC starts its chapter on Africa “Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change and climate variability”. [1] It is also the poorest continent in the world so least able to cope. In the GAIN index by the Global Adaptation Institute which measures vulnerability and readiness for climate change eight of the bottom ten are African states. [2] The changes to Africa could be dramatic; 40% of wildlife habitats could disappear, crop yields fall by 5% despite already being the lowest in the world and 70 million are at risk of flooding as sea levels rise. [3] If anywhere needs help from developed countries in adaptation it is Africa.  [1] Boko, Michel, et al., ‘Africa’, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, IPCC, 2007,  , p.435  [2] Gain Index, 2011,   [3] Bloomfield, Steve, ‘Africa ‘will be worst hit by climate change’’, The Independent, 6 November 2006,

Aid programs are already dealing with most of ‘the low hanging fruit’ in terms of preventing deaths and will continue to do so. However providing aid to other areas does not absolve the west of the need to provide funds for adaptation when they have created the change in the first place.

While countries like Australia are going to be hit by Climate Change they at least have the resources to carry out adaptation on their own. Poor countries don’t have the money so there will not be any adaptation. The result will be more natural disasters and deaths through disease both things that are seen as worthy of providing aid. I would be much better to help prevent these disasters being too severe than waiting until they occur to provide aid.

Responsibility is not the developed world’s alone  First developing countries now produce a large share of emissions; China, India and other rising countries should also have to pay. They also at the same time have increasing financial resources. Second even if countries bear responsibility in proportion to emissions it does not follow developed countries should meet the costs of adaptation. People have always adapted to their climate as an essential part of survival [1] and the climate has always been changing even if at a slower rate so why should the developed world pay in this particular instance? That the west should cut its emissions so that it produces no more than the average per capita is equitable. It is however not equitable for one group to have to pay for the adaptation of others to their environment.  [1] Clark, Duncan, ‘What is climate change adaptation?’, theguardian.com, 27 February 2012,

Adaptation won’t work  Adaptation is simply working to reduce the effects of climate change, it will not prevent it from causing damage. Take hurricanes; adaptation would dictate that the buildings should have been made out of stronger materials and sea walls built to stop storm surges. Yet as with any other form of disaster management there is a sensible amount to adapt if building a 10foot sea wall will stop 95% of storm surges is it really worth building one of 20foot for twice the price to stop 99%?  Many forms of adaptation are directly contrary to demographic trends on the continent. Yes hardier crops can be introduced to mitigate the problems of drought but will these also feed a growing population? Yes people can migrate from those areas that will be worst hit but can their neighbours take in the extra people? For example climate change is one cause of drought in the Sahel, [1] to the south rainfall and flooding may actually increase in southern Nigeria though it will be unpredictable. [2] The obvious solution then would be migration from the Sahel south but the UN projects Niger’s population to grow to almost 70million by 2050 and Nigeria’s to 440million, [3] could Nigeria really take the extra population from its northern neighbour as well as its own growth?  [1] Thomas, Alice, ‘Sahel villagers fleeing climate change must not be ignored’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013,   [2] Uyigue, E., and Agho, M., ‘Coping with Climate Change and Environmental Degradation in the Niger Delta of Southern Nigeria’, Community Research and Development Centre, 2007,   [3] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ‘World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision’, esa.un.org,  (using medium variant)

There are other more urgent things to be spending money on  Money should be spent where it can make most difference. The cost of many methods of adapting to climate change is high compared to the gain. The developed world should focus aid on areas that can do most good rather than on adaptation. Even those who argue that climate change will be very costly and deadly implicitly agree that there are more worthwhile things. In Climate Vulnerability Monitor’s estimates of deaths the vast majority, 3.1million, are due to indoor smoke. [1] This however is something that is not solved through adaptation to climate change but through mitigation; by providing $25 cooking stoves. [2]  [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012,  , p.17  [2] Aroon, P.J., ‘Secretary Clinton is promoting cookstoves to save the world. Seriously’, ForeignPolicy.com, 22 September 2010,

Each country should tackle its own problems  Every country is going to be affected by climate change in one way or another developed countries included. Australia has often been singled out as being a country that is “anti-climate” [1] but Australia is already being hit by bigger bushfires and sudden floods and the cost on Australian infrastructure is estimated to rise to $9billion per year by 2020 and continue rising, [2] and this is only one small slice of the costs such as crop failures due to drought, health problems – there have already been increases in dengue fever and malaria in Australia. [3] Developed countries which are also going to be severely affected by climate change have a responsibility to their own people first and should not be paying for other countries to adapt.  [1] Readfearn, Graham, ‘Australia slides down to bottom on climate change performance index’, theguardian.com, 18 November 2013,   [2] The Climate Institute, ‘Coming Ready or Not: Can Australia's infrastructure handle climate change?’, 29 October 2012,   [3] Buckley, Ralf et al., ‘Climate response Issues, costs and liabilities in adapting to climate change in Australia.’, Griffith University, 2007,  , p.24

Many places today have not even done the minimum and need funding to help them do so. There can be no denying that some defences can make a big difference; in 1900 Galveston was hit by a hurricane which killed up to 12000 people, 15 years later after the building of a sea wall only 53 people died in a similar hurricane. [1] In many cases this kind of adaptation is simply sensible policy to prevent disasters that should be carried out regardless of climate change.  [1] Morris, Julian, ‘The Terrible Toll of Typhoon Haiyan Doesn't Excuse Bad Policy’, reason.com, 15 November 2013,

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.  [1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008,   [2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center,

First of all, power plants operating on renewable resources are not as green as one might think. Hydroelectric and tidal power can harm water ecosystems, wind turbines can harm wildlife and solar plants need a large space to be built on and are only really efficient in deserts. Nuclear power stations are relatively green since they do not primary produce any “dirty gases.” The only problem is mining uranium and the nuclear waste, which is increasingly able to be recycled and potentially reused as fuel for more modern nuclear plants.  Furthermore, gas stations are operating with non-renewable source of energy – natural gas. Therefore, when speaking about efficiency -nuclear power stations are generally more effective than gas power stations [1] [2] – it is better for environment to operate on few nuclear power stations rather than on many of gas power stations. Nuclear power stations are not flexible, but they can represent the base of needed energy, which does not fluctuate, and the rest of needed energy which varies in time may be supplied with power plants operating on renewable sources and few power plants operating on other non-renewable sources.  [1] ‘Cooling power plants’, World Nuclear Association, September 2012,   [2] Kirk T. 2007 Physics IB Study Guide, Oxford University Press, p.68

Nuclear energy goes against Green World  In order not to harm environment, not to cause climate changes, renewable power plants (wind, water, solar) should be used. However, these do not work together with nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants – giant very hot machines – are designed to operate at full speed (85%) all the time. They are not designed to change the output quickly. Since they are very expensive to build, they are not economic unless operated at full speed (also turning off and on is expensive). Solar and wind power plants are not stable (output varies because of natural factors) and thus need a backup, called a baseload. Nuclear plants are not a good backup for renewables. We need nimble plants in order to support wind and solar plants. Nuclear power stations do not work with solar, wind and water power stations, because they are running at full speed all the time (because of economic and technical reasons). Instead gas plants that can be powered up and down as required are needed to balance power generation. If we want to move towards Green World – nuclear energy does not help us to do so. [1]  It is generally agreed that we want more renewable power generation in Europe even if there are disagreements about where plants should be situated or how much must come from renewable sources. The European Union aims to have 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020. [2] And if it is to meet CO2 reduction targets far more will be needed in following decades.  Nuclear is also not as helpful as renewables in meeting these CO2 reduction targets. It is estimated that renewables produce 10-40g of CO2 pre kWh of electricity produced, but nuclear is currently much higher at 90-140g/kWh, though still only a tenth of coal. And as mining becomes more difficult it is estimated that this could double making nuclear no better for reducing CO2 than gas power. [3]  [1] Nelder, Chris, ‘Why baseload power is doomed’, smartplanet, 28 March 2012,   [2] European Commission, ‘Directive Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources’, Europa.eu, 17 October 2012,   [3] ‘CO2 emission of electricity from nuclear power stations’, Time for change, May 2012,

The essence of the argument may be correct, however, the basis is not. The stress tests were to great extent based on unrealistic threats like strong earthquake (which are extremely rare – almost non-existent in Europe away from the Mediterranean) or crash of big airplane. In these cases truly, lives could be endangered, however, the possibility of these cases ever occurring is nearly zero. Even if some investments in safety measures were needed (like in case of the safety systems in case of blackout) implementation of those would be substantially lower than phasing out nuclear reactors and building a replacement capacity of equal capacity from renewable sources.

Nuclear energy is non-renewable source  While nuclear power it is often proclaimed as clean this does not mean it is a renewable resource like wind, wave, or solar power. Nuclear power plants use uranium to produce energy, which, of course, needs to be mined. Currently only 2.3% of uranium used in reactors in EU is mined in the EU [1] . Moreover, the world’s main uranium deposits are located outside the EU. The use of nuclear energy thus undermines energy self-sufficiency of the EU. This may pose a serious threat to the future. Natural (and other) resources are usually used as the first intermediates of diplomatic disputes. When a country wants to exert diplomatic pressure on another country (or bloc of countries like EU), trade bans or embargos are widely used. For example in 2009 Russia stopped gas supply to Ukraine due to trade dispute between their two national gas companies. Therefore, the supply of uranium may be susceptible to diplomatic and trade relations (which are often volatile) and consequently nuclear power may not be reliable. Is it one of the aims of the EU to become less dependent on imported material needed for energy production. [2]  As a non renewable resource we also need to think about the possibility of supplies running out. The concept of ‘peak uranium’ is sometimes overblown but there is only a 230 years supply of uranium at current consumption rates. If the price gets high enough then there are other options for production, including from seawater, but this would clearly mean a big increase in cost and concerns that producers will try to keep cheaper uranium to themselves and export for much higher prices. [3] Thus over longer term the nuclear energy may become far more expensive, or even unavailable due to lack of fuel.  [1] Euratom, ‘Euratom Supply Agency Annual Report 2012’, European Commission, 2013,   [2] European Commission, ‘Renewable energy’, Europa.eu, 2013,   [3] Fetter, Steve, ‘How long will the world’s uranium supplies last?’, Scientific American, 26 January 2009,

The main source, or fuel, for production of nuclear energy does not have to be uranium, thorium can be used. While the number of reactors may increase the consumption of uranium may well actually go down as the next generation of reactors will get more energy from the uranium they use. More specifically fourth generation reactors would reuse the uranium multiple times up to the point where they may be more than a hundred times more fuel efficient than current reactors. [1]  Furthermore, uranium is not mined only in one specific country, but in variety of countries (Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Russia, Niger, United States). As we can see, these countries differ from each other in any way – political situation, regime, relationships with other countries etc. Therefore, even in the case of war with one or few countries from where uranium is obtained, the supply can be established from other sources, other countries. Therefore, there is a very little possibility of diplomatic pressure, since uranium can be obtained from variety of sources.  Together with thorium, which can be obtained from countries like India, Turkey, Brazil, EU can be considered as independent from any one source of uranium or thorium.  [1] Hansen, Dr. James, ‘4th Generation Nuclear Power’, OSS, 18 January 2009,

Nuclear energy in Europe is currently considered to be dangerous  In the response to Fukushima accident European Commission carried out a series of stress tests on nuclear power plants in the EU to minimise the risk of such an accident occurring in the EU. The results were disturbing. According to the report European power plants are not well prepared for an emergency situation. Some of the power plants would have less than hour to restore safety systems in case of electric blackout. [1] Currently more than 100,000 citizens live in proximity (30 km) of 111 reactors. Should anything go wrong, many lives would be endangered. The problems could be resolved by dramatic investments into the safety measures. However, these investments would require approximately €25 bn [2] . This is a sum indebted European Union cannot afford. Therefore shutdown and substitution of these hazardous plants would be a much better idea.  [1] European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the comprehensive risk and safety assessments (“stress tests”) of nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities’, Europa.eu, 4 October 2012,   [2] Paterson, Tony, ‘Europe’s ‘dangerous’ nuclear plants need €25bn safety refit’, The Independent, 18 November 2013,

The phase out of the nuclear power stations may be costly; however, it will happen sooner or later anyway. Nuclear stations are constantly phased out and new, more advanced plants are built in their place. Old plants require constant investment in safety measures. The costs are thus inevitable. Abandoning nuclear power in many cases need only involve committing to not build more nuclear plants. However, even if the costs of phasing out were higher than costs of sustaining network of nuclear plants, the gain from more safe, more environmental friendly energy would outweigh the harms. Concerning the social costs, workers in nuclear power plants could find jobs in broader energy production market, since the technical requirements for jobs are not that different in different power plants and there would still be demand for jobs in the energy sector.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]  [1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012,   [2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013,

Nuclear research is necessary for the future of green energy  Historically a lot of the opposition to nuclear power has been about the waste they generate and that it will remain radioactive for tens of millennia. No one therefore wants nuclear waste in their neighbourhood making the pollution from coal and gas plants seem pale by comparison. Yet this is an objection that is increasingly outdated and what had been the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry is being turned into a strength.  The EU has a chance to be a world leader in nuclear power generation. With the fourth generation of nuclear reactors which are much safer than current models and create almost no nuclear waste currently being designed. [1] Moreover an even more advanced nuclear plant, this one based upon fusion rather than fission is currently being built in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region of southern France. It is an experimental reactor that will not produce any waste at all and could help revolutionise clean power. [2]  Only if Europe continues investing in nuclear power will we be able to realise the dream of completely clean and completely safe nuclear power. This would then benefit the whole world by enabling such clean energy production elsewhere.  [1] Swierk, ‘Visegrad 4 for 4th generation nuclear reactors’, National Centre for nuclear research, 21 July 2013,   [2] Iter, ‘The Project’, 2013,

Phasing nuclear out would be too expensive  Any phase out of nuclear energy in the EU would be tremendously costly, to an extent indebted Europe cannot afford. First costs stem from closing of nuclear reactors. These would include safely disposing or sealing all radioactive materials involved in production, closing buildings, dismantling the generators etc. In the UK the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that 19 nuclear plants in the UK that are set for decommissioning will cost £70 billion. [1] Secondly, new generation of power plants would need to be built. Suitable places would need to be found, land bought and prepared for construction, power plants and electricity network constructed. These alone would cost sums counted in billions of euros regardless of whether these plants are renewable or not. Moreover, social costs would have to be included, since many highly specialised jobs in the nuclear power industry would be irrecoverably lost. The nuclear power industry in the UK alone employs 44,000 people. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Nuclear clean-up ‘to cost £70bn’’, 30 March 2006,   [2] Cogent, ‘Nuclear industry profile’, 2013,

Highly efficient when operating at high rates  The nuclear power plants have huge energy outputs. That means we can produce energy faster at lower price, due to the high energy density of uranium (we can extract far more energy from it than from any other source). Thanks to this fact, there is no need to build many power plants, since a few nuclear plants can easily supply whole country, for example in Slovakia only 2 power plants supply more than half of electric energy. This is beneficial because residents object to having power generation nearby, building one nuclear plant affects many fewer people than the number of wind turbines that would be needed to generate the same amount of electricity. The nuclear power plant being built at Olkiluoto in Finland will produce 13TWh per year [1] equivalent to more than 3000 wind turbines. [2] This has the additional environmental benefit of requiring fewer materials for construction.  [1] ‘Olkiluoto 3 – Finland’, Areva, accessed 18 November 2013,   [2] ‘FAQ – Output’, National Wind Watch,  , This gives 3.285GWh per year for a turbine which would be more like 4000, but it also states that the wind industry say their turbines work at a higher capacity than that accounted for in their calculation.

The most recent power plants such as Olkiluoto are third generation plants. Fourth generation plants are still decades away. Yes research into Fusion must continue but the plant that is being built is simply a test plant and even it won’t be fully testing until 2027, it would be decades after that before any commercial plants come into operation even if everything works. Research into both types but particularly fusion are separate from the nuclear power plants that Europe currently has. These could all be shut down without any impact on research. Moreover why spend billions on research when we already have technologies that provide clean electricity?

The problem with this argument is that it prioritizes the enjoyment of some individuals over others with no real justification. The grey wolf, for example, went extinct in the Yellowstone region in the first place because humans considered it a pest and a threat to livestock and so hunted it to extinction. Clearly these people didn't enjoy the 'diversity' the grey wolf provided. We don't usually give something the force of law regarding animals just because some people enjoy it. For example, the UK has now banned fox hunting even though a great many people found it to be a source of pleasure and recreation. [1] If everyone desired the protection of all endangered species, there would be no need for this law, but the fact that a law is needed to restrain human action shows that not everyone 'enjoys' this biodiversity in the same way.  [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.

Aesthetics  An environment with a great diversity of plant and animal species in it can act as a source for art and entertainment, enriching the lives of humans. Thus the preservation of endangered species is an important part of ensuring this diversity continues to exist so people and enjoy and be inspired by the many varied kinds of life on this earth. A good example of this is the re-introduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park in the United States (where it had previously become extinct due to human action), which added to the biodiversity of the region and caused a greater influx of tourists into the park. [1] People enjoy being surrounded by different kinds of nature, and so protecting endangered species is an important part of protecting human enjoyment.  [1] Wilcove, D. S., &amp; Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.

Superior human intellect and sentience only means that we should make sure we consider the moral ramifications of our actions, not that we should take any particular action as a result. It is entirely in keeping with this for us to conclude that human life and enjoyment are more important than animal life and species survival, and so for us to decide not to protect endangered species when this (as it by definition always will) infringes upon human benefits and enjoyment.

Protecting endangered species protects the interests of humans  Protecting endangered species helps protect humans: Humans actually benefit in a large number of ways from the protection of endangered species and thus continuing biodiversity. Firstly, the diversity of life and living systems is considered by many scientists to be a necessary condition for human development. We live in a world built on a carefully balanced ecosystem in which all species play a role, and the removal of species from this can cause negative consequences for the whole ecosystem, including humans. [1] There is also the potential for almost any species to hold currently-unknown future benefits to humans through products they could provide. One example of this is the scrub mint, an endangered plant species which has been found to contain an anti-fungal agent and a natural insecticide, and thus holds great potential for use that benefits humans. [2] Endangered species have also been known to hold the key to medical breakthroughs which save human lives. One example of this is the Pacific yew (a tree species) which became the source of taxol, one of the most potent anticancer compounds ever discovered. [3] Biodiversity also helps protect humans in that different species' differing reactions to ecological problems may in fact act as a kind of 'early warning' system of developing problems which may one day negatively affect people. This was the case with the (now banned) dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) pesticide, as the deterioration of the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon through their exposure to DDT in fact alerted humans to the potential health hazards of this pesticide, not just to animals but also to humans. [4] Thus the preservation of endangered species helps to protect humans, as this means plants and animals continue to play their specific role in the world's ecosystem which humans rely on, can act as an 'early warning' for problems which may affect humans, and may hold the key to scientific and medical breakthroughs which can greatly benefit humanity. Al this could be lost through the careless extinction of plant and animal species.  [1] Ishwaran, N., &amp; Erdelen, W. “Biodiversity Futures”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[4]. May 2005   [2] Wilcove, D. S., &amp; Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.   [3] Wilcove, D. S., &amp; Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.   [4] Wilcove, D. S., &amp; Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.

This argument fails to take into account the costs of protecting endangered species and weigh them against the potential harms of them becoming extinct. In a world where only 5% of plant species have been surveyed for their potential medicinal value, [1] this means protecting the survival of the other 95% purely for the potential value that only a fraction of them may possess. All of this means denying development human development now, by not opening areas up for agriculture or not constructing housing. These are very real costs which impact upon peoples' lives, and may even outweigh those scientific and medical advances which may or may not be found in currently endangered species.  [1] Kurpis, Lauren. “Why Save?” EndangeredSpecie.com. Copyright 1997-2002.

By this argument, no human generation could ever decide that protecting a species is more trouble than its worth and so let it become extinct, as there would always be the theoretical possibility of a future generation that might regret this choice. Every choice we make as a generation constrains and widens the choices available to future generations. If we protect endangered species and therefore limit agricultural and housing land (to protect their environments) we deny future generations more plentiful food supplies and better housing. We may even deny the existence of more humans in the future by not having enough food to feed a population which could grow faster if the food supply was greater. We cannot allow the remote possibility of future regret to cause us to take actions which a great many people will 'regret' in the present.

Humanity bears a moral responsibility to other species  Human moral responsibility to other species: Humans are unique and unprecedented in life on earth in that their intelligence and sentience far surpasses that of any other species ever known to have existed. Humans are not simply forced to kill or ignore other species by instinct alone, as other species are, but rather can make a variety of choices based not only on information but on moral grounds. Thus with our greater power comes a greater responsibility to act in a moral fashion, and not simply to prioritize our own human good over that of other species. The ability of animal species, for example, to feel pain and suffering is something we should consider and try to avoid, as we recognise that pain is bad for ourselves, and thus must be bad for animals as well. Similarly if we believe our own survival is a good thing, we should recognise that the survival of other species is also a moral good, and act accordingly to protect endangered species.

Humanity owes a moral responsibility to future generations  Human moral responsibility to future generations: Species extinction is an irrevocable occurrence. Outside of the film 'Jurassic Park', extinct species cannot be summoned back from the grave once human action has put them there. This means that when a current generation makes the decision not to protect an endangered species and thus allows human action to drive it to extinction, this denies future generations the ability to make up their own minds about the pros and cons of the survival of that endangered species, especially considering that they might want that species to exist for the aforementioned scientific, medical, aesthetic or moral reasons. For example, there is a great modern-day interest in the dodo species of bird which was hunted to extinction in Mauritius in the 17th Century. [1] The opinion of many in the modern world today is one of regret at the bird's extinction and that it should have been protected, but a lack of consideration of the wishes of future generations in the 17th Century has meant that the humans of the 21st Century are denied the ability to decide on the value of this species themselves. Because we place a moral value on the ability of humans to make decisions (as we consider it to be a good thing when we ourselves have this ability) we should recognise that the possibly differing opinions of future generations should constrain our choices somewhat, and we should protect endangered species so that future generations can decide for themselves regarding their value.  [1] BBC News “Dodo skeleton find in Mauritius”. BBC News. 24 June 2006.

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.

The term "endangered" is inconsistently applied  The practical difficulties of the 'endangered' status: The complications which have grown up surrounding the 'endangered' status given to some species are in themselves a good reason to do away with this cumbersome and harmful practice. It should firstly be noted that it can be incredibly difficult to get species removed from the 'protected' lists even once they have been added even when their numbers show they are no longer in jeopardy. The grey wolf again serves as a good example; it is considered to be 'endangered' (and thus protected) in the United States, as there are only 3,700 such wolves in the lower 48 States today, despite the fact that an estimated 58,000 grey wolves live in the wild in Alaska and Canada. [1] This is clearly an example of a misapplication of the 'endangered' label but which is incredibly difficult to revoke once it has been given, due to pressure from ecological groups and the media.  The sort of laws used to 'protect' endangered species may even incentivize the exact opposite kind of behaviour on the part of landowners. When, for example, a farmer finds on his land an animal from an endangered species, and the law thus requires him to make significant changes to his farming practices to protect the creature, this imposes a significant economic cost on him. This means that that farmer may have a large economic incentive to simply dispose of the creature and hide the evidence of its presence, when in the absence of the law the farmer might not take any steps to intentionally exterminate all examples of that endangered species on his land. Economists writing in the Journal of Law and Economics found an example of similarly perverse incentives provided by endangered species protection law amongst logging companies in the United States. When faced with a protected species of woodpecker which preferred to nest in trees at least 70 years old, and which when found, the law required timber owners not to harvest wood within a large area around that woodpecker's nest, loggers simply responded by harvesting more trees in areas where these woodpeckers might appear and by intentionally harvesting tees at age 40 instead of waiting for them to mature to 70 and thus becoming potential habitats for the woodpeckers. This resulted in even less available habitat for the woodpeckers than before the protection laws were passed [2] This example helps to further illustrate how 'protecting' endangered species requires cumbersome legislation that is prone to mistakes, difficult to retract and may incentivize even more harmful behaviour towards these species than if the laws did not exist.  [1] Bailey, Ronald. “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up”. Reason.com. December 31, 2003.   [2] Lueck, Dean, and Michael, Jeffery A. “Preemptive Habitat Destruction Under the Endangered Species Act”. Journal of Law and Economics. Vol. 46. No. 1. April 2003

Human rights trump those of lower animals  Why human rights always trump animal rights: It has already been established that laws protecting endangered species cause harm to humans by denying them the opportunity to engage in behaviour they would otherwise desire to do. The problem with this is that it elevates 'animal rights' to an equal plane with human rights and therefore restricts human life and happiness. This is wrong as humans enjoy superior mental faculties to animals and also have greater sentience, meaning that humans are aware of their pain, suffering and the opportunities denied to them (for example through laws restricting land development) in a way in which animals are not. As a consequence, we should cause humans to have less happiness in life in order to protect the lives of 'endangered species', as animals' lives, 'happiness' and suffering are less meaningful than that of humans.

Species extinction is an inevitable process  Species extinction is a part of the natural world: Within evolution species naturally go arise and later become extinct as they struggle to adapt to changing environments and competition with other species. This be regarded as a part of the 'survival of the fittest' which drives evolution. Most extinctions that have occurred did so naturally and without human intervention. It is, for example, estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, and humans have existed at the same time as only a fraction of these species. [1] Therefore it cannot be claimed that species going extinct will somehow upset the delicate natural balance or destroy ecosystems. Ecologists and conservationists have in fact struggled to demonstrate the increased material benefits to humans of 'intact' wild systems over man-made ones such as farms and urban environments, which many species simply adapt to. [2] Therefore any claims that humans causing the extinction of other species are somehow acting 'un-naturally' or 'immorally' or that they are risking ecological collapse as a consequence are mistaken, as they fail to understand that extinction occurs as a natural fact and that ecosystems adapt accordingly. No other species acts to prevent species besides itself from becoming extinct, and therefore again allowing another species to die out is in no way 'un-natural.'  [1] Raup, David M. “Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?” W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 1991  [2] Jenkins, Martin. “Prospects for Biodiversity”. Science. 14 November 2003.

Protecting endangered species can harm human communities  Protecting endangered species can harm humans: Protecting endangered species by definition means restricting activity that humans would otherwise want to do, be it by turning woodland into farmland, turning meadows into housing developments, or by preventing us from eliminating 'pest' species which kill livestock or damage crops. For example, the reintroduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park has increased once more the risk to livestock in the region and caused economic harms to ranchers there. [1] Some of these species may even pose a threat to human lives, which may have been why they were hunted to extinction in the first place. In any case, less agricultural land and less land for housing can only mean higher food and housing costs (due to their decreased supplies in the face of a rising human population) for people, which has a detrimental impact upon human life.  [1] Bailey, Ronald. “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up”. Reason.com. December 31, 2003.

This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering.  [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.

This is argument for the reform of these laws, not against the laws themselves. Laws could also be introduced, for example, to require loggers to allow a certain percentage of their trees to reach the appropriate age for woodpecker nesting, or better review panels created to consider removing the 'endangered' label when it is no longer appropriate. These laws can shift as we see incentives shifting in order to ensure that good behaviour in incentivized overall.

To say the job numbers are questionable is an understatement. The Department of State issued a report in August putting the estimated number at between 5-6000. [1]  Furthermore, Trans-Canada, one of the major shareholders has backed off larger estimates in public, floating figures in the 20-25,000 range. TransCanada's initial estimate of 20,000 — which it said includes 13,000 direct construction jobs and 7,000 jobs among supply manufacturers — is far more conservative. [2]  Why the discrepancy? The Washington Post investigated and found that the same author of the Keystone report, Ray Perryman also wrote a report predicting massive job gains from a Wind Farm project. Among the predicted jobs were:  “51 dancers and choreographers, 138 dentists, 176 dental hygienists, 100 librarians, 510 bread bakers, 448 clergy, 154 stenographers, 865 hairdressers, 136 manicurists, 110 shampooers, 65 farmers, and (our favorite) 1,714 bartenders.“ [3]  Furthermore all of these estimates ignore potential job losses they may affect existing workers in the oil industry once the Pipeline is complete. It is perfectly possible that there will be a net loss of jobs.  As for the Unions, it will provide short-term construction jobs, which is why they support it. But almost any project would do the same.  [1] United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, ‘Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project’, 26 August 2011,   [2] Kessler, 2011,   [3] ibid

Job creation  The XL Pipeline project has the potential to create a large number of jobs, both in its construction, and in refining and processing at its terminal points within the United States.  Keystone Pipelines has produced a report which indicates that the Pipeline should create 118,000 jobs, with as many as 250,000 in total after spinoffs have been counted. [1]  Labor Unions have accepted this line and are aggressively lobbying for the Pipeline, [2] even though it means siding with Republicans and against their own party. Furthermore, Politicians ranging from Jon Huntsman to Bob Casey have embraced the job-creating p[3]otential of the Project.  [1] The Perryman Group, ‘The Impact of Developing the Keystone XL Pipeline Project on Business Activity in the US’ June 2010,   [2] Fox, Liam, ‘Unions Back Keystone XL Pipeline Threatens Clash with Occupy Movement’, News Junkie Post, 3 December 2011,   [3] Kessler, Glenn, ‘Keystone pipeline jobs claims: a bipartisan fumble’, Washington Post, 14 December 2011,

Canada’s friendship with the United States is based on shared values, interests and a shared language, things it does not and never can share with China in the foreseeable future. As such, while delaying approval of the Keystone Pipeline might well cost the United States a pipeline, it is unlikely to cost America Canadian friendship.  Furthermore, while the delay of the Pipeline project may well have made the Chinese bid more attractive, the fact that the Chinese government already owns 10% of the Canadian oil industry and was willing to put up the money [1] for a Pipeline is an indication that they may well be willing to a build a second Pipeline of their own regardless of what the United States does, even if it does not make economic sense in the short-run.  [1] Radia, Andy, ‘Should the Harper government allow Chinese ownership of Alberta’s oil sands’, Canada Politics, 13 October 2011,

The pipeline will reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern and Latin American oil  Currently, the United States imports nearly two-thirds of its Petroleum, with the leading suppliers including nations such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. [1]  Due to political instability and the difficult US relations with these nations, US supplies cannot be considered secure, and with the results of research into alternative sources of energy being decades away from fruition the United States needs alternative sources of oil today.  One option is Canada, which is individually already the United States’ single largest energy supplier. Canada’s known reserves total 179 billion barrels, placing it third behind Saudi Arabia, but some estimates have put its total at as high as 2 trillion barrels. [2]  The XL Pipeline project would help bring this oil overland into the United States. On the Canadian end, the increased market access would lead to rapid development, which in turn would increase Canadian capacity to the level to which it could reach a much greater portion of US demand.  Furthermore, the United States enjoys close relations and an open border with Canada, meaning that this oil will likely arrive without the strings attached that come from buying from Venezuela or the Middle East. In the case of the latter the Pipeline would allow the US to disengage from the region to a degree.  Even if hypothetically Canadian relations were to turn frosty, the existence of the pipeline would nevertheless ensure that the US would remain the only viable market.  [1] U.S. Energy Information Administration, ‘U.S. Imports by Country of Origin’,   [2] Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, ‘Alberta’s Oil and Natural Gas Industry’,

The XL Pipeline, upon its completion would simply be replacing one source of Oil dependency with another. And what Canada makes up for in political friendliness, could be undone by the fact that US oil would be coming from a much smaller number of sources.  Furthermore, resolving US supply problems will not solve the global energy shortage that will arrive as Oil deposits shrink and Chinese demand rises. Oil will remain a source of political instability.  The only true path to energy independence is to find alternative renewable sources that do not leave the United States and the rest of the world dependent on resources that are limited both in amount and in their geographical locations. The XL Pipeline might even undermine these efforts as it will create a false sense of security.

Rejecting the pipeline bid would worsen US relations with Canada  Canada’s Oil reserves will be of major strategic value in the next century. Currently the United States is Canada’s preferred trading partner and strategic ally, both because of a history of past cooperation, and because the US is both more willing and able to support Canadian claims to the Arctic than China. The Pipeline would consolidate this relationship, ensuring that the development of Canada’s reserves would occur with the American market in mind, because once built, it would be far more expensive to build a second Pipeline than to simply use the existing one.  The United States, is not however, Canada’s only option. Canada is determined to sell the oil one way or another, and an American refusal will not save the environment. What it will do is make Canada look elsewhere. The Canadian government publicly floated a joint-Canadian-Chinese pipeline proposal which would bring the oil to the Pacific after the Obama Administration delayed consideration of the project until after 2012. [1]  Just as the Keystone Pipeline would lock Canada into the US Market, a decision to develop Canadian reserves with the Chinese market in mind would be difficult to reverse, and undermine the energy independence of the United States rather than secure it.  [1] Tan, Florence, and Hua, Judy, ‘Analysis: Harper’s bet may pay off; China open to Canadian oil’, Reuters, 25 November 2011,

Almost any form of producing and transporting oil risks an environmental disaster if things go wrong, as was demonstrated in the summer of 2010 by the major British Petroleum spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Historically however land-based Pipelines have been far safer than Oil Freighters or off-shore platforms because of the ease of access, which means that spills can usually be responded to rapidly. The real damage with the BP Spill was due to its isolated location in deep water and the consequent difficulty of reaching it.  Furthermore, fears of the carbon emissions are flawed because they are based on the assumption that if the Pipeline is not approved the Tar Sands will not be developed. But this is not the case. The Canadian Government has already shown interested in an alternative Chinese proposal which would see a Pipeline built to deliver the oil to the Pacific, and eventually to the Chinese market. [1] If the oil is going to be burned one way or another, it is best for the United States to do it, because the United States enjoys higher fuel efficiency standards and generally cleaner vehicles.  [1] Yahoo news, 2012,

America should not become more dependent on oil  A successful development of the Pipeline would deepen the Unite States’ dependence on Oil, and undermine the drive towards renewable fuels.  Historically, consumers switch fuels not when alternatives are available, but when economic forces cause costs to rise to such a point that it becomes inefficient not to switch. This is one reason why the EU has found such success with taxes on gasoline which brought its price above 4$ a gallon long before it reached that price on the market. The result was a rush to adopt smaller and more fuel efficient cars, and to ration other energy consuming hardware.  The main result of the Keystone Pipeline will be to lower fuel costs in the short-term, under pricing electric cars and alternative fuel sources. When gas prices finally rise, as they eventually will, the United States will find itself far behind the rest of the World in renewable technology.  Given that renewable technology will be one of the major sources of economic power in the next few decades, choosing short-term savings over-long term investment seems like a bad idea.

Environmental risks  There are serious environmental factors that should be fully examined before any decision is made to approve the Pipeline project.  For one thing, the Pipeline will mostly extract Oil from Tar Sands. Extracting oil from tar sands is much more complicated than pumping conventional crude oil out of the ground. It requires steam-heating the sands to produce a petroleum slurry, then further dilution. One result of this process, the Canadian Environmental Ministry says, is that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector as a whole will rise by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2020 — even as other sectors are reducing emissions. [1]  Former NASA Climatologist James Hansen has suggested that if the Pipeline is completed it is “Game Over for the Planet”. [2]  Furthermore, the path of the proposed Pipeline will bring it close to the Ogallala Aquifer which provides 30% of the United States’ total irrigation supply and 82% of the drinking water to the 2.3 million people who live within the region it serves. Furthermore, within that region is just under 20% of all US agricultural production.[3] A major spill along the Pipeline would have the potential to render the entire Aquifer unusable.  [1] Girling, Russell K., ‘The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly’, The Hill’s Congress Blog, 13 July 2011,   [2] Mayer, Jane, ‘Taking it to the streets’, The New Yorker, 28 November 2011,   [3] US Geological Survey, ‘High Plains Regional Ground-Water Study’,

History does show that renewable technology tends to develop when it is economically efficient. Alternatives to fossil fuels will be found when fossil fuels are too expensive to buy, and therefore people are willing to buy what is initially an inferior product. It is only then after general adoption, that the inferior product will improve to the point at which it is equal to the product it is replacing.  The fact is that as long as there are large scale supplies of fossil fuels available, and those supplies are plentiful enough to be affordable, consumers will be unwilling to accept the inferior performance they will get from electric cars, or the inferior comfort of smaller vehicles. The EU, with a far superior public transportation system is a bad comparison with the United States, as it is likely that the price at which Americans would accept the same sort of compromises is much higher, and no amount of environmental concern or preaching about alternative energy will generate the political capital to force them to if they don’t have to.  Furthermore, what the opposition ignores in this argument is that it is often the poor who will suffer the most from artificially high fuel prices. Raising prices will increasingly make driving a luxury good, limiting the mobility of low income workers. This will both reduce their standard of living (i.e. ability to take vacations) and reduce their options for work and therefore for advancement.

Bullfighting has existed for thousands of years in the cultures it is practiced in, and yet these cultures have not become inherently barbaric or bloodthirsty, so arguments that say bullfighting has such effects on people are simply incorrect. What is at stake is not just 'entertainment' but rather something that many in these bullfighting countries perceive as being an art form intrinsic to their culture. Madrid has recognized and protected bullfighting not as a sport but as an art form.(1)  Bullfighting supporters in Europe have even campaigned for UNESCO World Heritage status for bullfighting.(14)  This cultural value makes bullfighting particularly significant and justifies any suffering the bull may endure.

Harming animals for entertainment is immoral  If a creature suffers then there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. All animals are sentient beings that experience joy, happiness, fear and pain, in the same way that human beings do. As Bentham previously noted, it does not matter that they cannot express this suffering in the same way as humans can (by speaking about it) or reason about their suffering in the same way -the important thing is that they can suffer in the first place. We can have no right whatsoever to make them suffer for our 'enjoyment'. If any torture inflicted to an animal deserves condemnation, bullfights are the worst kind of torture since they are performed solely in the name of entertainment. We must end the animals' torture and stop these shows of brutality and violence. It is too small a step from the intentional infliction of pain on an animal to the torture and killing of human beings.(5)  Bullfights perpetuate the idea that injuring and killing an animal for amusement is acceptable, and that is not an idea which any state with any concern for animals, or for its human citizens, should wish to be prevalent. Part of the 'attraction' of bullfighting for crowds is witnessing death. Advocates of the practice make this into an argument for the practice. But, a desire to see death in front of one's own eye's amounts to bloodlust. Why should humans be accommodated in such a morbid pursuit? Eric Gallego, an animal rights protester, said in 2010: “Bullfighting is a bloody entertainment. We must stop this cruelty because we don’t want to be a barbaric society in Europe.”(6)  This argument applies just as much to any other country in the world: why would we want to encourage people to enjoy pain and suffering, as we have laws which make causing pain and suffering illegal (both for humans and animals) in almost every other context? Bullfighting is therefore immoral, and encourages cruel and immoral behaviour in other areas, and so it should be banned.

Many cultural and sporting events involve serious risks. Football, American football, rugby, boxing, acrobatics, and many other cultural and sporting events involve serious, inherent risks to humans. But, they are not banned. Bullfighting should not, therefore, be alienated for the risks that it entails. Also, the risks of bullfighting bring out courage and bravery. If there were no risks, there could be no bravery in bullfighting. The matador wants to take these risks so that he can demonstrate his courage, and the fans honor that ultimate risk-taking. These risks should not be shunned, but celebrated, just as they often are in other cultural and sporting events.

Bullfighting is a form of animal torture  Bullfighting constitutes animal torture because it is exactly the suffering of the animal from which the entertainment of the crowd is drawn, and the level of suffering inflicted is on the level of that caused by torture. Jeremy Bentham argued that "Cock-fights and bull-fights, the chase of the hare and the fox, fishing, and other amusements of the same kind, necessarily suppose a want of reflection or a want of humanity; since these sports inflict upon sensitive beings the most lively sufferings, and the most lingering and painful death that can be imagined."(1)  The want of humanity even in modern bullfighting is shown by the sadistic cruelties inflicted on the bulls: According to anti-bullfight veterinarian José Zaldívar, in the great majority of cases, the matador missed the vital spot that would cause the bull to die quickly. "These provoke internal bleeding. It is a slow, agonising death – as the high acidity of their blood proves."(2)  At the end of the fight, the bull may not be yet dead while his body parts are cut-off to be kept as trophies. Spanish bull breeders receive EU agricultural subsidies, meaning that, in the EU, taxpayers' money from all countries (not just those with legal bullfighting) goes to support this terrible industry.(3)  Also, in order to reduce the risk to the matador, sometimes the bull’s horns are shaved. This can inflict some pain on the bull and can also make it more sensitive to other forms of pain during the fight.(3)  Moreover, bulls are not the only creatures to suffer in bullrings. The tormented bull does not understand that it is the man on the horse's back that is causing his pain, only that he is in agony. He therefore sees the horse as his enemy as much as the man. It's not unusual for horses used in bullfights to be so badly gored by the bulls that they have to be killed, but only after they have been dragged from the ring and the view of the spectators.(4)  All this suffering makes bullfighting as unacceptable as the many other kinds of animal cruelty which most countries ban, such as cockfighting, dogfighting or any other form of grievous harm inflicted on an animal for 'entertainment' purposes.(2)  We have these laws because governments have generally acknowledged the truth of Bentham's words: "It doesn't matter if they can reason; it doesn't matter if they can speak; what does matter is if they can SUFFER."(5)  All nations need to follow through on this principle by making bullfighting illegal, just like any other form of animal torture.

Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)  It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.

Bullfighting is too dangerous to humans to justify  Many matadors are gored each year. In 2010, famed matador Julio Aparicio was gored in the throat by a bull during the Festival of Saint Isidro. The bulls horn went through his neck and throat and up through his mouth. Such gruesome scenes, and the risks that matadors must take with their lives, have no place in a modern society.(7)  The culture and audience pressure of bullfighting actually increase the danger for matadors. The bullfighters perceived and praised as 'the best' are the ones that come closest to the bull, letting its horns pass inches by the fighter’s side, etc. The greater the risk for the bullfighter, the greater the reward from the crowd. The bullfighter is not trying to stay as far away as possible in order to make a riskless kill; they are trying to demonstrate their courage and bravery in the face of potentially fatal risks.(8)  In Spain and most other countries with bullfighting, the horns of bulls are not shaved, but rather kept sharp, increasing the danger for the matador.(8)  The state bans many other kinds of activities on the grounds that they are harmful to the participants: taking narcotics is illegal, driving without a seatbelt is illegal, and in many countries even legal guns are required to be fitted with safety devices to protect the user. This is yet another instance where, if the state did not step in, individuals would enter into certain activities which would be harmful to them. The need for the state is especially keen here due to the pressure to take risks put on matadors and others by the audience and the bullfighting community, which may lead many of them to take risks, and suffer injuries, they otherwise would not, for fear of losing 'face'. Bullfighting is just too dangerous to humans to allow, and so the state should step in and ban bullfighting to protect all those involved.

Tourists will visit Spain and other bullfighting countries regardless of whether or not bullfighting exists, and as people become more ethically aware and act accordingly while on holiday, tourist attendance at the shows looks set to fall even further. Indeed, a poll commissioned in April 2007 found that 89% of the British public would not visit a bullfight when on a holiday.(11)(3) Therefore the loss of tourist income will be minimal, as bullfighting does not even appeal to most tourists.  Those profits which do ensue from bullfighting generally end up in the hands of a small bullfighting elite, not the general population. Moreover, almost everywhere bullfighting requires significant government subsidies to function. The subsidies that prop up this declining industry take money away from serious social problems such as access to public health, education, infrastructures, the elderly, public safety, social housing and environmental policies.(11)

Many traditions have been defended for their cultural, traditional value. Stoning women for immodesty is one of them. Such tradition-for-tradition's-sake arguments do not actually prove anything, as cultures are constantly evolving and changing -the ban on bullfights can be just one more such change.(11)  The bullfighting tradition is based on cruelty to bulls, and so simply being 'old' and 'traditional' is not enough of a justification. Cruelty is cruelty no matter where in the world it happens. Our understanding of animals has improved a great deal in recent times. There is no place in the 21st century for a ‘sport’ which relies on animal cruelty for ‘entertainment’. Moreover, people need not see a bull die in order to understand death. Video, pictures, books, and news reports all make it possible for individuals to learn about and understand death. It's occurring around us naturally all the time. It is completely unnecessary, therefore, to artificially produce death in the bullfighting arena in order to create an appreciation of the cycle of life and death, etc. Nature watching is also a good alternative. Or even hunting or fishing, in which an individual generally attempts to quickly and decently kill an animal that they will then eat. Torturing a bull for entertainment is unnecessary when compared to these outlets for understanding life and death. Furthermore, majorities in bullfighting states oppose it as well. Recent polls have shown that in Spain 67% are not interested in bullfighting, and in France, 69% of people oppose public funding for bullfighting.(3)

Bullfighting is no more harmful than the alternatives for bulls and cows  Robert Elms argued in 2010 that "Those who see bullfighting as cruel are, of course, right. It is cruel that man should breed and kill animals for his enjoyment whether as a dinner or a dance. But to my mind the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture, never even seeing a man on foot, is far superior to that of the many thousands of British bulls whose far shorter lives are spent entirely in factory conditions and killed in grim abattoirs so that we can eat beefburgers."(10)  Moreover, Bulls are celebrated and honored in bullfighting. In most bullfighting countries, bulls are honored as mystical creatures of immense strength and beauty. Statues of bulls regularly stand outside of bullfighting stadiums, and depict the animals in the most majestic, strong, and beautiful way possible. These statues frequently standalone without an accompanying matador in the depiction.(8)  This respect and appreciation of the bull is a demonstration of the decency with which the art form treats the animal. All members of the bullfighting community, fighters and crowds alike, prize quick and relatively painless kills. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)  Therefore there is no compelling moral reason to ban bullfighting, as in many ways it is either no worse or even superior to the other roles assigned to cows and bulls in Western cultures. If anything, the end result (death for human enjoyment) is the same if the animal is eaten or dies in a bullring, but at least in a bullfight the cultural value and artistic expression gives the creature's life and death a poetry and nobility which it will never have in a mechanical slaughterhouse or a butcher's shop.

Bullfighting is economically important for some regions  "The ban will be economically disastrous for Catalonia, and not just because of direct losses," the head of Spanish bullfighting lobby group Mesa del Toro, Eduardo Martin Penato, told the online edition of daily newspaper Publico in January of 2010. Following the ban in Catalonia, sector representatives could demand as much as 400 million euros in damages in courts to compensate for losses caused by the ban, including to hotels, restaurants and other establishments.(12) A conservative lawmaker in the Catalan parliament noted that this "is enough to build six hospitals, 100 schools or fight against unemployment."  Top Spanish matador El Juli said about the Catalonia ban that it "would cause big losses for an important economic sector, which provides a livelihood for many families." The bullfighting sector directly employs about 40,000 people in Spain, according to some sector estimates. International accounting network BDO has also estimated that bullfighting generates about 2.5 billion euros a year for the Spanish economy, drawing 14 million spectators last year.(12) This sort of economic harm would be mirrored across bullfighting nations, as they would also lose out on tourist revenue which brings in vital foreign capital. These benefits to the economies of these (often poor) regions far outweigh any harms to the bulls.

Bullfighting is an art-form and an important cultural tradition  Ernest Hemingway said about bullfighting that it is "a decadent art in every way [...] if it were permanent it could be one of the major arts."(9) Bullfighting should thus not be understood as simply a 'bloodsport' with some cultural connotations but rather as an inherently cultural art form. The poet Garcia Lorca said in the 1930s that bullfighting is "the last serious thing in the modern world".(10)  In many ways the seriousness of watching a life-and-death struggle in the arena is nothing short of poetic and this significance is perceived not only by the audience and the bullfighting community but in the wider culture of the nations which currently permit bullfighting. Robert Elms argued in 2010 that, in nations which do not practice bullfighting, “Our squeamishness means that we prefer death which is mechanical and invisible, while the Spanish understand that it is part of a cycle.[...] It is a public celebration of death (a subject we prefer to hide from in Britain) which, when it is done well, becomes a celebration of life. The man charged with the task of delivering a fine end to this fierce and powerful creature will dance with it along the way, laying his own life on the line to create a swirling symbiosis."(10)  Hemmingway echoed this, arguing that bullfighting promoted an understanding of violent death: "The only place where you could see life and death, i. e., violent death now that the wars were over, was in the bull ring and I wanted very much to go to Spain where I could study it. I was trying to learn to write, commencing with the simplest things, and one of the simplest things of all and the most fundamental is violent death."(9)  This is why Madrid and other places have protected and recognized bullfighting as an art form, not just a sport.(1)  The understanding and cultural value in the bullfighting nations stems from their long history of the practice. Bullfighting traces its roots to prehistoric bull worship and sacrifice. The killing of the sacred bull (tauroctony) is the essential central iconic act of Mithras, which was commemorated in the mithraeum wherever Roman soldiers were stationed. The oldest representation of what seems to be a man facing a bull is on the celtiberian tombstone from Clunia and the cave painting "El toro de hachos", both found in Spain.(8)  The continuity of the modern bullfights with these ancient commemorations is shown by the fact that in Spain, many youth idealize bull fighters for their strength, grace, and wit in outmaneuvering bulls.(10)  This is valuable in inspiring and compelling success in future generations. Bullfighting is a genuinely popular and enjoyed cultural art form in many nations: Spanish bullrings are not kept alive by tourists. Rather, despite the economic recession which has hit Spain especially hard, the bullfights are still thriving, its top practitioners are huge stars, and its fan are intensely devoted, because it is still the very soul of this dark and complex country. Bullfighting thrives because its local fans are dedicated, and they are dedicated because they perceive its poetry and value to the culture.(10)  Thus bullfighting has a cultural value which trumps misplaced concerns regarding 'animal rights', especially as 'animal rights' are simply a concept created by each culture and defined in different ways. Culturally, it is acceptable in the West to eat meat, and so this is legal even though it causes cows to suffer and die. Similarly, the culture of the bullfighting countries places a value upon the bullfight, thus privileging it above the 'rights' of the animal. To allow the moral qualms of other non-bullfighting cultures to dictate cultural practices in Spain or Mexico would be to privilege these other cultures' values above those of bullfighting nations, and deprive them of part of their uniqueness. As Robert Elms argues, if the bullfight dies out due to the pressure of other cultures' moral qualms, bullfighting nations will become "more like everywhere else, dominated by gaudy globalism and neutered by the homogenising forces of technology and accepted taste."(10)

There is nothing noble or poetic about the death of a bull in a bullring. The bulls in a standard bullfight are drugged and confused animals, debilitated and run in circles by others who stab them with spears before the matador approaches to make the "kill shot" with his sword. Anyone who believes this fight to be fair is mistaken. By the time a matador approaches to actually kill the bull, the animal typically has enough spears in his neck and back muscles to prevent him from fully lifting his head.(7)  By contrast, most nations have laws regulating slaughterhouses to ensure that animals killed for meat endure as little pain as possible. The animal is unaware of 'dignity' or 'poetry', but rather only knows its suffering, and consequently this all that the state should take into consideration, with the logical conclusion being to ban bullfighting to protect the animal.

This would certainly make sense if it was expected that the cull would eliminate bovine TB however this is not the case. The estimated reduction in bovine TB cases is expected to only be 16% as a result of a cull of 70% of badgers in an area. [1] This is because only a small proportion of badgers, possibly as low as 6% and at most 30-40%, have bovine TB. [2] Another reason is that other animals, such as deer and foxes, also can pass on bovine TB. [3] Clearly most of the cost in terms of compensation will therefore remain. There may be some small cost savings but these are marginal.  [1] Ghosh, Pallab, ‘Badger cull will reduce cattle TB infections slightly’, BBC News, 28 September 2012,   [2] Packham, Chris, ‘like Owen Paterson, I had pet badgers. But their real place was in the wild’, theguardian.com, 27 August 2013,   [3] Worral, Patrick, ‘FactCheck: the badger cull – what we know and what we don’t know’, Channel 4 News, 27 August 2013,

A cull would save on the cost of compensation to farmers  A cull would be much cheaper than the cost of compensating farmers for their losses as a result of bovine TB. The cost of the disease to the taxpayer is estimated to be £1billion over the next ten years – mostly as a result of compensation payments for farmers. This cost also damages farmers’ livelihoods as the average cost of a TB breakdown on a farm is £34,000 of which the farmer has to pay £12,000. [1] By contrast the cost of the cull is estimated to be £1000 per square kilometre per year meaning the trials for the culls would cost a total of £2.2million. This then is considerably cheaper than the cost of the disease so will be saving both farmers and taxpayers a considerable cost. [2]  [1] ‘Bovine TB (tuberculosis)’, Department for Environment, Food &amp; Rural Affairs,26 March 2013,   [2] Agencies, ‘How badger cull policy was reached’, The Telegraph, 27 August 2013,

Clearly such actions would be against the law. It has been made clear that even if there were to be a cull the protections that currently exist for badgers would continue to exist as before any cull. For individuals to be taking the matter into their own hands if there is no cull would be illegal and should be punished as such.

A cull is needed to prevent bovine TB  Bovine TB is a disease that affects cattle. When a herd is infected the animals in question need to be slaughtered to prevent the disease getting into the foodchain. The UK’s Chief vet, Nigel Gibbons argues that the risk of infection of humans will increase if there is no cull. [1] Since the protection of badgers in 1992 there have been increases in the numbers of badgers and at the same time an increase in infections. In 1992 there were only about 800 infected herds but by 2012 that had increased to 9000. Scotland, which has only 10% of the UK’s badgers compared to 25% in the South West of England has very low prevalence of bovine TB. [2] It seems clear that we need to halt the spread of bovine TB to prevent the infection of humans and a badger cull has to be a part of the answer.  [1] Bawden, Tom, ‘Chief vet: We need badger cull to prevent spread of TB to humans’, The Independent, 30 May 2013,   [2] ‘Bovine tuberculosis statistics and costs’, bovinetb.info,  (chart f and j)

Some of the costs are largely illusionary. Yes we stop food that is tested positive from bovine TB from getting into the food chain but this ignores that the tests are not accurate so there is likely meat that is infected getting into the foodchain anyway. Bovine TB is mostly in parts of cattle that are not eaten and cooking kills the TB bacterium. At the same time almost all milk is pasteurised so again the bacterium is killed posing no risk to human health. [1]  The main difficulty with the argument that a cull will prevent TB is that we do not know which way infections run. Do badgers infect cattle or the other way around. Currently the evidence suggests that it is cattle that infect badgers this is why there are areas with high badger populations without bovine TB problems such as the north of England. It is all but certain that any large jumps in infection over large distances are the result of cattle to cattle transmission. [2] Looking at the chart presented it is clear that the biggest jump from under 2000 to over 5000 infected herds occurs immediately after foot and mouth suggesting the increase was a result of cattle movements.  [1] ‘expert reaction to TB test-positive cattle entering the food chain’, Science Media Centre, 1 July 2013,   [2] Dawson, D.G., ‘Badgers and TB, where is the science?’, University of Birkbeck, March 2013,  (6, 10, 11)

If there is no cull farmers will simply carry out their own killing  Without a cull farmers will simply take the issue into their own hands in order to protect their herds. If the government will not act on the issue of badgers then farmers will feel they are left with no choice. According to groups that aim to protect badgers there are already an estimated 9,000 badgers killed each year through gassing, poisoning, and baiting. [1]  [1] Jenkinson, Stephen, ‘Protect the Badger, Why Bother?’, South Yorkshire Badger Group,

A vaccine for cattle does not yet exist in a form where it is possible to tell the difference between a vaccinated cow and a cow infected by bovine TB. This means that vaccinated cattle would have to be treated the same way as infected cattle so would not be salable. Vaccination is not 100% effective and would run the risk of other countries banning exports. [1] Vaccination of badgers on the other hand is costly with the first phase of the welsh trials having amounted to £662 per jab despite the vaccine itself costing much less. [2]  [1] ‘Cattle Vaccination’, Department for Environment, Food &amp; Rural Affairs, 24 January 2013,   [2] ‘NFU Cymru slams bovine TB vaccination costs’, NFU Cymru, 29 January 2013,

In this instance the question is one of balancing suffering. Yes culling will result in a certain amount of suffering from badgers but not culling and letting TB run rampant causes suffering in cattle. To humans cattle are much more valuable than badgers as we have several uses for their produce. It is clear that if there has to be suffering it should be badgers, not cattle that do so.

Culling could increase rather than reduce TB  There have been trials of culls of badgers before and they have not been successful. In a randomised badger culling trial in 30 areas of England each measuring 100km2 it was found that “removing badgers by culling was found to disrupt their social organisation, causing remaining badgers to range more widely both inside and around the outside of culled areas.” The result of increased movement was “Proactive culling was associated with a 25% increase in the incidence of cattle TB on neighbouring un-culled land.” [1] Reactive culling can result in even higher increases with the risk of bovine TB more than doubling. [2] Clearly this could be dealt with through a complete cull that would not encourage movement of badgers but as the badger remains protected this is not possible. There are also difficulties with knowing how many badgers there really are because they live underground and only come out a night. Counting by numbers of setts is unreliable when there may be many that are disused or where there are badgers that use more than one sett. [3]  [1] Bourne, John, et al., ‘Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB’, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs,  Pp.19-20  [2] Imperial College London News Release, ‘badger Localised reactive badger culling raises bovine tuberculosis risk, new analysis confirms’, Imperial College London, 13 July 2011,   [3] Carrington, Damian, ‘Counting the cost: fears badger cull could worsen bovine TB crisis’, The Guardian, 27 May 2013,

A relaxation in cattle controls, not badgers, caused the problem  Bovine TB was almost eradicated in the UK yet the number of cases have shot up since the 1990s. The cause however is not badgers. Rather it is the result of BSE and Foot and Mouth disease which resulted in huge numbers of cattle being destroyed. To help the cattle farmers get back on their feet restrictions were all but lifted and cattle were moved all over the country. It is notable that the Isle of Man, which has no badgers, does have bovine TB. [1]  John Bourne, who led a trial of badger culling, suggests the cattle movement controls should be tightened before anything as drastic as a cull is undertaken. “The cattle controls in operation at the moment are totally ineffective… It's an absolute nonsense that farmers can move cattle willy-nilly after only two tests. Why won't politicians implement proper cattle movement controls? Because they don't want to upset farmers.” The problem is that the tests are not accurate so herds can pass the tests while they still have the disease so when cattle are moved they infect other herds. [2]  [1] Kaminski, Julia, ‘Badger culls don't stop tuberculosis in cattle – the evidence is clear’, theguardian.com, 11 August 2011,   [2] Carrington, Damian, ‘Counting the cost: fears badger cull could worsen bovine TB crisis’, The Guardian, 27 May 2013,

There are other options to a cull  Culling badgers is just one option for reducing the incidence of bovine TB. We are forgetting that the rate of bovine TB is increasing mostly because the UK was very successful at wiping out bovine TB in the past. In the 1930s the national infection rate was around 4 in 10 cattle, this was reduced to less than one in 1000 in the mid-1960s. [1] This was done by removing infected cattle; this is still done today but that it was so successful in the past shows that other methods work. Badgers are not a new species in the UK and would have represented the same risk in the 1960s.  Also potentially a better option is vaccination. This can be done either by vaccinating the badgers, or most effectively by vaccinating the cows. Wales has opted to go for a vaccination of badgers, a field study has found that vaccination can result in a 74% reduction in the proportion of wild badgers testing positive for TB. [2] It can also be done comparatively cheaply by using volunteers (the same people who are campaigning against the culls). It will still cost £2000 per km2 (about twice the cull) and it is clear that even if herd immunity is achieved in badgers this won’t immediately stop infections of cattle from badgers but considering the cull is expected over 9 years with only a 16% improvement in infection rates a vaccine would seem to be a good alternative. [3]  [1] Rollins, Julian, ‘Badgers: To cull or not to cull’, BBC Countryfile, 8 April 2009,   [2] ‘Research into Bovine TB’, Department for Environment, Food &amp; Rural Affairs, 10 December 2012,   [3] ‘Bovine TB vaccination no magic bullet say MPs’, parliament.uk, 5 June 2013,

Culling badgers is inhumane  The culling of badgers will not be done in a humane way. The intention is that badgers will be shot by trained marksmen but according to the RSPCA “Their anatomy makes it difficult to shoot a free-roaming badger” the result is likely to be large numbers of injured badgers with many escaping “suffer agonizing deaths underground.” [1] As badgers are sentient beings we should be seeking to avoid causing them harm and suffering.  [1] RSPCA, ‘RSPCA deeply saddened by start to badger cull’, politics.co.uk, 27 August 2013,

As opposition itself has stated we do not know the exact cause of the transmission of bovine TB and the increase in cases. Badgers are almost certain to be one cause if the increase so they must be dealt with. There are already controls on the movement of cattle; they need to have tests first and this has not halted the increase so something else needs to be tried.

An area of 100km2 is not particularly large thus making it possible for badgers to be moving into areas where there has been no culling. In a more general cull this would not be possible as the badgers would simply be moving into other areas which have also seen culls.

Out of town centres distort urban growth patterns. Because they are not organic growth, out of town centres often warp local infrastructure provision. So, while (for example) they may have good access roads built, there will be fewer amenities built at the same time, and subsequent residential development which follows in the path often grows too quickly to incorporate the sort of planned town infrastructure which developed in more traditional, carefully planned town centre environments. Because out of town centres often do not clearly serve a particular residential area, they distort growth as it means that, rather than responding to a residential area's needs, the centre is built and attracts residential development around it for convenience, regardless of whether this is the most appropriate planning approach for local communities.

Out of town centres bring development in their wake.  Out of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aesthetically unappealing "brownfield" sites, the injection of large investment by a retailer is a vote of confidence in the area and this has a knock-on effect in the local economy. The out of town centre acts as a magnet for further positive development locally. Other amenities and housing will typically start to congregate near the shop and the centre creates a boom for the local economy. This is not only true in the initial construction stages, it will also apply once it is up and running, as retail staff will typically be recruited fairly locally. In Edinburgh, the multi-million development of the out-of-town shopping centre in Livingston is believed to have created more than 1500 jobs alone1.  1 Edwards, G. (2005, July 28).

t of town malls do not serve shopper interests well. It is time-consuming for shoppers to visit out of town centres because of their distance from population centres and the tendency for their access roads quickly to become clogged with traffic. This can eradicate any time saving from the convenience of having shops or retail categories clustered in a single geographical location. They also marginalise parts of society. For example, people without access to cars are effectively excluded from actively using them. This especially affects some social groups, e.g. the poor and the elderly. Ultimately, if out of town malls reduce their town centre shopping options, they will have less not more shopping choice.

Malls promote competition and serve consumers well  Hypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purchasing power and economies of scale, large retail chains with huge outlets such as Wal-Mart, Tescos and Carrefour can offer products much more cheaply than smaller high-street rivals. The convenience and greater enjoyment offered by out of town malls can also push urban shopping centres into improving their own provision for consumers. This can be seen through improvements in the urban environment, better policing, cheaper parking and more ease of access, and the provision of entertainment and special events (e.g. farmers markets, foreign markets and street festivals) to draw shoppers in from a wider area. The public have voted with their feet, in 2003 48% of everything bought in Britain was bought in out of town stores1.  1 Watkins, M. (2003, June 27). The phenomenon of out of town retailing in the UK. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from AC Nielsen:

Out of town retail developments actually reduce effective competition because smaller urban outlets are not able to compete with them on price. In the United States for example, Wal-Mart pays workers the bare minimum and imports goods produced for a lot cheaper overseas1. Local stores cannot compete. After a while the urban shopping centre will become "hollowed out", with most stores shutting and only a few niche retailers or stores catering to poorer and less mobile social groups remaining. Once this competition is removed, the out of town stores can put up their own prices, especially as malls and other out of town retail centres are actively planned to reduce direct competition within particular retail sectors (e.g. only one large food retailer, only one Do-It-Yourself store, only, only a few shoe shops, etc.).  1 Freeman, R. (2003, November 21). Wal-Mart collapses U.S. cities and towns. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Executive Intelligence Review:

Out of town shopping malls offer a better shopping experience  Out of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of town retail development than an urban or town centre shopping area. Typically, out of town malls offer access roads which are not crowded and plenty of "free" car parking. This is welcomed by shoppers and is in contrast to many city centre or high street shopping areas. It is also convenient for shoppers to be able to make their purchases under one roof. In an out of town shopping centre, shoppers are typically able to complete their purchases in one covered mall, and perhaps even in one giant store. This is less time-consuming and less stressful than the more traditional experience of needing to visit multiple different shops. In addition, the interiors of shopping centres are actively managed and so are typically clean, relatively safe and may offer their own entertainment (e.g. skating rinks, cinemas, live music). This is typically less true of more traditional shopping areas, where for example at night poor lighting may be off-putting to some shoppers. As retail outlets in town continue to close, Britain reports growing demand for out-of-town shopping vacancies1.  1 Kollewe, J. (2011, June 14). High street chains snap up spaces in out-of-town shopping parks. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from The Guardian:

Out of town shopping centres do not damage local communities, they strengthen them. Shopping is easier, more convenient and more accessible than before, leaving more time for community activities. Furthermore, they act as hubs for community cohesion, teenagers can use the entertainment facilities, parents can shop. Any residential opportunities that arise only 'hollow' the community out for a short period of time, the influx of investment in the area (propelled by the shopping centre's presence) will ensure that the town and the shopping centre gradually close back together.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

Out of town malls damage town centres  Out of town malls damage town centres. Because the out of town developments are remote from the town centre, shoppers go there without passing the urban shops, which eliminates the opportunistic purchases which form a large part of many small shops' custom. They also damage the sense of community spirit. Out of town centres are typically managed by national firms and house chain shops, whereas the town centre will normally have a larger proportion of locally owned and run shops. Not only does this encourage a net outflow of money from the local community, it also reduces local involvement in the town centre, which can have a negative knock-on effect on civic pride and municipal participation. In Douglas, Arizona shops in the town centre have been forced to close due to a loss in sales to out-of-town centres. According to a 2010 report, over 23% of all spending on groceries was spent outside of the town itself, causing at least one major store in-town to fold and put all its employees out of work1. As such, out of town centres also remove a sense of local diversity. Because out of town centres are typically nationally run from outside the community, they all look alike and are less sensitive to local shoppers' needs. They are more likely to focus on homogenous product and service offerings across their sites.  1 Blaskey, L. (2011, July 13). Safeway to close. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Douglas Dispatch:

Out of town centres damage local communities' identities  Out of town centres damage local communities' identities. In addition to the damage they do to local trade and civic identification, out of town centres are often far enough out of town that they are not clearly regarded as forming part of the local community. Frequently they lie outside the jurisdiction of the urban council, and so contribute nothing to the local area in taxes. One proposal has suggested using additional taxes on out-of-town retailers to ensure that British high streets can be either maintained or revived1. Furthermore, as out of town centres start to attract residential building nearby, this can "hollow out" the community identity and economic viability of the original town.  1 Travel Weekly. (2011, May 19). Out-of-town retailers 'must fund town centre revival'. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Travel Weekly:

Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment  Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment. They encourage pollution because they are further from town centres than traditional retail units and encourage the use of cars for fairly short, environmentally harmful journeys. They also frequently involve the destruction of large areas of countryside, not only to accommodate the retail development itself, but also the parking, access roads and secondary development that usually follows. This is made worse by the standard one or two story design of modern malls, which results in wasteful sprawl. Efficient urban development, by contrast, tends to go upwards (or downwards) in multi-storey buildings, often with parking below and apartments above retail space. Friends of the Earth, an environmental lobby, has recently pushed a ban in Northern Ireland on all out-of-town shopping centres, arguing they 'increase consumption and waste and dramatically increase cars on the road'1  1 Friends of the Earth. (2011, June 10). No more out of town shopping centres. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland:

Out of town shopping centres represent a sensible, efficient land use. Large-scale shopping does not sit well with residential behaviour. For example, early morning deliveries and late-night shopping can create a lot of noise. In a traditional environment where shops are immediately beside residential areas, this is a nuisance to local residents; this is not the case in out of town sites. Only out of town locations offer the retail industry the space it needs to function. To run an efficient modern shop, large amounts of space with particular planning needs often have to be used. This is often incompatible with densely populated, built-up areas where retail units are largely unable to be altered significantly to meet modern needs.

The costs of establishing and administering a cap-and-trade system could be substantial. It demands that a cap be set, monitored, and enforced. This is a highly complicated process, given the size of the energy market, and would demand substantial administrative oversight. Further, should the monitoring not be perfect, given the size and power of the firms involved, it is likely that they will be able to find loopholes in order to deal with the problem.  A carbon tax is predictable, as are most simple tax systems. A cap-and-trade system, on the other hand, is subject to market fluctuations, speculation, and volatility. This could have a bad effect on energy prices. Specifically, if the market becomes subject to speculative attack, it would be likely that energy companies would have to offset the risks in the market by raising energy prices. Further, such market volatility could lead to certain energy companies being unduly punished for changes in the market that they simply could not have predicted. [1]  [1] “Carbon Markets Create a Muddle.” Financial Times. 26/04/2007

Cap and Trade is More Economical Than a Carbon Tax  "The efficiency [of a cap-and-trade system] comes with the "trade" part. Let's say you have two power plants, each emitting 100 tons of carbon per hour. The first can reduce its emissions by 20 tons at a cost of $5 per ton, and the second can reduce its emissions by only 10 tons, at a cost of $30 per ton. Clearly the efficient thing to do is to make the former reduction rather than the latter, with the owner of the second plant paying the owner of the first plant to offset the first owner's extra costs [by buying carbon credits and the "right" to pollute from the first plant]." [1]  This technique allows effective emissions reductions to occur at the lowest cost. Hence as this is less disruptive to business they are more likely to be on board and not try to get around a cap and trade system using accounting methods in the same way that they might with a tax.  A cap-and-trade system is more flexible in the global economy. Nations that adopt a cap-and-trade system can later link that system into other cap-and-trade systems around the world. It would not be as easy for a carbon tax to achieve this. This is important in today's global economy, where multinational companies exist across borders.  As such cap-and-trade is the most viable solution that if implemented could lead to a long term solution and agreement between countries regarding reductions in emissions. [2]  [1] Nast Conde, “Why a Cap-And Trade System Beats a Carbon Tax.” Portfolio.com 19/04/2007   [2] Nast Conde, “Why a Cap-And Trade System Beats a Carbon Tax.” Portfolio.com 19/04/2007

A carbon tax essentially considers all carbon emissions harmful to the environment, and warranting of equal punishment so is therefore fairer. A cap-and-trade system only punishes carbon emissions above a certain level, treating only certain kinds of emissions as "bad". A carbon tax, therefore, sends a strong message to polluters that all their emissions are harmful, that they should be phased out, and that they should invest in environmentally-friendly sources of energy. This dramatic message may be particularly important if we view global warming to be a serious crisis.  Companies are even willing to pay a premium for the stability provided by this system [I1] ; the premium being the tax itself, and the lack of the potential for profit through the trading of carbon credits. Further as a system that is easy to understand it is easier for directors to allow their firms to ease in to the system. [1]  [1] Ugur Akinci, “Carbon Tax Versus Cap And Trade Approaches to Global Warming – Part 1.” Doubletaxes.com 2007   [I1] Examples and case studies required.

Cap and Trade is Better at reducing carbon emissions than a carbon tax.  A cap-and-trade system provides companies with credits if they are able to reduce their emissions below an established level. They can then sell these credits for a profit. So, if a company takes action to reduce its carbon emissions below the designated level, than it can make a profit. This is a powerful market incentive that is more likely to cause companies to invest money in finding ways to reduce their carbon emissions. A carbon tax, conversely, only provides the incentive of cutting costs, and does not offer this important profit motive.  With cap-and-trade emissions are much more likely to be meaningfully reduced, specifically because the cap is static and as such nations can choose to raise and lower it as they wish. Within this mechanism, market prices would simply reflect the availability of credits. As such, nations can guarantee a reduction in carbon emissions just by reducing the number of credits in the market.  Finally, because cap and trade affects all companies and minimises cost to them, it provides all companies with an incentive to work toward green technology. Under the status quo, where subsidies and research grants are paid to businesses researching emissions reduction technology, the government has to decide which companies are “best” at solving the ecological damage that industry causes. Other companies feel they don’t have to contribute because they are simply being taxed instead. We do not know where the next development in green technology will come from. As such a smaller impetus for everyone is likely to be better than a large impetus for a small number of companies who might not, in any event, be able to develop workable solutions to emissions problems. [1]  [1] Mankiw, Gregory, “Carbon Tax Problem,” 11/04/07

A tax on carbon by comparison to a cap and trade system provides a much more powerful message regarding the importance of carbon policy. Whilst a trade system seems to the general public and to an extent to firms, like simply another product to manage, a tax carries very strong connotations owing the severity of other taxes levied by governments. As such it provides a stronger incentive for firms to change their attitudes toward carbon.  Further, a cap and trade system is flawed because often polluters will pollute heavily before the system begins. As the only way to implement cap and trade is to do so based on past emissions (or risk being incredibly unfair), this means that many companies will emit as much as possible so that their baseline emissions will be set highly enough to give them a measure of leeway.  Further, a carbon tax system is much easier to change based on the effects of the policy on climate change in the future. Whereas a cap and trade system must deal with changes to the market of cap and trade itself as well, as changes to the overall market. A cap and trade system is more complicated than a centrally imposed tax. Therefore, it will be harder to predict and adjust the behaviour of the credit market in the future.  A carbon tax also allows for the redistribution of the taxed money into researching green causes. It leads to a better overall result because money can be focused on companies that have shown progress in this area and taken from those companies that have no intention of changing the field. [1]  [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009

A Cap and Trade system is fairer to producers  Carbon emitting energy industries emerged long ago, before anyone thought about the environmental impact of this industry. It is wrong to suddenly consider all energy production that involves carbon emissions a social "harm", after decades of thinking to the contrary. Modern energy producers should not be punished for their participation in an industry whose emergence pre-dates concerns of global warming.  Further, A cap-and-trade system is "fair" because it rewards "efficient"-polluters while punishing "non-efficient" polluters: Given the above argument, this is a more reasonable approach to rewarding and punishing an industry whose emergence pre-dates the environmental concerns surrounding carbon emissions.

A carbon tax would be more likely to pass on problems to consumers. With the tax being as clear as it is, firms could quite easily appeal to the public and claim that it is the government that is causing them to change prices. Given the inelastic nature of the markets for energy and food, if a number of core companies were to take this action at the same time, then it could simply lead to the government taxing people more for the mistakes and harm that firms cause.  Whilst the public bear some measure of responsibility by consuming the firms’ products, the majority of the cost should be borne by the firm. This is especially true in energy markets where it is impossible for consumers to simply avoid using energy altogether. Moreover, businesses are in a better position to control and improve the efficiency of their operations than their customers are.  Given that a cap and trade system results in a lower loss for firms it is less likely to be passed on to the people instead.

The basic problem is that a carbon tax would be seen as a new tax. New taxes are typically unpopular. This makes it hard for politicians to support a carbon tax, as they are beholden to their constituents, and their likely desires to avoid such a tax. This in itself makes it unlikely a Carbon Tax would ever be implemented.  Further, a carbon tax would require complicated enforcement mechanisms. These mechanisms would impose an administrative burden on the state more severe than that created by a cap-and-trade system. In a carbon tax, emitters would pay a tax for every tonne of carbon emitted. This requires that the government know precisely how much carbon is being emitted by energy producers. This is not easy to determine, and requires that a government put in place monitoring mechanisms. Deploying these mechanisms universally would be very complicated, expensive, and require much administration. Then, ensuring that all these monitoring devices operate properly and that all energy producers comply with the tax would also involve a substantial administrative overhead.  This would be equally as complicated as a cap-and-trade system, which requires much the same administration, but also encourages other companies to keep tabs on their competitors and their emissions. Credit trading spreads the administrative costs of carbon taxation over a number of companies, all of whom will be acting to protect their carbon credit investments and the stability of the market they are traded on.

Carbon Taxes Are More Progressive both Politically and Economically than Cap and Trade  Carbon taxes are progressive and help economically marginalised communities to a much greater extent than cap and trade. Currently, affluent businesses, individuals and legal persons usually emit a much larger amount of carbon than poor people. A flat tax on emissions causes a significant amount of money to be redistributed from the rich to the poor. Moreover, the poorest in society are often the first and worst affected by environmental damage. They lack the capital necessary to move out of areas affected by problems such as smog and water pollution.  A carbon tax is a particularly useful system of redistributive justice, because money made from taxing firms can then be reinvested into finding greener energy solutions. Specifically this money can be invested in green energy companies that have already shown progress in producing goods that reduce carbon consumption. As such, a carbon tax not only reduces carbon consumption directly, but can also do so indirectly by investing in technology to prevent carbon consumption in the future. [1]  [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009

Cap and Trade will Harm Energy Consumers  Carbon trading would harm smaller and start-up business to a significant extent. It is easier for wealthy companies to reduce their carbon consumption as they have a greater level of wealth and thus a greater ability to do so. As such under a market mechanism they would have more credits. Poorer businesses would have to buy carbon credits from the richer ones, compromising competitiveness; in addition, small business parks and areas attractive to start-ups would potentially become sinkholes for pollution under the proposition. The resolution could undermine the efficiency and profitability of small but agile engineering and manufacturing firms, such as the mittelstand businesses that have recently flourished in Germany.  The volatility of cap and trade markets means that firms would have to insure against the markets turning against them. In practical terms, this means that following the implementation of a cap and trade scheme firms would have to significantly increase fuel prices in order to hedge against the possibility of the market turning against them and harming their company. As such even if cap and trade is a more “efficient” system it still harms consumers significantly.

Cap and Trade is Less Feasible Than a Carbon Tax  Carbon taxes are useful owing to the transparency behind them. It helps companies working for green causes gain a strong reputation and support among the public because they are seen to be paying for their pollution. A cap and trade system is significantly more difficult to understand and as such this means that there will likely be less public will behind the system and thus a lesser incentive for transparency.  A cap-and-trade system demands that the government determine the emissions baselines for companies, the allocation of carbon credits, and the monitoring and enforcement of all of the above. This is a major administrative burden. A carbon tax would be simpler and require less oversight, and would cost domestic tax payers less.  The complexity of a cap-and-trade system would make it easier for companies to cheat. This is largely because the enforcement of this system would be difficult and open to manipulation by skilled lawyers, accountants and consultancy firms.  Further, Governments have the incentive to establish conditions favourable to the performance of their own national companies. They can do so by, for example, offering more carbon credits than they should to the companies of their country. The EU's emissions trading system is the primary example of this occurring. [1]  [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009

A "regressive" tax is one that disproportionately burdens poorer groups. The amount of money payable under a regressive tax gets lower as payment taxed increases, or the activity taxed becomes more productive.  Energy consumption generally makes up a larger portion of the personal budgets of poorer groups. This is because their budgets are significantly smaller and they tend to purchase a greater deal of perishable goods. Specifically, durable goods such as new sets of cutlery etc. tend not to increase the level of carbon consumption in a household. However, perishable goods such as food often need to be cooked.  Companies that are subjected to a flat carbon tax that cannot be offset by carbon credit training are likely to pass on some of their tax liability to consumers in the form of increased prices. As has already been established, the cost of consumables and energy purchases constitute a greater proportion of the income of poorer households. A flat carbon tax, even if levied against businesses and industrial polluters would, inevitably, be paid in part by the poor.  Tradable carbon credits, on the other hand, could conceivably result in a net transfer of wealth to the poor. Although the poor spend a bigger proportion of their income on energy, the wealthy consume a far greater amount of carbon in absolute terms. So under a cap-and-trade regime, we would expect the poor (and the energy thrifty) to have excess credits to sell to their more profligate neighbours. [1]  [1] Stein, Adam. “Carbon tax vs. carbon market: who would win in a fight?” Terrapass.com 15/08/2006

We agree that speciesism is wrong but we do not think that refusing animals rights is speciesist because there are relevant moral differences between animals and humans. And even if refusing animal rights is speciism, there is nothing wrong with speciesism in the first place. It is natural to value the lives of one's own species more than those of another species because we are programmed that way by evolution. We are expected to care more about our own families than about strangers and similarly to value the lives of our own species more than those of animals. It is only natural and right that if we had to choose between a human baby and a dog being killed we should choose the dog.

Speciesism is wrong  Just as racism is wrongful discrimination against beings of a different race and sexism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different gender, speciesism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different species. Wrongful discrimination occurs when there is no other reason for the discrimination except the mere fact that the being is of the race, sex, or species that they are. For example, if an employer refuses to employ a black woman over a white woman because she has an inferior qualification this is justified discrimination whereas if he refuses to employ the black woman simply because she is black then this is wrongful discrimination. Human beings are speciesist towards animals because we sacrifice their most important needs for our trivial desires: their life for our enjoyment of a burger.  You might think that we are allowed to have special relationships to people that are similar to us but there is a difference between special relationships and being active cruel and discriminatory. Our evolutionary instinct to protect our own species may not be ethically correct in contemporary society.  Similarly, we ought not to 'put down' animals who are too expensive to care for. We do not allow human beings to kill off their children when they experience financial difficulty because we believe that human beings value their lives. It would be justifiable to kill off something that has no interest in living, such as a plant, but since we believe that animals do have an interest in living it would be speciesist to kill off a puppy simply because it is not human. We know that society believes animals have an interest in living sometimes because there is outcry when baby seals are clubbed or when elephants are poached for their ivory. Yet at other times we are happy to eat animal flesh and wear leather. This is a contradictory stance. We ought to be consistent in our views and to condemn speciesists.  Refusing animals rights is speciesist. Speciesism is wrong. Therefore, it is wrong to deny animals rights.

Equality requires that two beings are actually equal on some fundamental level. Human beings have certain essential similarities that make them equal. These do not stretch to animals. Human beings are able to distinguish right from wrong while animals have no notion of ethics. We are thus able to consider what kind of a society we want to live in and we are affected when we feel that there is social degradation. Animals, however, do not have this sense. We have fundamental dignity which animals do not. This is clear in the fact that animals do not experience shame or embarrassment, desire respect, or have a notion of self. Furthermore, human beings can consider their future and have particular desires about how they want their life to play out. These are different for every individual. This is why we are concerned with choice and protecting individualism and religion. Animals on the other hand are concerned only with immediate survival. They have only instincts, not individual desires and wants.  For these reasons, we can't consider animals to be equally morally considerable. As for the propositions standard of relevance for the criteria which distinguish animals from humans in any given case, we would argue that the fundamental individuality and humanity of our species is relevant in every case because it makes animal life fundamentally less valuable.

Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights  Babies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being.

Animals are intrinsically worthy of rights because they are sentient  Sentience is the property of being conscious. Sentience brings with it the ability to experience. There is a massive difference in the way that we treat sentient and non-sentient beings instinctively. We see nothing wrong with forming relationships with one’s pets but we tend to deem people with emotional relationships to objects mentally ill. Here we are talking about something more than sentimentality but rather the kind of relationship in which one is concerned with the other party’s emotional wellbeing. We even feel concerned about the wellbeing of sentient beings which whom we do not have a personal connection. For example we may feel upset when we see a dog run over on the road. This would be a very difficult reaction to how we might feel if we see an object crushed by a car. We feel moral outrage at the clubbing of seals.  The instinctive way which we differentiate between these two categories relates to the type of value they have. Whilst objects have value because of how they affect us - e.g. they are useful or remind us of a good time or person – we believe that animals have intrinsic value.  This means that a sentient being must never be treated as a means rather than an end in and of itself. Animals are sentient. Therefore, animals must not be treated as a means to an end but as intrinsically valuable.

First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow.  People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals.  Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration.  In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable.

We do not analyse human beings on a case by case basis but rather by what distinguishes human beings as a whole, as a species. Infants have the potential to become rational and autonomous etc. The profoundly retarded represent flawed human beings. Retardation is not a human characteristic just as being 3-legged is not a characteristic of a dog though there are both retarded humans and 3-legged dogs.

Even if animals are able categorize images in photographs and learn sign language, they are still phenomenally less intelligent than human beings. They will never study philosophy or perform brain surgery or even invent a wheel. Furthermore, intelligence does not prove the ability to self-actualise. Mourning others does not prove that animals value their own lives. Perhaps it implies that animals enjoy company but whether they consider the value of their companion's life and their future potential is questionable. Without the ability to value one's own life, life itself ceases to be intrinsically valuable.  The farming of animals does involve death but it is difficult to prove that death is intrinsically a harmful thing. Pain is certainly a harm for the living but animals are farmed are killed very quickly and they are stunned beforehand. Animals on farms do not know that they will be killed so there is no emotional harm caused by the anticipation of death.  There is no evidence that the painless killing of animals should carry any moral weight.

Animals are equal to human beings.  It is true that animals and human beings are different. It is also true that men are different from women and children from adults. Equality does not require beings to be identical. It is true that whilst many people argue women should have the right to abortion, no one argues the same for men because men are unable to have an abortion. It is similarly true that whilst most people believe all human beings have a right to vote, no one argues that animals deserve a right to vote – even those who support animal rights.  Equality does not mean that beings all deserve the exact same treatment. It means rather that we consider equally the equal interests of animals and humans. If we deem amount A to be the maximum amount of suffering a person be allowed to endure, then that should apply equally to an animal, though humans and animals may suffer different amounts under different circumstances.  The principle of equality advocates equal consideration, so it still allows for different treatment and different rights. Equality is a prescriptive rather than a descriptive concept. What’s important is that beings should ONLY be treated differently where there is a morally relevant difference between them. For example, we can justifiably deny dogs the right to vote because there is a relevant difference in intelligence between dogs and humans. However, there is no justification for battery-farming chickens who have a capacity to suffer. There is evidence that they experience fear, pain and discomfort. Although chickens may be less intelligent and unable to speak , these differences are not morally relevant to whether or not they should be placed in these conditions.  We ought to consider animals equally to the way we consider humans. If we were to do so we would give animals rights. We ought therefore to give animals rights.

Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights.  We have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights.  First of all, animals have an equal capacity to experience pain. While we are unable to know exactly what other humans or animals are experiencing, we can make inference from what we observe. According to Peter Singer: “Nearly all the signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species...The behavioural signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on”. [1]  In addition we know that animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in a circumstance in which we would feel pain—an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure. Although human beings have a more developed cerebral cortex than other animals, this part of the brain is concerned with thinking functions rather than basic impulses, emotions, and feelings. These impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many other species of animals, especially mammals and birds.” Animals therefore have the capacity for physical and emotional suffering, and so should be granted rights.  [1] Singer, Peter. "All Animals are Equal." Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002

We clearly have direct duties to animals if we condemn the clubbing of baby seals and like activities. Furthermore, it is not enough simply to state what duties we do and don't have. There needs to be a reason why we do not have direct duties to animals. What distinguishes them from human beings that might answer this question? We would argue that there is nothing. Animals unlike other 'property' can suffer and feel pain and have an interest in living.

We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary.

Animals are not moral agents  It makes no sense to give animals rights because they cannot makes decisions about what is right and wrong and will not try to treat us in an ethical manner in return. Why make them a moral agent by giving them rights?

Most rights have no bearing for animals  The right to dignity would mean nothing to an animal. Animals are incapable of being humiliated and are not harmed by being reduced to human servitude. A dog is not ashamed of its nudity or having to eat out of a bowl and wear a leash. Animals happily copulate and defecate in front of humans and other animals. What exactly an undignified action might be for an animal it is difficult to say.  The right to education, to vote, to fair trial, to be innocent until proven guilty, to privacy, marriage, nationality, religion, property, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, workers rights and shelter all seem impossible to apply to animals.  If we specially tailor rights to animals then how is that different to the status quo where we have certain laws protecting animals?

Animals have no interests or rationality  Some philosophers argue that only beings that are able to make rational choices can have moral rights because the function of rights is to protect choice. Animals are not able to make rational choices because they can only follow instinct, they cannot follow logic.  Some philosophers believe that the function of rights is to protect interests. An argument from R.G. Frey argues that animals do not have interests because they do not have language. In order to desire something one must believe that one does not currently have that something and therefore believe that the statement ‘I have x’ is false. One cannot have such a belief unless one knows how language connects to the world. Animals can’t talk so they certainly are unable to know what it is that the sentence ‘I have x’ means in the real world. Therefore animals cannot have desires. Without desires animals cannot have interests. If the function of rights is to protect interests then animal rights serve no purpose. [1]  [1] Frey, R,G. "Rights, Interests, Desires and Beliefs." Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002

We only have indirect duties to animals  Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant argue that we only have indirect duties towards animals. This means that we may not treat animals in such a manner that our actions are in conflict with our duties towards human beings. A human has no duty towards a dog not to kick it but a human has a duty towards the dog's owner not to damage his property. Pigs and cows are not loved by any human being so we cause no harm when we kill and eat them. Though the farmer may have owned the cow before, the beef becomes our possession when we purchase it. Wild animals are not owned by any human being so we may do to them what we wish.  Some people argue that cruelty towards animals can lead to cruelty towards humans but there is no evidence that people who work in slaughterhouses are more violent towards other people. In fact, there seems little connection at all between how people treat animals and humans. A slave driver may adore and pamper his dog but beat and kill his slaves.  If we have no direct duties to animals how can we grant them legal protection in the form of rights? The law should only prevent us harming animals when that clearly harms other people. For example, by killing a dog we infringe another person's human right to property.

There is no reason why the rights we grant animals need be the same rights that we grant human beings. There may be laws that protect animals but these will be taken more seriously as rights because of the status we give to rights. Furthermore there are several rights that do apply to animals: the right to life, freedom of movement and the right not to be subjected to torture.

We are at the top of the animal hierarchy and should treat other animals accordingly in order to further our own species.  We have always been superior to animals. Just as a lion can kill antelope and a frog can kill insects, so too human beings have struggled their way to the top of the food chain. Why then can we not exercise the power we have earned? Animals exercise their power and we should do the same. It is our natural obligation to do so.  The reason we have always killed animals is because we need them. We need meat to be healthy and we need to test medicines on animals to protect our own race. We use animals to further our own race. This too is surely a natural obligation.

If only rational beings should be protected by rights then we should not protect babies or profoundly retarded people; but this is absurd. Animals do make choices according to their preferences e.g. lions choose a mate and dogs choose a spot to lie in the sun One is able to have interests without language because it is easily possible to be aware of a desire and understand that desire even if one does not think of that desire in words. Furthermore, there is some evidence that animals have languages of their own e.g. dolphins, birds.The challenger can also reject either theory of rights in favour of the other.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

To worry about animal rights more than human rights is not sensible. When the two are compatible, this is a good thing, but in this case the ban would have the effect of forcing Jews and Muslims to choose between keeping their religion and eating meat. This is a more important concern than animal welfare: although eating meat is not an essential part of life, it is not reasonable to deny it to someone.

We should treat animals well  It is important to treat animals as kindly as we can. Not causing harm to others is among the basic human rights. Although these rights cannot be said to apply directly to animals, we should extend them a certain respect as living, sentient beings, and as a minimum we should avoid causing them unnecessary harm. [1] Moreover, taking animal welfare seriously will accustom us to considering the effects of our actions in other contexts, and help us be generally sensitive to cruelty.  Inflicting unnecessary harm on animals is therefore a bad thing. Many governments already have many policies aimed at preventing this. For example, in 2004 the UK passed a law banning hunting with dogs on the grounds that it is cruel. [2] The Council of Europe and through it the European Union already requires stunning, with an exception for religious practices. [3] Removing this exception is the best course for animal welfare.  Killing animals for food may not be philosophically wrong – after all, many species do the same. But if we are going to do so, we should cause as little harm as possible in the process, and this requires using humane slaughter methods.  [1] ‘Why Animal Rights?’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2013,   [2] ‘Hunting and the law’, Gov.uk, 4 April 2013,   [3] The Member States of the Council of Europe, ‘European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter’, Strasbourg, 10.V.1979,

Doing something democratically doesn’t make it right or fair. No matter how much you care about animal rights, you have no right to force other people to do the same. The fact that you disagree with them doesn’t make them wrong.  We generally accept that the state may control what people do in order to protect society. This proposed ban goes beyond that remit, as religious slaughter of animals does not cause harm to other people. That being the case, it is unjust to stop them.

Slaughter without stunning is painful for the animal  Slaughter without stunning is painful for the animal. All slaughter methods which do not involve stunning work by bleeding the animal so that it suffers brain-death. This is normally done by cutting the neck. Depending on the species of animal, it can survive for anything between 20 seconds and 2 minutes after this.  Although animals can’t tell us if they are in pain, the best metrics we have – brain activity, eye movement and making sounds – indicate that the animals are in pain during this period. [1] Rendering the animal unconscious stops it feeling pain immediately.  When we have two methods of killing the animal available, it is inhumane to use the more painful one. It follows that we should require stunning.  [1] Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, ‘Slaughter of animals without prior stunning’, FVE Position Paper, FVE/02/104, 2002,

The evidence as to the amount of pain an animal feels is by no means clear. Many of the studies showing the animals suffer have been criticized for not carrying out the slaughter in the way prescribed by religious law. Moreover, other studies claim that cutting the throat in this way stops blood flow to the brain so rapidly that it has the same effect as a stun.  Despite all the evidence that religious slaughter does cause pain, the opposition to this remains scientifically credible, and so we can’t base a government policy on one or the other.

To successfully remove such meat from the food chain, any ban would have to extend to importing such meat. Under this model, Jews and Muslims would literally be forced to become vegetarian – a radical and discriminatory suggestion which significantly breaches their rights.  Consumers may very well want to be better informed about their meat. But labeling systems have been proposed which would address this concern without a ban. It also needs to be said that many non-religious abattoirs are also inhumane. To be fully ethical, any such labeling system would have to label all the animals where the stun didn’t work, and should also take account of the way the animals were raised and transported. Banning just religious slaughter is not a consistent moral position, and shouldn’t be government policy.

Animal welfare is a legitimate political aim  It is important for animal rights to be represented in political discourse. The animal rights movement has many supporters. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has 3 million members worldwide. [1] In the UK, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) are both in the 15 wealthiest charities. [2]  The point of democracy is that people decide collectively how they want their state to run. In one poll in the UK, 45% of people backed a ban on shechita. [3] Democracy requires that we take this seriously, and if the animal rights movement wins the debate then we should implement a ban.  [1] ‘Membership Services’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, accessed 30 May 2013,   [2] Rogers, Simon, ‘Britain's top 1,000 charities ranked by donations. Who raises the most money?’, guardian.co.uk, 24 April 2012,   [3] Rocker, Simon, ‘Forty five per cent of Britons ready to ban Shechita’, TheJC.com, 27 March 2013,

Since this meat is often sold unlabeled, this affects everyone  Meat from animals slaughtered without stunning can turn up anywhere. Some parts of each animal are not used in kosher food, and they are generally sold on the normal market. This means any supermarket product could turn out to have such meat in it. Halal food is even more common, and many places serve halal meat as standard. [1]  So we cannot just consider the religious community: this meat reaches everyone. People with concerns about the way their food is produced would be distressed if they knew they were eating meat which had been inhumanely slaughtered. The fact that they don’t actually know is neither here nor there – we should bear in mind their ethical positions.  Everyone is eating the meat, so everyone has a say. Banning the production of this meat would remove it from the food chain and help make sure people know what they’re eating.  [1] Fagge, Nick, ‘Halal Britain: Schools and institutions serving up ritually slaughtered meat’, Daily Mail, 25 January 2011,

Stunning is only unreliable when done badly. All of the objections listed represent cases where best practice was not being followed. It is important to implement stunning properly, but there are plenty of stunning methods which, when carried out properly and carefully, have been shown to be fully effective.  Religious slaughterhouses are not immune to failures either, with the most common reported problem being an insufficiently sharp knife. The same report cited by opposition condemns the religious slaughter of animals and says “when shechita is performed on chickens in Britain, only about half the birds have both their carotid arteries completely severed by the cut” allowing brain activity to continue for up to 349 seconds. [1] Requiring stunning will improve the base line of welfare we are working towards, and we can then start to worry about ensuring compliance  [1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001,  , p.19, 21

Although we want to protect freedom of religion, it is not as fundamental as other rights. When two rights clash, we have to decide which should take precedence – for example, your freedom of action is limited by my right not to be punched in the face. Further, we will normally resolve clashes so as to first stop physical harm, followed by emotional or other harm. Freedom of religion, though important, comes further down the list.  In this case, the more “fundamental” of the rights in play is the right of the animal to be protected from unnecessary pain. It is more closely linked to reducing suffering, which an appropriate goal for society. So in this particular case, we should put the animals first.

When done properly, religious slaughter is as good as any other  Much of the research which suggests that religious slaughter causes pain is flawed. To show that the method is necessarily painful, you would have to watch a trained person with perfect equipment. However, many studies into slaughter have observed religious slaughter done in a way which doesn’t meet the religious requirements, and so doesn’t tell us anything about the real world. For example, one study of shechita done in New Zealand used a knife which was half the length required by Jewish law, making it more likely to tear the wound and cause pain. [1] These are not trivial details – they materially affect the humaneness of the process.  As well as this, campaigners often conflate different types of slaughter in ways that are not scientifically accurate. Different animals – horses, cattle, sheep, poultry, rabbits etc. – and even different breeds of animals react differently to both the slaughter and the stunning. Before we can assess the applicability of a study we need to know what kind of animal was being used, the length and sharpness of the knife, the precise location of the cut and other details.  The available evidence only shows the unsurprising result that religious slaughter causes pain if done badly, just like any other kind of slaughter. It is sensible to argue for better regulation, but a ban is not supportable.  [1] Regenstein, Joe M., ‘Expert Opinion on Considerations When Evaluating All Types of Slaughter:  Mechanical, Electrical, Gas and Religious Slaughter’, Cornell University, 23 May 2011,

The problem is not a significant one  The animal welfare movement should be tackling more important things. In the UK, only about 3% of cattle, 10% of sheep and 4% of poultry are slaughtered without stunning. [1] Farming and transporting causes the vast majority of the pain in the life of a given animal before it ever arrives at the slaughterhouse. This is a much more important issue, as it affects every animal, not just the small proportion slaughtered without stunning.  From the slaughter to the animal actually dying is normally within 20 seconds, and can be as low as 2 seconds, depending on the species of animal. [2] The distress caused by this in not significant in the grand scheme of things. Given that the animal is being slaughtered, some discomfort is inevitable, but religious slaughter – even if it is more painful than slaughter with stunning – can hardly be described as prolonged or systematic cruelty.  [1] Rhodes, Andrew, ‘Results of the 2011 FSA animal welfare survey in Great Britain’, Food Standards Agency, 22 May 2012,   [2] Grandin, Temple, ‘Welfare During Slaughter without stunning (Kosher or Halal) differences between Sheep and Cattle’, Grandin.com, September 2012,

Attacking religious practices makes religious groups uncomfortable  Banning religious slaughter will be perceived by religious people as a direct attack on their faith. Historically, religious minorities have been susceptible to persecution, and these groups tend to remain quite sensitive. Often, people seeking to discriminate against a group will jump on the bandwagon of legitimate criticism and turn it into persecution. Religious slaughter has been used in this way in the recent past: a proposed ban in the Netherlands received much support from anti-Muslim groups. [1] This sort of persecution makes minorities less likely to integrate into society and compare values with us, which is exactly what we would like to encourage.  Appearances matter greatly in politics. All too often, the media focuses not on what is actually happening but on how people and politicians are talking about it. When a senior British politician was reported as having called a police officer a “pleb,” the result was outrage over perceived elitism in the government. [2] If a ban on religious slaughter were to be imposed, it is virtually guaranteed that someone or other would make insensitive comments, and this is how the ban would then be reported, as in the example from the Netherlands.  This ban would play into the hands of those seeking to stir hysteria and outrage. Whilst the principle may be correct, the government cannot appear to be siding with such people.  [1] ‘Dutch MPs effectively ban ritual slaughter of animals’, BBC News, 28 June 2011,   [2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Andrew Mitchell resigns over police comments row’, BBC News, 20 October 2012,

Most stunning methods are not reliable  The stunning methods in general use can and do go wrong. Electrical stunning requires the right size of charge, applied to the right place for the right amount of time. If done badly, the stun itself can cause pain, and can even fail completely. In one survey of Bristol abattoirs, not a single one was fully compliant with best-practice. Captive bolt stunning must also be done at a specific point on the animal’s head. A 1990 study found that in as many as 6.6% of cases, cattle had been insufficiently stunned, and 2.6% actually had to be shot again (one reported worst-case involved a cow being shot six times).  Poultry slaughter often takes place on a mechanized production line, which causes serious concerns. Birds are dragged through an electrically charged water bath to stun them, but a 1993 study showed that 13.5% of birds were receiving shocks prior to being stunned – again, causing needless pain. Some birds lift their heads out of the bath, avoiding the stun completely. [1] Other, similar problems are associated with other stunning methods.  Religious slaughter methods ensure that each animal is handled individually, so that it is kept calm, killed quickly and is properly dead. Because of the need to comply with religious law, the overseeing bodies put a large amount of effort into ensuring compliance with best-practice. Requiring them to stun animals actually causes more harm than good.  [1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001,

The animal welfare movement can tackle whichever problems it wants to. It is absurd for opponents of the movement to try and tell us what our agenda must be, or that we shouldn’t regard this as significant. Moreover, if we kept asking, “why are we spending our time on this,” we would never get anything done at all. It makes sense to pick achievable targets, and a ban on religious slaughter is achievable partly because of the relatively limited nature of the problem.  We can exploit the momentum this gives our movement to make further progress on other issues.

The rights of humans are more important than the rights of animals  Animal rights are not generally accepted as universal rights in the same way as human rights are. If we want to have a shared society, it is necessary to grant each other certain rights, such as respecting personal autonomy and property. Because we reciprocate, we are able to work as a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. There are different philosophical theories as to the source of these rights, but the important thing is what they allow us to achieve. It is generally accepted that the right to a religion is one of these rights, as for many people religion is fundamental to their identity – most estimates for the number of religious people in the world are over 80%. [1] In comparison, animal rights are in no way critical to society.  In our debate, freedom of religion is clashing with causing pain to animals. The former, being a human right, should take precedence over the latter, an animal right. Although we would not give blanket consent to all religious practices, this particular practice is one which there is no reason for banning.  [1] ‘Religions’, The World Factbook, 2010 est.,

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.  It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

Without accepting the premise that the two types of killing cause equal pain and it is only if the slaughter is done badly that there is a problem the slaughter is more likely to be done badly with religious slaughter. Training people to do religious slaughter well is harder than training them to do other kinds of slaughter. In particular, the latter is more mechanized, so as long as the equipment is properly maintained many problems can be avoided. Religious slaughter is much more prone to human error.  It will be much easier to teach people best practice and improve animal welfare if we require them to use the simpler methods, where less training is required. This is a more efficient way of improving animal welfare than studying a myriad of different types of knife etc.

The nuclear industry around the world has always sought to improve the rights and protections of workers in uranium mines and to lessen the environmental impact of those mining activities [i] .  Compared to the environmental impact of coal and oil withdrawal, uranium is relatively harmless.  Compared to the space taken up by windfarms with their impact on the local environment and the devastation that can be caused by Hydroelectric, this is a low impact industry.  [i] Press Release. “Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining”. World Nuclear Association. February 2011.

The nuclear industry is constantly judged on criteria that do not take its externalities into account  Nuclear puts great store on the fact that it is a ‘clean fuel’ however this assessment tends to ignore several factors in terms of social and other costs. Although much attention has been given to the possible harm of dealing with fuel rods at the end of their life, much less is given to the mining of Uranium in the first place. To take one of many examples, in 2006 the Navajo nation won a lengthy legal fight to prevent Uranium mining ever taking place on their land. Similar efforts by communities in Latin America have been less successful.  The industry bears none of the costs for the illnesses, poisoned rivers, fatalities and other costs of this process [i] .  [i] Laurie Fosner. “Uranium Mining in the Navajo Nation”. Sprol. 20 June 2006

All societies inherit problems from previous generations this age has acquired a global population that has increased seven-fold in the course of two generations and has a desperate need for energy. Nuclear power fills that need and consistently works to ensure that its byproducts are rendered harmless.  No industry has put more work into ensuring that it does not leave a mess behind it – nor is any industry under more scrutiny on the subject.  The Nuclear Industry has routinely accepted its responsibility to future generations in a way that other sectors of the mainstream energy sector have refused to.

The nuclear industry has constantly required government bailouts and has never been commercially viable in an open market  The nuclear industry is always keen to point out how cheap it is to produce a therm of energy through splitting an atom. However, these figures tend to leave out a few details such as the decade of taxpayer’s dollars it takes to build a nuclear plant in the first place or the 20,000 years it takes to reprocess the fuel rods afterwards.  In every nation with a civil nuclear industry, the tax payer has been paying through the nose to keep it running. Even with all of this support, the price of nuclear industry is still not competitive. In the US alone the bill is running at over $150m in hard cash [i] , when British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) had to start facing up to the costs of reprocessing its spent fuel in 2001, the British government was required to underwrite the cost of 2.1 billion pounds in that year with an anticipation of ten times that during the forthcoming years. The alternative would have been bankruptcy for the entire industry [ii] .  [i] Mark Hertsgaard. "The True Costs of Nuclear Power". Mother Earth News. April/May 2006  [ii] Rob Edwards. “Taxpayer bailout bankrupt nuclear plants; leaked BNFL report”. Sunday Herald. 14 July 2002.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .  Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.  By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.  [i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

It is simply unethical to invest in an industry that will leave the problems it creates to be dealt with for thousands of years into the future  Were humankind to stop all nuclear energy use tomorrow we, as a species, would have to deal with the repercussions of nuclear power for four times longer than human civilization has so far existed. Polluting our own age is one thing but to bequeath such a heritage to generations as yet unimagined let alone unborn. To give this some context, in the case of just one isotope, plutonium 239 – the most poisonous substance known to mankind – had the Ancient Egyptians used this as an energy source to build the pyramids we would still be dealing with it today and it would still have 235,000 years to go.

It is interesting to note that the only places where nuclear energy has provided a dominant share of the national energy market are France, Russia, Canada (specifically Ontario) and now, increasingly China. All of which have heavily centralised energy markets.  Indeed the correlation between bureaucracy, the possession or desire for a nuclear arsenal and the use of overpriced nuclear energy appears to go beyond coincidence.

Nuclear power has, worldwide, received billions, if not trillions, of dollars of investment. By comparison the renewables industry has received tiny grants from central government and, despite a lack of funding and running forty years behind in terms of the attention of governments, it is holding its own with an expanding market share. As of the 8th of July 2011 the US was more reliant on renewable energy than nuclear [i] according to the Energy Information Administration.  All of this was accomplished despite massively disproportionate funding. According to the primary Congressional report on the subject:  “Energy research and development (R&amp;D) intended to advance technology played an important role in the successful outcome of World War II. In the post-war era, the federal government conducted R&amp;D on fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources to support peacetime economic growth. The energy crises of the 1970s spurred the government to broaden the focus to include renewable energy and energy efficiency. Over the 33-year period from the Department of Energy’s inception at the beginning of fiscal Year (FY) 1978 through FY2010, federal spending for renewable energy R&amp;D amounted to about 16% of the energy R&amp;D total, compared with 14% for energy efficiency, 26% for fossil, and 37% for nuclear. For the 63-year period from 1948 through 2010, nearly 12% went to renewables, compared with 9% for efficiency, 25% for fossil, and 50% for nuclear.” [ii] Put simply the renewables industry has been outspent but is still producing more energy in the world’s largest consumer.  [i] “US Renewable Energy Production Now Greater Than Nuclear”. Future of Energy Blog. 8 July 2011.  [ii] Fred Sissine. “Renewable Energy R&amp;D Funding History: A Comparison with Funding for Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Energy Efficiency R&amp;D”. Congressional Research Service. 26 January 2011.

Renewables are mostly unproven, experimental technologies being developed on a small-scale basis that is not ready to take up the gap to move away from fossil fuels under climate change agreements  The renewable sector is a rapidly changing market moving in between micro-renewables and massive offshore projects. It is a fascinating area as an emergent technology field but it lacks stability both in terms of technology and investment.  Realistically nuclear power is going to have to play an important role in bridging the gap – at the very least – on the road away from a carbon dependent economy [i] .  The technology and funding is simply not in place for any renewable technology to take up the hard lifting from oil and coal yet.  [i] G Paschal Zachary. “The Case for Nuclear Power”. SFGate (San Fransisco Chronicle). 5 February 2006.

Nuclear power has a proven track record in France, Canada and Russia and an increasing role in new energy markets  There are already stable markets for nuclear power around the world with plants providing a consistent share of energy to the consumer. Although there are now renewable suppliers providing some share of total demand it is rare for them to have established relationships with either suppliers or major industrial consumers.  There are, however established models of how nuclear power can be blended into an integrated energy supply system.

There is no instance in which renewable energy has been able to provide a major share in the energy market  Despite the best intentions of major players in the energy market, renewable fuels have simply not been able to keep up with demand. It has a limited role in supplying electricity and virtually none in any other area.  Although Nuclear is poor in the provision of non-electrical energy as well it has proved a more consistent form of energy in every arena than renewables. It has proved to be cleaner than any form of fossil fuels. With technological advances it is the obvious fuel of the future and, as a result deserves further funding and research.

It is useful to deal with the idea that nuclear is a CO2 free fuel. When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to climate change emissions [i] .  It is then possible to add in additional carbon footprints such as the emissions caused by building and staffing a large plant.  It is also a question worth asking as to when climate change-related pollution became the only standard. There are plenty of other ways of polluting the environment and belching out irradiated gases into the ocean would seem to meet that standard.  [i]

The Arctic covers a huge area, of course there are some parts that should be protected. Just as with any other area in the world, areas of special scientific or environmental significance should be protected. However, just picking a line on the map and saying ‘no drilling north of here’ makes little sense. Why not a degree further south – or north? Protection should be awarded on a site by site basis, just as it would be anywhere else in the world.

The Arctic is a diverse but fragile ecosystem  Mineral extraction is not a clean process [1] and the Arctic is acknowledged as a fragile ecosystem. In addition to the pollution that using these fuels will cause elsewhere in the world, the process of extraction itself is fraught with risks. There is some destruction caused simply by the process of building and running rigs with everything running normally, but the nightmare scenario is a major spill. [2] Let’s be clear, with the best will in the world, there will be a spill; difficult and unpredictable conditions, gruelling tests for both the machinery and the engineers that manage it, and a track record that leaves a lot to be desired in far more habitable and accessible environments. There are two difficulties posed in terms of an off-shore (or below-ice in this case) spill. The first problem is that stopping the spill would be vastly more complicated logistically than anything previously attempted, making previous deep-sea containment exercises seem simple by comparison. [3]  The Exxon Valdez disaster showed the large scale damage that oil spills near the poles can have large and long lasting effects on the ecosystem; hundreds of thousands of seabirds were killed in the spill and it is estimates some habitats will take 30 years to recover. [4] Any such disaster is made much worse above the arctic circle because of the cold. Oil degrades faster in warmer waters because the metabolism of microbes that break the oil down works much more slowly in the cold arctic waters, at the same time the oil spreads out less so provides less surface area. [5] In 2010 it was reported that more than two decades after the spill there were still 23,000 gallons of relatively un-weathered oil in Prince William Sound. [6]  The second issue, as demonstrated by large scale experimentation in the 1970s is that the oil would interact with the Polar ice to affect a far larger area than would normally be the case.  At the very least, it seems sensible to have a moratorium on sub-glacial drilling until the technology is available to deal safely and securely with a spill.  [1] Bibby, N. Is Norman Baker Serious about Saving the Environment? Liberalconspiracy.org. 18 march 2012.   [2] McCarthy, Michael, The Independent. Oil exploration under the arctic could cause ‘uncontrollable’ natural disaster. 6 September 201   [3] Vidal, John, ‘Why an oil spill in Arctic waters would be devastating’, The Guardian, 22 April 2011,   [4] Williamson, David, ‘Exxon Valdez oil spill impacts lasting far longer than expected, scientists say’, UNC News Services, 18 December 2003, no.648,   [5] Atlas, Ronald M., et al., ‘Microbes &amp; Oil Spills – FAQ’, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 22 April 2013,   [6] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ‘Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council’s Restoration Efforts’, Federal Register, Vol.75., No. 14, 22 January 2010, p.3707

There is no reason to believe that a warming arctic will be a more competitive arctic or that the littoral powers will not be able to share the resources the region provides. Norway and Russia managed to fix their maritime borders in the Barents sea in order to exploit the potential resources there. [1] There being resources to exploit can just as often provide a motivation cooperate because if this does not happen then no one can exploit the resources.  [1] Brigham, Lawson W., ‘Think Again: The Arctic’, Foreign Policy, Sept/oct 2010,

The Arctic should be saved for future generations  As we are using the resources of so much of the planet we should think about our legacy to future generations and leave the resources of the arctic to future generations. There are several reasons why we should do so.  First of all drilling in the arctic means drilling in some of the harshest conditions on earth; with many of the projects being set up it means drilling in deep areas of the ocean that were inaccessible only a couple of decades ago. It also means drilling in freezing conditions while being potentially vulnerable to icebergs. Disasters like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico have shown that oil companies are not prepared for oil disasters in deep water and repair would be more difficult a long way from civilization. [1]  While the technology for this does not yet exist in future it probably will. It makes sense that we should leave such hard to reach resources until it is possible to extract it easily and safely. In the mean time we should be focusing our efforts on easier to reach resources and on developing alternatives. Such a policy will be beneficial to future generations both through making a greener economy and by leaving an emergency reserve of fossil fuel that can be used if necessary.  [1] Lawless, Jill, ‘Tony Hayward: BP Was Unprepared For Gulf Oil Spill, 'We Were Making It Up Day To Day'’, HuffPost, 9 November 2010,

This is oil and gas that we already know about and already have the expertise to exploit. The technology that we don’t yet have will only be developed if there is a demand for them – if the demand is now the technology will be developed. There is little point in us leaving this particular fuel to future generations when we are the first generation that has the technology to exploit such deposits. Future generations may improve on the technology and make it safer but the fundamental capability, the breakthroughs that make it possible have already happened. Future generations on the other hand will have their own breakthroughs in terms of new forms of power and new discoveries of fuels. They are then much less likely to need these resources than we do now.

A treaty similar to the Antarctic Treaty would prevent competition  The opening up of the arctic Ocean through climate change also opens up territorial claims as where there are resources at stake states are keen to make a claim so as to exploit them. For example in 2008 Russia’s then President Medvedev stated “Our first and fundamental task is to turn the Arctic into a resource base for Russia in the 21st century.” [1] Such competition for resources can lead to conflict as is increasingly being shown in the East and South China Seas.  The Antarctic Treaty however freezes these territorial claims, as would our proposed treaty. It also bans military activity so preventing any completion from getting out of hand. [2] The proposal would also ban the exploitation of the Arctic’s resources so reducing the cause of any conflict.  [1] Keating, Joshua, ‘Medvedev makes a play for Arctic riches’, Passport Foreign Policy, 17 September 2008,   [2] ‘The Antarctic Treaty’, Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2011,

There is noticeable absence in the list of countries set to replace the Middle East; That absence is Russia. It is hard to see how being subservient to Putin – with nuclear weapons and a massive military – is preferable to going cap in hand to the House of Saud. It is also unclear that this will be a benefit in terms of security and conflict. These countries are so dependent on oil that undermining their economies in this way could lead to more, not less conflict.

The obvious response to ‘growing demand’ being a problem would seem to be to reduce demand. When this has been attempted by states, there have been complaints that this was an unfair burden on business. Once the market adjusted, by increasing price, the same people demanded the right to increase supply. There is not particularly a growing demand for mineral resources; there’s a growing demand for energy and transport, it’s time to get serious about new, cleaner ways of meeting that demand. It has to be remembered that oil and gas from the arctic is not cheap; oil projects in the region cost billions before they even begin extracting. It is also questionable whether there really is 160 billion barrels of oil – it has not been explored so we do not know how much is there. To take an example of just such an uncertainty in a much less extreme environment China claims the South China Sea has up to 200 billion barrels of oil [1] while the US Energy Information Administration thinks it is between 5-22 billion barrels. [2]  [1] Rogers, Will, ‘Beijing’s South China Sea Gamble’, The Diplomat, 4 February 2012,   [2] ‘South China Sea’, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 7 February 2013,

Creating jobs and opportunities  The areas covered are among the least developed in the world. Standards of education and income for indigenous peoples are very low and, to date, there has been little to motivate any nation to do anything about that. For example Canada is rated the 6th in the world by the UN’s Human Development Index but if the same index was rating Canada’s First Nations it would be 76th. [1]  However, oil companies have already invested billions into exploration and the future nor these areas – as well as employees with existing skills in mineral extraction could be protected and enhanced by the opportunities offered by these new areas for development.  With those directly created and saved jobs come, literally, millions of others in transportation, distribution, energy supply and manufacturing and other sectors that depend on affordable energy costs. First nations in those areas that have oil booms have considerably better employment prospects; in Canada nationally natives aged 25-54 have an employment rate of 70.1% but in Alberta, the biggest oil producing region, the rate was 77.7%. [2]  Proposition rightly notes that pressures are growing on these industry sectors but fails to offer any solution that would ensure the livelihoods of millions of people around the world as well as revitalising some of the most dispossessed communities on the planet.  [1] Silversides, Ann, ‘The North “like Darfur”’, CMAJ : Canadian Medical; Association Journal, 177(9): pp.1013-1014, 23 October 2007,   [2] The Vancouver Sun, ‘Alberta first nations benefit from oil boom’, Canada.com, 16 December 2008,

Relieving areas of conflict such as the Middle East  Currently the main supplies of oil and gas are from the Middle East with more coming from Africa and in the western hemisphere from Venezuela. These oil producers include many unstable regimes; many of them engaged in appalling human rights abuses against their own citizens. This is because regimes with such natural resources buy off their people meaning there is little accountability. [1] In addition to the obvious ethical issues that are created by continuing to fund brutal regimes that happen to be sitting on billions of barrels of crude, it’s also economically risky to be so much in the pocket of such regimes.  Securing energy security has long been an ambition for much of the West. The Carter Doctrine of 1980 “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States,” was a direct response to the oil shocks of the previous decade. [2] In Canada, the USDA and the Nordic states, the possibility of secure energy is made a reality by the Arctic.  By removing the world’s dependency on regimes such as Saudi Arabia, there is much greater room for manoeuvre when it comes to challenging those regimes records. It would also allow the west in particular to tie themselves to the interests of the peoples of the Middle East rather than to those of their rulers.  [1] Chatelus, Michel, and Scehmeil, Yves, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262  [2] Bacevich, Andrew J., ‘The Carter Doctrine at 30’, World Affairs, 1 April 2010,

There is a growing demand for mineral resources  Improving the lives of its citizens is one of the most important roles of the state. And in terms of improving lives economic growth is usually considered the most important economic goal. [1] And in order to grow cheap fuel is needed. Nuclear energy is still precarious, and expensive, and renewable technologies cannot come close to meeting the existing needs of the west, let alone those of Russia, China, Brazil, India and the rest.  We are confronted with a stark reality – either use new sources of oil and gas while investing in replacement technologies or see a collapse in standards of living and life expectancy around the world.  There is much to be said for less carbon-based economies but we don’t have one yet. Until that option is available, the lights need to be kept on. The area north of the Arctic Circle is thought to contain as much as 160 billion barrels of oil, more than a quarter of the world's undiscovered reserves. [2]  There are costs to exploiting those reserves – some of them environmental – but they pale into insignificance compared with the collapse of the global economy that would result from the projected increases in global oil and gas costs.  [1] ‘53% Say Economic Growth More Important Than Economic Fairness’, Rasmussen Reports, 21 January 2013,   [2] Nakhle, Carole and Shamsutdinova, Inga. Arctic Oil and Gas Resources: Evaluating Investment Opportunities. Oil, Gas &amp; Energy Law Intelligence, vol.10 issue 2, February 2012,

To start with, let’s not believe the line that local communities see this as an unadulterated good – they have very real concerns about the impact on their qualities of life. [1] It’s also untrue that workers elsewhere in the world see this as purely beneficial; many of these workers live with the toxic results of drilling and refining oils and they have expressed their concerns about the health effects. [2] Yes there is increased infrastructure but much of it is not of the sort that benefits communities, like oil pipelines. The one group for whom there is unalloyed joy at this prospect is a small one that comprises the owners and executives of oil companies. If opposition wants to make the case that some people want to keep the money flowing, fine. But at least be honest about who those people are.  [1] Macalister, Terry, ‘Arctic resource wealth poses dilemma for indigenous communities’, The Guardian, 4 July 2011.   [2] Sturgis, Sue, ‘Pollution from oil refinery accidents on the rise in Louisiana.’, Southernstudies.org, 3 December 2012,

Those same studies suggest that individuals do little extra to protect themselves, as they consider sexual offences to be suitably rare that they can plausibly tell themselves it won't happen to them. This is exacerbated by the fact that most sexual offences are committed by someone who the victim knows. If they already know the person, they are likely to consider them a limited threat, as the popular perception of sexual offences is still one of an offence committed by a stranger. Furthermore, people tend to be highly trusting of their own impression of people. Finally, the harms from never engaging with former sex offenders in a community are set out at Opposition Argument TWO.

This helps people protect themselves and their families  People can use the information about the offenders in their area to ensure this. It is especially useful to have a modus operandi; if a local offender is known for typically abducting people walking on their own at night, people can alter their behaviour to ensure they always have company, or get a taxi after dark. More direct measures can be taken, by avoiding contact with that person, or avoiding entering into a close relationship with them. Furthermore, more general measures can be taken to be more vigilant, install better locks, and avoid leaving vulnerable people alone. Some studies1 suggest that there is an increase in measures taken to protect other people where this information is given.  1 Zgoba, K., "Megan's Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy", December 2008,

The option given to the police and victim to not disclose the information undermines the principled claim in Proposition Argument Two that people should be free to determine the importance of the information on their own; this denies them that freedom in some cases. Given cases where there is a risk of vigilantism are the ones which excite the most public feeling, these cases may be the ones which people feel are most important to know about.

This acts as a deterrent.  Knowing that, if they commit an offence, their name, photograph, and a description of their crimes will be widely published deters people from committing the offence in the first place and equally of reoffending. Firstly, this is because there are strong moral norms preventing such behaviour; this policy acts not only to reinforce those moral norms (by clearly designating people who commit such an offence as being worthy of shaming), it also increases the consequences of breaching such norms. Specifically, potential offenders will realise the harm this may cause to their personal relationships, and any future relationships – these are typically things people value, and so people will act to minimise this harm. Further, if someone is willing to commit a sexual offence, it is reasonable to assume they value sexual encounters. Such publication may limit their opportunity to access such encounters in the future, and therefore the policy aims to operate such as to minimise what a person desires should they commit a crime.  It is perhaps useful to compare this deterrent to the deterrent offered by prison. It can be argued that the deterrent of prison is a weak one, because there is an information problem – people do not know how bad prison is. This is exacerbated by media narratives that suggest prison is a soft touch, even the Prison Officers Association in the UK claims jail is too soft. [1] This may be especially true for those of the socioeconomic background who are more likely to commit criminal offences; they are probabilistically poorer and less likely to have a job, so the harms of prison (loss of freedom, harming job prospects) may seem less important.  [1] Knapton, 2008

Firstly, within relationships; a person looking to commit such an offence is unlikely to be deterred because they expect that, because of the existence of the relationship, they will not be convicted of such an offence. Also, sexual offences against a partner are often an expression of a dominating power within a relationship. In such a case, the offender does not expect the offence to be reported due to the control (s)he holds over the victim. As such, the size of the penalty is less important, as they do not expect to receive it.  The second circumstance such offences are committed is against a stranger, typically in public. When a person is willing to act in breach of such clear moral norms, they are less likely to be concerned about this being published broadly, and so the deterrent will be weaker.  These are exacerbated by the fact that many sexual offences are committed in times of passion, where a person’s decision making is focused heavily on the short-term – and so the possibility of a future shaming is not taken into account, and deterrence does not occur.  Finally, it is unrealistic to claim prison is a weak deterrent; the removal of liberty matters to almost everyone, and the difficult conditions of prison are well-known, particularly amongst repeat offenders.

Freedom is not an absolute good; only something that typically advances overall utility, as we understand that people are normally better placed to maximise their utility, being the only ones with knowledge of their desires and values. This, however, is not such a case – as the opposition arguments below suggest, this causes harmful consequences that outweigh any claimed benefits of utility. Furthermore, this area seems to be one where the police are better placed to determine the importance of the information, given their expertise in offending and re-offending , and especially given the tendency on behalf of the public to panic, and place more importance on past convictions than it factually requires.

How this would work  This policy involves an active disclosure campaign, through websites and the newspapers, where a sex offender has their name, their photo, their address and the nature of their crime published on a website, or in the local media. It may include poster campaigns about individuals for particularly serious crimes, with the aim of both informing people and causing shame. It may be sensible to allow the police to not disclose the information in the following circumstances; 1) where a significant risk of vigilantism exists, 2) where it is against the wishes of the victim, and 3) where it may jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation. Early studies showed that Megan's law in the United States had high rates of voluntary compliance, between 70 and 80% and rising, proving that the policy is practical1.  1 Simpson, Rachel, ''Megan's law' and other forms of sex-offender registration', NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, Briefing Paper NBo. 22/99, November 1999,

The state has a duty to maximise freedoms.  All states in some way limit individual freedoms, by requiring them to follow laws and enforcing these laws with the coercive power of the state. However, such limits can be justified in so far as they advance others freedoms; limiting Person A's freedom to kill enhances Person B's freedom to live. States therefore derive their legitimacy to deny freedoms from their advancement of overall freedom. This policy enhances the freedom of people to defend themselves and their family by providing them with information about offenders (see Argument Three), and allows them to determine for themselves the importance of that information1.  1 law.jrank.org, 'Sex Offences

While such an argument may act to limit the value of the deterrent effect, it does not completely remove it; there will remain some additional deterrence to some potential perpetrators of sexual offences. This is because some potential offenders will consider the potential harm to themselves of their action, and a greater potential harm will mean they are less likely to commit these offences.

Clearly, vigilantism is a problem; however, the proviso in the policy should act to limit this, as where there is a threat of harm the information will not be released. Furthermore, it will be possible to offer people under threat police protection. Finally, a strong justice system is likely to limit vigilantism, as people perceive justice as being done, and are therefore less likely to resort to acts of individual violence.

The harms of stigmatization and alienation.  This harm mainly refers to the possibility of re-offending, which occurs in approximately 30% of cases over a six-year period (although note that the figure is for committing any other offence, not another sexual offence)1. When society labels such people in a very public way as criminals, it may be difficult for them to reintegrate in society. This is because people who know of their crimes will be less willing to engage with them, whether they knew them previously or not. Specifically, it will be very difficult for businesses to employ them if they are publically known to have been convicted of a sexual offence, because of the possible public outrage this would cause. Previous offenders are therefore likely to be distanced from society, shunned by old friends, likely to have difficulty in making new friends, and likely to find it difficult to find employment. It may further encourage them to make friends with those with similar backgrounds. This makes them feel outside society, less constrained by its moral norms, and therefore more likely to commit offences. Furthermore, the difficulty of access to employment may make them turn to crime to survive.  Finally, academic literature on stigmatization suggests that for a stigma to prevent reoffending, the stigma needs to be easy to scale up for subsequent offences2; given the blanket nature of this policy, this does not seem possible.  1 Home Office, "Reconviction Rates of Serious Offenders and Assessment of their Risk", 2002, 2 Rasmusen, E., "Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality", September 1996,

Expense.  As alluded to in Counterargument Four above, sexual offences are typically committed within relationships, or by someone the victim knows; around 80% according to some studies1. These proportions are also probably larger, in that rape by an acquaintance is less likely to be reported, as a victim is better able to normalise the incident as a misunderstood sexual interaction.  This indicates that a deterrent effect is less likely to work, because of the lower chance of the offence being reported, and the relative power within any such relationship. The offender is less likely to respond to that deterrent, as they perceive it as so unlikely to occur to them.  1 National Center for Victims of Crime, "Acquaintance Rape", 2008,

Who commits sexual offences?  As alluded to in Counterargument Four above, sexual offences are typically committed within relationships, or by someone the victim knows; around 80% according to some studies1. These proportions are also probably larger, in that rape by an acquaintance is less likely to be reported, as a victim is better able to normalise the incident as a misunderstood sexual interaction.  This indicates that a deterrent effect is less likely to work, because of the lower chance of the offence being reported, and the relative power within any such relationship. The offender is less likely to respond to that deterrent, as they perceive it as so unlikely to occur to them.  1 National Center for Victims of Crime, "Acquaintance Rape", 2008,

Allowing the population to know where sex offenders are would encourage vigilantism.  Vigilantism is a real threat to those publicised as sexual offenders, especially those whose sexual offences involve children. For example, in the UK a vigilante published a database naming almost 10,000 paedophiles1, and some misdirected vigilante attacks have been committed against those with no criminal convictions, such as a paediatrician2.  Therefore, there is the possibility of harm occurring in that offenders who have served the punishment the justice system feels is adequate being subjected to further punishment and violence. Furthermore, there is the possibility of mistakes being made and people being subject to violence for no reason.  1 The Telegraph, "Internet vigilante publishes database naming 10,000 paedophiles", November 2010, 2 The Independent, "Vigilante mob attacks home of paediatrician", August 2000,

Firstly, given the low % of offenders who commit serious crimes within 6 years is around 10%1, this seems like it may be a marginal issue.  Furthermore, it seems unlikely that people who already know someone will stop associating with them merely because of their stigmatization. Family, for example, tend to be very forgiving, as are close friends, who are likely to believe their long-term view of somebody is more accurate and to forgive a mistake. Such people will be able to ensure a person is not alienated from all society.  This may also be a benefit; if an offender has a tendency to commit sexual offences within relationships, it may be useful to limit his relationships (or at least warn their partner of such a tendency), such that this is not likely to occur again.  Finally, it can be shown that if this policy does increase the deterrent effect to first-time offenders, this may be more important. This is because some people will be prevented from ever being imprisoned, associating with other prisoners, and acquiring a criminal record

How can it be that only tobacco companies get singled out and told not to advertise their products, while many others (such as prescription drugs) are allowed to market their products? There are many products which are hugely dangerous, take alcohol for example. Whilst drinks can be advertised, in the UK they must also carry a drink responsibly warning. Why can tobacco companies not do the same especially when you consider how much more immediate the danger from alcohol is?

Restrictions reach out to the general population  A ban or high restrictions is a good measure to diminish the effects of smoking in society, because unlike the spreading of information (which is usually done by schools / clubs), governmental restrictions or a total ban will ensure the access of measures to the whole population. Through a ban on advertisement or higher taxation those citizens not involved in active educational structures get educated about the problem.  Studies on the ban of advertisements show that bans actually contribute great amounts to the reduction of smokers. "The tobacco industry employs predatory marketing strategies to get young people hooked to their addictive drug," said Dr Douglas Bettcher, Director of WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative. "But comprehensive advertising bans do work, reducing tobacco consumption by up to 16% in countries that have already taken this legislative step."1  So because these measures can drastically decrease smoking when other measures have failed, the state is right to impose bans on advertisement, higher prices or any other measures.  1 The Times of Malta, more public scrutiny of tobacco industry, published 01/18/2011

While a government has a responsibility to protect its population, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. The law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally. However, it should not stop them taking risks themselves - for example, dangerous sports such as rock-climbing, parachuting or motor-racing are legal. It is also legal to indulge in other health-threatening activities such as eating lots of fatty foods, taking no exercise, and drinking too much alcohol. Banning smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.  As the proposition points out, cigarettes are not dangerous because they are defective; rather they are inherently, potentially, harmful. But people should still be allowed to choose to buy and smoke them. A better comparison is to unhealthy foods. High cholesterol or a high intake of fat can be extremely harmful, leading to heart disease, obesity, and other conditions; but manufacturers of these products are not punished. Consumers simply like the taste of fatty food. People should be allowed to smoke cigarettes and to eat fatty foods - both these things are sources of pleasure which, while having serious associated health risks, are only fatal after many decades, unlike a poisonous food or an unsafe car, which pose immediate and high risks.

Restrictions benefit the health of third parties  This argument is built on the premise that a ban or higher taxation in practice will lead to less smokers, especially protecting the families of smokers and other non-smoking citizens from potential health risks and premature death.  Smoking also has wider effects, not simply restricted to smokers themselves. So-called 'passive smoking' is becoming an important issue: in a smoke-filled environment, non-smokers are also exposed to the risks associated with tobacco. Especially when it comes to homes and families there is a high likelihood of "passive smoking". Research suggests that partners of smokers have an increased chance of developing lung cancer, even if they do not use tobacco products. Recent research even shows, that according to the Journal Archives of Pediatrics, children living in households of smokers are more prone to mental illness, depression and attention deficit disorder (ADHD)1.  So because restrictions on smoking prevent harm risks to families of smokers and third parties we should highly regulate or ban them.  1 Anits M. Schimizzi, 'Special Editorial: Smoke Signals How Second Hand Smoke Can Impact Your Child's Mental Health, Child-Psych, 10 August 2011, accessed 6 September 2011

First of all, a ban on smoking might just lead to people deciding to turn on to the black market for tobacco, not solving the problem of passive smoking or any other effects. Same also goes for the possibility of higher taxation, people might just choose a relocation of funds due to higher prices of cigarettes.  Further on, if we do accept the premise, that smoking will maybe decrease, the evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer.  Also it is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option.

The state has to take measures to protect the health of its citizens  There is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker's health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year1 - more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 5 million people die from smoking each year2 - one every ten seconds - which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.  In a democracy the people elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time, are well equipped to make a better and more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. Therefore one of the principles is, that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. That is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking or limit with different means the usage of tobacco - an activity which kills millions of people each year.  Precedent is that if a company produces food that is poisonous or a car that fails safety tests, the product is immediately taken off the market. Since all cigarettes and other tobacco products are poisonous and potentially lethal, they should all be taken off the market. In short, smoking should be banned or very harshly regulated.  1 Cancer Action Network, Help Fight Tobacco and Save Lives, 2 Ash.Research report, Tobacco: Global trends, August 2007,

Smoking is not a real choice, as nicotine is an addictive drug - in fact; recent allegations suggest that tobacco companies deliberately produce the most addictive cigarettes they can.  Up to 90% of smokers begin when they are below the age of 181, often due to peer pressure; once addicted, continuing to smoke is no longer an issue of freedom of choice, but of chemical compulsion. Like other addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine, tobacco should be banned since this is the only way to force people to quit. Most smokers say that they want to kick the habit

People often express concern about taxes harming the poor, since they are both most likely to smoke and the least able to afford it. But when tobacco prices are kept low, more poor people use tobacco, and thus waste more of their money on it. In Bangladesh, as prices have remained low over the years, per capita spending on tobacco has increased. While raising taxes may harm some poor individuals who are unable to quit, in many situations this problem is alleviated by the existence of alternate low-cost tobacco products. To the degree that these are minimally advertised and unpalatable, they may be a resource to the addicted while being unlikely to attract the uninitiated. In addition, if the policy benefits a large number of poor smokers but harms a few, then the decision may have to be made to tolerate the harm in order to benefit the many.  Negative effects can be addressed through programs to help the poor quit, or to subsidize a food substance generally consumed only by the poorest1.  1 PATH Canada and Work for a Better Bangladesh, Tobacco and Poverty,

Democratic systems should educate on smoking rather than restrict it  The principle of democracy is to let people make their decisions and to ensure, that the decisions they make are as informed as possible. Due to the maximization of an individual's happiness the government should only have the possibility to give information to their citizens and let them all decide, how they want to make use of their freedom of choice.  One of the options is a targeted campaign against smoking and information on smoking harms. Actually, the National Bureau for Economic research states that there has not been enough investment in counteradvertising, which is designed to reduce consumption and also fits into the framework of a response function."The counteradvertising response function slopes downward and is subject to diminishing marginal product. The levels of counteradvertising that have been undertaken are small in comparison to advertising. The empirical work finds evidence that counteradvertising does reduce consumption."1  So before limiting the citizens freedoms the state should try the "soft line" with informing their citizens.  1 Henry Saffer, The Effect of Advertising on Tobacco and Alcohol Consumption, The National Bureau for Economic Research, published Winter 2004,

This will open up a black market  The lesson of prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s was that banning a recreational drug used by a large proportion of the population merely leads to crime and contraband.  A case of this is India, where the contraband trade of cigarettes consists of the international brands that are smuggled into India and the duty evaded cigarettes manufactured domestically by small and unscrupulous manufacturers. "With steep duty increases over the last few years this segment has grown exponentially," the Tobacco Institute of India states1.  Not only is there a case to be made for a flourishing black market, countries lose with this control over the products and can harm their citizens even more with not controlling the consumed substances.  1 Ashish Sinha, High tax on cigarettesmaking contraband market flourish, The Financial Express, published 11/05/2010,

Smoking is a choice of lifestyle the government should not intervene with  Freedom of choice is what differentiates democracies from dictatorships, autocracies or any other form of government. It goes by the principle, that the individual is free to do, whatever he or she wants, as long as this choice does not limit the freedom of choice, bodily integrity or any other human right of another individual in society.  This also applies to smoking. While the law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally it should not stop those taking risks themselves.  The state allows individuals to make lifestyle choices that endanger their life all the time. Because there is not difference between smoking and the other life endangering activities, banning or severely regulating smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.

Regulation harms safety and the poor population  Cigarettes are so common that there is hardly any chance all the people will stop. What will happen is that policies, regarding tobacco regulation or banning will mainly restrict the possibilities of the poor.  In 2009, in the US, a law to triple the federal excise tax on cigarettes was signed, which meant that the federal tax on cigarette jumped from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 today. The administration projects, that such a "sin tax" will bring in at least $38 billion over the next five years. Smokers, usually coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds (getting welfare, unemployment or disability checks instead of paychecks) still pay the whole cigarette tax, while they do not get the same amount of funding as others. Anyone concerned about widening income inequality should have second thoughts about this distribution of the tax burden1. Effectively this means, that while a higher financial burden might not cause problems to high and middle class smokers, it will cause the poor smoker, to either limit the freedom of choice by not buying cigarettes or either make sure other necessities, such as food, other supplies will not be provided. In fact researchers estimate that in Bangladesh 10.5 million people are going hungry and 350 children are dying each day due to diversion of money from food to tobacco2.  The current situation is that poor turn to "shag" or rolling tobacco for self-made cigarettes, which may then be more harmful as the state cannot control it's ingredients as thorough or in the end even turn to the black market of tobacco farmers, where there is no control

Most people who smoke tobacco are law-abiding normal citizens who would like to stop. They would not resort to criminal or black-market activities if cigarettes were no longer legally available - they would just quit. Banning smoking would make this happen and massively lighten the burden on health resources of the countries in which it was banned. The reason why such actions may have happened in India was probably poor regulation of the market or mainly poor execution of already set out rules. Something that is easily preventable in Westernized countries.

Rather than the state pouring money into campaigns, they should spend it on other more important things, such as improving the health system, infrastructure or other, more important things.  The UK Department of Health doubled its media spending from less than

The ban is unnecessary because it will prove to be useless. Although the Bloomberg-appointed Board of Health gave their rubber stamp of approval to Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal, several board members voiced their apprehension of the ban and its effectiveness. Board member, Dr. Michael Phillips brought up the fact that the ban unfairly targeted establishments regulated by the city because those regulated by the state—7-Elevens and grocery stores—would continue selling larger sodas. The ban also focuses on sugary drinks alone. [1] "We're really looking at restricting portion size, so the argument could be…what about the size of a hamburger or the jumbo fries, and all that kind of stuff?” The mayor himself said in the MSNBC interview that the goal was to target portion size. [2] Yet, somebody can easily buy four 16-ounce drinks and be worse for it. The people could also pass the deli and patronize the grocery store for large sodas, affecting the Deli’s business while still maintaining high sugar intake. The ban would be useless in fighting obesity because there are too many easily accessed loopholes and as it stands now, would just be a major inconvenience.  [1] Saul, Michael Howard, ‘City Drinks Plan Questioned’, The Wall Street Journal, 12 June 2012.  [2] Briggs, Bill, and Flam, Lisa, ‘Bloomberg defends soda ban plan: We’re not taking away your freedoms’, Health on Today, 1 July 2012.

The ban is necessary to confront the growing problem of obesity in NYC.  Although rising obesity levels in the city have been a major issue in New York City recently, any measures already enacted have failed to curb the growing numbers of obese New Yorkers. The Bronx has the largest percentage of overweight adults, a staggering 70 percent; the other four boroughs also have seen increases in the past decade. Sixty-two percent of Staten Island adults are overweight; followed by Brooklyn, at 60 percent; Queens, at 57 percent; and Manhattan, at 47 percent, according to city health data. [1] The New York City Department of Health has enacted several programs promoting healthier living such as health fares in low-income areas and the Adopt A Bodega initiative, through which local bodegas or small delis and groceries agree to sell produce from family-owned, local farms, providing healthier foods to New Yorkers for reasonable prices. But the results, or rather lack of them, show that education and access are not enough. [2] As Mayor Bloomberg has argued, the ban will have an effect because it follows the principle that if some people have smaller portions given to them, they will consequently drink less. The Mayor doesn’t hope to prevent all people from drinking soda. In fact he emphasizes that this ban wouldn’t come close to restricting personal freedoms because people would still be free to order however much soda they would like. The customers would simply have to be served multiple containers. [3] This is not going to eradicate excessive sugar-intake, however a study by Dr. Brian Elbel, an assistant professor of population health and health policy at NYU Langone School of Medicine in New York City, determined that 62% of drinks bought at restaurants were over the size limit and the result would be that the average consumer would take in 63 fewer calories per trip to a fast-food restaurant [4] .  [1] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012.  [2] ’New York City Healthy Bodegas Initiative 2010 Report’, NYC Department of Health &amp; Mental Hygiene and NYC Center for Economic Opportunity.  [3] Briggs, Bill, and Flam, Lisa, ‘Bloomberg defends soda ban plan: We’re not taking away your freedoms’, Health on Today, 1 July 2012.  [4] Jaslow, Ryan, ‘Research finds NYC soda ban would cut 63 calories per fast food trip: Would that have any impact?’, CBS News, 24 July 2012.

There is no obligation on the city to protect citizens from their own choices. Citizens are responsible for their own bodies including what they eat and drink. Making any part of government responsible for this would mean a need for much more regulation on almost anything that would protect lives. In this case it would require a much tougher response than simply a partial ban that only affects large drinks. Moreover if there is such an obligation why is it the obligation of the city while the state does not have such an obligation with regards to 7-11s?

There is precedent of paternalistic government policies in NYC.  The principle of paternalism, that the state may interfere with another person, against their will, with the motivation of protecting that person from harm, [1] underlines a wide range of policies and laws across the United States, and there is already a precedent for such paternalistic laws particularly within New York City. New York City, under the leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, has enacted regulations on smoking, restaurants’ use of salt and trans fats. Laws prohibiting marijuana, cocaine, and other potentially harmful drugs are made with the goal to protect citizens. Seatbelt laws and the prohibition of cell phone use while driving all infringe upon a person’s freedom of choice but have been accepted for their inherent positive causation meaning there will be less deaths and injuries in accidents. Paternalistic policies are made to maintain the public’s safety and well-being with the assumption that the government “knows best.” Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on soda sold in containers larger than 16 ounces targets the growing problem of obesity in New York City. Although obesity has been a popular topic of discussion in the City, there has been negligible advancement in weight-loss. This growing problem shows that education is not enough to incentivize people to control themselves. Dr. Donald Klein writes, “A fleeting, short-term self that enjoys chocolate, nicotine, or heroin is working his will on an enduring self that pays the cost. Although we may fancy ourself a fully integrated and consistent being, it might make more sense to describe ourself as a bundle of multiple selves, selves that overlap, intermingle, and sometimes conflict”. [2] That more than 50% of New Yorkers are overweight shows the people do not recognize their own long term interests. [3] Mayor Bloomberg’s goal is to limit soda consumption of the population. He has the wellbeing of New Yorkers in mind and he is following a precedent that people need guidance in personal choices.  [1] Dworkin, Gerald, ‘Paternalism’, in Edward N. Zalta e., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2010.  [2] Klein, Daniel B., ‘The Moral Consequences of Paternalism’, Ideas on Liberty, May 1994.  [3] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012.

The ethical implications of paternalism are that the government is taking away personal freedoms because the government presumes that it “knows best” for the population. Paternalism inherently assumes that individuals cannot be trusted to make its own decisions. Personal freedom, however, is a cornerstone of the United States; The Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee individual’s freedoms, limit the role of government, and reserve power to the people. [1] A competent person’s freedoms should never be infringed upon, even for that person’s own good. John Stuart Mill wrote, “. . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is of right, absolute, over himself. Over his own body-mind, the individual is sovereign”. [2] The paternalistic policies cited by the proposition that apparently set a precedent for this ban on soda are not good comparisons. Smoking bans for example are paternalistic in nature yet are morally acceptable because smoking not only harms the person but also those surrounding the smoker through passive smoking. Henry David Thoreau was quoted in saying "[If] . . . a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life". [3] No government can be sure that their policies are what are universally right for its people; this should be left for the individual to decide.  [1] McAffee, Thomas B., and Bybee, Jay S., ‘Powers reserved for the people and the states: a history of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments’, Praeger Publishers, Westport, 2006, P.2  [2] Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, 1859.  [3] Andre, Claire, and Velasquez, Manuel, ‘For Your Own Good’, Issues in Ethics, Vol.4, No.2, Fall 1991.

The City has the obligation to protect its citizenry  Thomas Jefferson said “the purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness”. [1] As an elected government led by Mayor Bloomberg, the government of New York City is obligated to lead the city in a positive direction. In Bloomberg’s case it was among his campaign promises “To achieve the biggest public health gains in the nation” and given his record with the smoking ban this kind of proposal is the obvious way to achieve such a goal. [2] as the Soda ban is not an infringement upon personal rights but a necessary public health measure. The ban on large sodas does not prohibit the consumption of soda, it simply impedes negative choices for poor nutrition. [3] The City has an obligation to promote healthy living as a form of keeping its citizenry safe and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clearly states ‘Ourmission is to protect and promote the health of all New Yorkers’. [4] “Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’” but Mayor Bloomberg said, “New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something.” The mayor continued by including how he viewed his duty: "I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do.” [5]  [1] Thomas Jefferson quoted by Hughes, David, ‘Ed Miliband doesn’t seem to know what government is for’, The Telegraph, 17 March 2010.  [2] Paybarah, Azi, ‘Bloomberg Envisions 2013, Thompson Sees Empty Promises’, The New York Observer, 26 October 2009.  [3] Park, Alice, ‘The New York City Soda Ban, and a Brief History of Bloomberg’s Nudges’, Time, 31 May 2012.  [4] ‘About the NYC DOHMH’, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  [5] Grynbaum, Michael M., ‘New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks’, The New York Times, 30 May 2012.

First how democratic the governance of the city is does not detract from the right of the city government to restrict the size of soda drinks. The system of government has not been changed in order enact this particular regulation. Second it must be remembered that Mayor Bloomberg himself was elected. He was elected to a third term with 51% of the vote compared to 46% for his Democratic rival. [1] To be elected for a third time in a Democrat stronghold gives him a good deal of electoral legitimacy.  [1] Goldman, Henry, ‘Bloomberg Wins Third NYC Mayor Term Beats Comptroller Thompson’, Bloomberg, 4 November 2009.

Freedom of choice is not absolute; it does not mean the consumer should be free to buy whatever they want from wherever they want. For example there is no expectation for restaurants and stores to always have both Pepsi and Coca Cola. In this instance freedom of choice in terms of size is not absolute; there is the freedom to have as much soda as the consumer desires they simply have to buy it in smaller portions. Arguing that representatives’ not being able to choose whether to enact this legislation is also restriction of choice ignores that Bloomberg himself is an elected politician that was chosen by the people.

The Ban Would Be a Barrier to Free Enterprise  The proposal for this ban on large sodas would only affect businesses regulated by the NYC Board of Health. Restaurants, delis, food carts, and concession stands at theaters and stadiums would be affected because they are considered Food Service Establishments (FSEs). The ban would exclude grocery stores, 7-Eleven’s, and other establishments that are not considered FSE’s but are regulated by the State. Consequently, the ban cause the FSE to face repercussions as they would have to serve less soda (the goal of the ban), but also this selective, non-universal ban could encourage consumers to patronize other establishments where they would not be affected by the ban. There is currently a level of demand for large sodas in the market, but the ban would place a barrier on that whole sector of the market. It would be the government directly impeding free enterprise by providing different sets of rules for competing stores. In addition, New Yorkers would be encouraged to report violating establishments that would receive $200 fines. [1] It would be unfortunate to hurt businesses for a ban that wouldn’t necessarily be effective in its main goal to curb obesity because of the multiple blatant loopholes.  [1] ‘From Supersized to Human-Sized: Reintroducing Reasonable Portions of Sugary Drinks in New York City’, NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Briefing, 12 June 2012.

It is undemocratic to have the law pass through the board of health.  While the City has the right to exercise its abilities within the law to protect and aid New Yorkers, it must do so as a democratic body representing its constituents. The soda ban, whether it would actually do anything to curb obesity, is wrong because it isn’t representative of the people. Councilman Dan Halloran spoke at the ‘Million Gulp March’ in protest of the ban: “Mr. Mayor, if you want to make a law, go through your legislature, and make the law. Do not try to backdoor it through an administrative agency that is unaccountable to the people.” [1] Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to pass this ban without the input or approval of the people is undemocratic. The New York City Health Department is an eleven-person committee appointed by the Mayor. [2] Thus, there is a large risk of Mayor Bloomberg exercising his personal will through this branch without any regulation. The proposed soda ban would be a fiat with the rubber stamp of approval from the Board of Health, but no citizen input.  [1] Arkin. James, ‘Councilman Halloran: Bloomberg ‘Missing Boat About Liberty’ With Soda Ban’, The Daily News, 11 July 2012.  [2] ‘Board of Health’, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2012.

The Soda Ban is an infringement upon the personal right to choose  Although the soda ban is not a blanket prohibition of sugary drinks, the proposed ban impedes the public’s right to choose. ‘Big Government’ has become an important issue to many who view the extensive array of government regulations and laws as excessively interventionist and intruding. [1] By Mayor Bloomberg proposing this ban, he continues a trend of the government curbing citizens’ rights to choose, and interfering in the personal lives of its citizenry. The government has no right to be restricting the size of someone’s portions, this is the government regulating one’s diet. This ban inherently affects the consumer’s right to choose because it is prevents the choice of a larger size of soda. The Mayor hopes to influence New Yorkers’ choices toward better nutrition.  Moreover Mayor Bloomberg’s method is not through a representative legislative body but through his personally appointed Board of Health (2), [2] the people have therefore been denied their right to choose, through their representatives, whether this legislation should be allowed.  [1] ‘big government’, British &amp; World English dictionary, Oxford university Press.  [2] ‘Board of Health’, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2012.

There are only slight price differences between 34 and 18-ounce sodas. McDonalds and Coca-Cola corporations were pushing independent franchises to lower the price of sodas to one dollar. [1] While the goal of the ban is to cut down the consumption of soda, the government has the right to put their citizens’ health needs above free enterprise. The non-universality of the ban is unfortunate but this ban is merely a small step in the direction of curbing obesity rates. The fact that restaurants will not be able to serve gigantic portions of soda will not push New Yorkers from eating at those restaurants to eating their meals at 7-Elevens. These are clearly two separate markets; one for purchasing drinks the other for consuming them with meals. It is therefore wrong to conclude that this is any kind of barrier to free enterprise.  [1] Ziobro, Paul, ‘McDonald's Bets Pricing Drinks At $1 Will Heat Up Summer Sales’, The Wall Street Journal, 18 March 2012.

If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

Making it easier for parents to raise their children well.  As well meaning as parents may be in trying to guide their kids toward better nutritional choices, they face a formidable opponent: the fast food marketing machine that spends over 4 billion dollars on advertising a year, much of it targeted directly at kids [1] . This can create enough ‘pester power’ [2] from the kids themselves, seduced by the toy that comes with the meal, that it can persuade parents to make bad choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. By eliminating at least one layer of negative pressure, this law would help parents make those healthy choices that they already know are best.  [1] Philpott, Tom. “The fast-food industry’s 4.2 billion marketing blitz.” Grist. November 10. 2010.   [2] “San Francisco Happy meal Toy Ban Takes Effect, Sidestepped by McDonald’s.” Huffington Post. November 2011.

It is important to instil good habits in children at an early age. But the manner in which it is done is equally important. Kids should be taught to make choices based on what is best for them, through information and appropriate explanations, rather than just being shielded from potential dangers. That kind of behaviour, predicated on reason and understanding, will have a far more lasting impact on the way they make choices, than just protecting them from temptation, with which they will inevitably have to cope later in life.

Marketing aimed at children should be subject to strict regulations.  Unlike adults, children are not able to make healthy decisions for themselves. They don’t understand what calories, sodium content, or saturated fats are. They are unable to comprehend the long-term effects that fast food might have on their health and development. On the other hand, a toy is instantly appealing to them and offers a straightforward incentive to opt for such a meal. As long as the negative consequences cannot be explained to kids in a clear and compelling manner, we should not make unhealthy food even more desirable for them. We should not allow children to make bad choices based on information they don’t understand [1] .  [1] Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. “Fast Food FACTS: Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth.” Yale University. November 2010.

Children may have a strong preference for a certain type of meal over another, but young kids don’t buy their own food. Parents do. And if kids might not understand that fast food is bad for them, their parents should. If a child is eating too much fast food, that is not a marketing success, it’s a parenting failure.

Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.

Bad nutrition habits start during childhood.  Giving away toys with meals that are calorie laden and of poor nutritional quality creates an emotional attachment between the child and fast food [1] . This bond will then follow that child into adulthood, making it harder for her to make better nutritional choices in order to become a healthy individual. This ban would break that bond and make it easier for children to grow up to be healthier adults.  [1] Storm, Stephanie. “McDonald’s Trims Its Happy Meal.” The New York Times. July 26, 2011.

Obesity is a public health issue .  All around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost. [1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems [2] . A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults.  [1] Zahn, Theron, “Obesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads”, seattlepi, 20 December 2011,   [2] “Obesity ‘could bankrupt the NHS’”. BBC. 15 December 2006.

While McDonald’s may have found a way to circumvent the ban, the significant pressure that was applied to them in the process led the company to improve the quality of the Happy Meal, by providing clients with fresh fruit and healthier drink options. Therefore, the ban could be considered a success.

This is not exactly a ban on the sale of fast food to children. This ban does not affect the options of bad foods that parents can continue to feed to their young children if they choose to do so. They will even be able to continue buying happy meals – simply without the toy. It merely alters the incentives slightly toward promoting better, healthier choices by making fast food less appealing.

The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity.  Studies have shown that only a very small amount of the calories consumed by children come from foods like the Happy Meal. And while kids are eating at fast food restaurants at an alarming rate, it is their parents who make the decision to take them there 93% of the time. Of the kids who do want to go to McDonald’s, only 8% cite the toy as the primary reason. Therefore, this piece of legislation seems to tackle a perceived problem rather than a real one. Legislators would be better off focusing their attention where it matters: providing information to parents about making better choices for their kids, and improving the quality of school lunches, which are actually provided by the government and are eaten by kids every single day, often as their main meal [1] .  [1] Eskenazi, Joe, and Wachs, Benjamin. “How the Happy Meal ban explains San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. January 19, 2011.

Such bans are easy to side step.  The San Francisco ban has already been circumvented by McDonalds who has started selling their Happy Meals without the toys and then selling the toys separately for a nominal price [1] . Banning the sale of any toys in fast food restaurants would be difficult without prompting legal action from the companies. The steep legal costs of defending such a law would waste public resources that could easily be put to better use.  [1] Eskenazi, Joe. “Happy Meal Ban. McDonlad’s Outsmarts San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. November 29, 2011.

This ban constitutes serious governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices.  Parents, not politicians, should be responsible for guiding the choices their children make and the food they eat, especially when they pay for it with their own money. Parents may have other reasons for wanting their children to have the meal with a toy, for example the toy is a useful distraction for the child. Governments should not try to impose their own idea of what constitutes appropriate food choices for children on parents and on businesses. Governments may aim to promote and educate, but imposing bans on private businesses goes too far [1] .  [1] Martinez, Michael. “Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys.” CNN. November 13 2010.

Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.

The problem with studies that claim to prove there is no harm with multiple vaccines, are that they are studies that are firstly based on ethical restrictions. A test that would conclusively prove the harm of multiple vaccines would require deliberately denying certain children inoculation. Secondly, they monitor only the general population (in preliminary studies they exclude certain risk groups) and in studies after the administration of vaccines usually contribute some of the negative results to other environmental factors.  Studies are therefore in no way conclusive and do not disprove fully the claim that there is no harm connected with multiple vaccines.

Multiple vaccines cause no harm  Despite fears to the contrary, multiple vaccines cause no harm. Being given immunization in many cases means that people receive a weakened virus. Many believe that because of this they will have a weakened immune system and also suffer from long term body harm. The evidence suggests this is not the case, and that combined vaccinations cause no adverse harm in the vast majority of cases.  A University of Louisiana study, in which more than 1,000 children underwent in-depth neuropsychological tests after receiving a series of vaccinations, found that ‘there was no evidence of neurodevelopmental delays or deficits associated with on-time vaccination’. [1]  Further, multiple vaccinations, which ensure not only that children get their vaccinations but that they do so as quickly as possible, are associated with ‘improved performance’ compared with a control group that received the vaccinations individually and therefore more slowly [2] . Therefore, not only are multiple vaccines harmless, they are a better choice for parents hoping to ensure their children are inoculated from certain diseases.  This is nothing but scare-mongering by the press. No evidence exists that there is a link between MMR or any multiple vaccine and the development of autism. Pseudo-experts are exploiting the pain of families that have children which have this unfortunate disease. They should be ashamed of themselves.  [1] KevinMd.com, Multiple vaccines in infants are harmful, a theory disproved  , accessed 06/13/2011  [2] KevinMd.com, Multiple vaccines in infants are harmful, a theory disproved  , accessed 06/13/2011

Even though major science research has shown that there is no link between syndromes such as autism and multiple vaccinations, a major aspect proponents of the theory claim is the ingredient “Mercury”, that may cause many of the problems for brain cells and other behavioral functions. For example according to a study, Mercury that is present in MMR “readily crosses the blood-brain barrier, preferentially targets nerve cells and nerve fiber and degrades them”. [1]  [1] David Thower, A review of evidence between Vaccination and regressive autism, NTL World  , accessed 06/13/2011

Multiple vaccines serve millions with improved immunity  Multiple vaccines do the job of individual vaccines, but more efficiently and faster. Vaccines work because our body has a natural defense system called the immune system. The immune system recognizes foreign bodies such as viruses and bacteria and creates antibodies to destroy them. Once your immune system has had contact with a particular virus or bacteria it knows how to protect the body against it. Vaccines use the body’s ability to do this to help protect us against diseases that may otherwise be deadly. Vaccines contains part of the virus or disease and when injected stimulate the body to create antibodies to fight and neutralize the disease.  Multiple vaccines specifically are more efficient in delivering such vaccines than separate, individual injections. Combined vaccines reduce the number of necessary injections by a third, meaning less pain and less possible side-effects. Combined vaccines also reduce the time that children are at risk from the diseases being vaccinated against, leading directly to fewer cases of such diseases in the population [1] . The MMR combined vaccine, for example, which protects against measles, mumps and rubella, has led to an ‘all-time low’ number of children catching these diseases since being introduced in the United Kingdom [2] .  Let us be absolutely clear. The alternative to multiple vaccinations are single vaccinations, which take time and expose risk. Undoubtedly children’s lives have been endangered or lost for a completely fictional harm.  [1] Bupa, Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, January 2010,  , accessed 13/07/2011  [2] NHS Choices, Introduction,  , accessed 13/07/11

While multiple vaccines serve many, there are great concerns for individual members of society. This is why the United States government, for example, has established the “Vaccine Injury Compensation Funds”. The mission of these funds is that: “The VICP was established to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines.” [1]  The compensations are given, according to the HRSA to victims of the following vaccinations:  “Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTP, DTaP, Tdap, DT, Td, or TT), Haemophilus nfluenza type b (Hib), Hepatitis A (HAV), Hepatitis B (HBV), Human papillomavirus (HPV), Influenza (TIV, LAIV) [given each year during the flu season], Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR, MR, M, R), Meningococcal (MCV4, MPSV4), Polio (OPV or IPV), Pneumococcal conjugate (PCV), Rotavirus (RV), Varicella (VZV), Any combination of the vaccines above, Additional vaccines may be added in the future.” [2]  Many of the vaccinations listed above are multiple vaccines. From this we can conclude, that many of them are not safe for each individual that gets vaccine.  [1] Health Resources and Service Administration, IVCP program,  , accessed 06/11/2011  [2] Health Resources and Service Administration, IVCP program,  , accessed 06/11/2011

The problem with current testing is that, while they provide some control groups usually those with rare reactions are not included in trials (because it may represent even less than 1 % of the population in a country). So even though there is deliberate screening for rare reactions, it is very likely that such events do not even get detected. The policy is that if serious reactions are found when the vaccine is in widespread use, the vaccine may be withdrawn. But by then it has made already damage and endangered human lives.  Further on, due to ethical concerns vaccine trials may deliberately exclude members of high risk groups and so prevent conclusive consequences for those groups. So while vaccines may be safe for the general population, they represent a high risk for parts of the population for which trials have not been done due to different reasons. [1]  [1] Why it is important to monitor vaccine safety, Center for disease control and Prevention,  , accessed 07/10/2011

Multiple vaccines do not cause autism  In 1998, Dr, Andrew Wakefield started a big campaign against multiple vaccinations, when his research, published in The Lancet (a medical journal) a study on how MMR jabs increase the likelihood of children for autism. Because it was published in a well-known magazine it was considered a reliable source.  Since then several studies (31 according to the NHS) disproved the claims made by a study. They’ve proven there is no link between MMR vaccinations and autism. [1]  Further on the World Health Organisation explained in 2003, that autism, especially in countries with high vaccination rates has not increased. The WHO states, that: “Autistic spectrum disorder represents a continuum of cognitive and neurobehavioral disorders including autism. The prevalence of autism varies considerably with case ascertainment, ranging from 0.7 – 21.1 per 10 000 children, with autistic spectrum disorder estimated to be 1 – 6 per 1000.” [2]  Based on that evidence we see, that not more children became autistic because of the vaccination and that on scientific grounds there is no found linkage between autism and multiple vaccination.  [1] NHS: Ruling on doctor in MMR scare, January 2010  , accessed 06/13/2011  [2] World Health Organization, MMR and Autism, published 01/23/2003  , accessed 06/13/2011

All vaccinations are tested rigorously before they are approved, and tracked afterwards  All vaccinations are tested rigorously before they are approved for use. As vaccinations represent an important and potential harmful intrusion in an individual’s body, it is very important that they are safe. This is especially clear when governments decide to make immunization obligatory; they have to be sure they administer to their citizens safe vaccinations.  Based on the increase in the number of compulsory vaccinations in different countries, many governments have also stocked up on the funding of vaccination controlling of offered immunization treatments. Such stockpiling would only occur if they were confident that the vaccines have passed through a rigorous testing process.  Furthermore, even after being approved, organizations exist, like the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, as a center for tracking adverse events related to specific vaccines. If the events classified as serious are reported regularly for a specific vaccine, the vaccine can be subject to further study [1] .  [1] Why it is important to monitor vaccine safety, Center for disease control and Prevention,  , accessed 07/10/2011

The mere fact pharmaceutical companies make profits from their vaccines is not evidence of anything other than innovation and sound economics. It wouldn’t matter how hard pharmaceutical companies wanted people to believe vaccines were safe, if they were harmful, the evidence would be quickly apparent. The fact only a few people have been compensated for damages resulting from vaccines is testament not to the will of pharmaceutical companies to deny the ill effects of their vaccines, but rather proof that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the vaccines are safe and effective.

The American board of Pediatricians states that: “Studies on the diversity of antigen receptors indicate that the immune system has the capacity to respond to extremely large numbers of antigens. Current data suggest that the theoretical capacity determined by diversity of antibody variable gene regions would allow for as many as 109 to 1011 different antibody specificities. But this prediction is limited by the number of circulating B cells and the likely redundancy of antibodies generated by an individual.”  And further on, the board explains that: “If vaccines overwhelmed or weakened the immune system, then one would expect lesser immune responses when vaccines are given at the same time as compared with when they are given at different times. However, the following vaccines induce similar humoral immune responses when given at the same or different times:  1) MMR and varicella  2) MMR, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), and OPV  3) hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus, and OPV  4) influenza and pneumococcus  5) MMR, DTP-Hib, and varicella  6) MMR and Hib and 7) DTP and Hib  Achieving similar immune responses by giving vaccines at the same time at different sites may be more easily accomplished than by combining vaccines in the same syringe. Challenges to giving many vaccines in a single injection are based partly on incompatibilities of agents used to buffer or stabilize individual vaccines. [1]  [1] Offit Paul, Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?, 01/01/2002,  , accessed 06/01/2011

Cases prove that vaccines have bad consequences for children’s health  Human bodies are different and react to drugs differently. Especially when there is not just one foreign substance, but let us say 24 of them given to a human body over a period of time, there is increased risk that at least one of the substances may cause damage to the body. The drugs can damage an individual for life.  The case of Robert Fletcher can be used as an example (reported by the Telegraph): “The seizure occurred ten days after the vaccination. Robert is severely disabled as a result of vaccination. Mrs Fletcher said: “Robert is nearly 19 but mentally he is like a 14-month-old toddler. He can’t stand unaided and he is doubly incontinent. He can’t speak except to say ‘Hi, Mum’ or ‘Hi, Daddy’.” [1]  Robert Fletcher is not the only one with such severe symptoms and worse is that physicians never can be sure what the outcome will be. So multiple vaccines are dangerous, as they have no predicted outcome (because people’s response to vaccinations are varied) but, in a minority of cases, they present with very severe consequences.  [1] Heidi Blake, Man disabled by MMR vaccine awarded 90 000 after 13-year fight, 08/30/2010  , accessed 05/31/2011

Pharmaceutical companies want people to believe it’s safe  The vaccination market is large and very profitable; as such, pharmaceutical companies have an interest in and the clout required to ensure that vaccines that are harmful are not reported as such. Up to the year 2003 manufacturers' profits on vaccinations have risen as the average cost to fully immunize a child at a private physician's office has climbed 243% since 1986, from $107 to $367. The most prominent beneficiaries have been the two producers who dominate the U.S. market for DPT and polio vaccines, Connaught Laboratories ($300 million in U.S. sales last year) and Wyeth-Lederle Vaccines &amp; Pediatrics ($350 million). U.S. revenues for both companies have increased 300% since 1986, estimates David Molowa, international pharmaceutical analyst at the Wall Street investment firm Bear Stearns. In the same time only a few people have been compensated for the loss or impairment of their children due to vaccines. [1]  Further on in the document: “Vaccines get the full story”: The same people who make rules and recommendations about vaccination profit from vaccine sales. For example, Dr. Julie Gerberding, who was in charge of the CDC for eight years, is now the President of Merck Vaccines. Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), developed and patented his own vaccine. [2]  These organizations and beneficiaries have a vested interest in ensuring that their vaccinations appear publicly as safe and harmless.  [1] Whale Magazine, The lethal dangers of billion-dollar vaccine business with government approval, drug companies sell vaccines that leave your child brain damaged, can spread polio from your baby to you and can even kill,  accessed 06/13/2011  [2] International Medical Council on Vaccination, Vaccines get the full story,  , accessed 06/13/2011

More vaccines together destroy the immune system  Giving just one vaccination shot to a body means injecting in it a virus. The subsequent process is justified as follows, using the example of a polio vaccination: “The vaccine is a clear, colorless sterile suspension for subcutaneous injection. IPV contains strains of the 3 types of polioviruses (Types 1, 2, and 3). After some time has passed, produces protective antibodies in the blood (serum immunity)” as stated by Brown University. [1] So by this logic, the more vaccines are combined and given together the more viruses are induced to the body of a child. This could potentially cause a weakened immune system if the antibodies did not form as expected.  Dr. Neustaeder Randal states that in 1996 a study (published in the New England Journal of Medicine) found out that the tetanus vaccine, for example, disables the immune system in HIV patients. Tetanus vaccination produced a drop in T cells (cells which should protect the body from any dieseases) in 10 of 13 patients, a classic sign of immune deficiency. HIV viral replication increased dramatically in response to tetanus vaccine. Finally, white blood cells from 7 of 10 uninfected individuals became more susceptible to HIV infection following tetanus vaccination. [2]  This demonstrates, for some, a connection between a weakened immune system and vaccination. This connection would only be exacerbated with multiple vaccinations.  [1] Vaccine Strategies, Brown University  , accessed 06/03/2011  [2] Neustaedter Randal, Do vaccines disable the immune system ?,  , accessed 06/03/2011

Every single medicine has some side effect, but we don’t ban all medicine.  In most cases vaccinations may have some mild side effects:  “DTaP/IPV/Hib: The vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and Hib may cause redness and swelling on the site of vaccination, which lasts a few days. Babies may have a mild fever for up to ten days following the jabs.PCV: Redness and inflammation at the injection site affects about one in seven children. Mild symptoms of irritability, raised temperature and digestive disturbance may occur.MenC: Swelling and redness at the injection site is common. Some toddlers have disturbed sleep and some a light fever within a few days of their jab. Older children may complain of a mild headache.  MMR: Cold symptoms, a fever and swollen salivary glands may be noticed in children any time from a few days to three weeks after their MMR jab. Some may develop a rash or lose their appetite for up to ten days.” [1]  The side effects are very low compared with those associated with the diseases themselves. Mild versions of the symptoms associated with the disease being vaccinated against are occasional side effects. Allergic responses are very rare.  [1] Babies and immunization, BBC Health  ,accessed 06/13/2011

It is wrong for donors to attempt to change the policies of a sovereign state. Each state has equal rights, which include the right to be free from interference from any other group [1] . The West is therefore violating state sovereignty when they attempt to change domestic policies which they dislike [2] . African governments have a right to self-determination without the interference from the West; they are no longer colonies.  [1] Political Realism in International Relations Karpowicz, K 02/04/13  [2] Quandzie,E. Anti-gay aid cut: Bring it on, Ghana tells UK 02/11/11

Cutting aid could produce a change in policy direction  If the West did decide to reduce aid to African states it could pressure African states to change their policies on homosexuality. Africa is renowned for the dependency on aid. Analysts claim that this dependency negates the need for African economies to reform, relying instead on foreign governments and NGOs [1] . This reliance on aid could be exploited to alter policy within those African countries that are unable to act economically independently. This policy has been successful in the past. When Britain cut £19m to Malawi in 2011 for arresting two men for marrying; there was a reversal of government policy in the African state and all anti-homosexual laws were suspended [2] .  The equality created by this policy change would allow greater access to retroviral drugs and other HIV/AIDS treatment for the gay community. Laws outlawing homosexuality, and the stigma of the false connection between HIV and homosexuality, have decreased the accessibility of the gay community to treatment [3] . Corrections to these laws, from the economic pressure of aid withdrawal, would allow those with HIV/AIDS in the gay community to seek help without fear of rejections or prosecution.  [1] Astier,H. Can aid do more harm than good? 1 February 2006 BBC  [2] Karimi,F. ‘Amnesty: Malawi suspends anti-gay laws’ CNN 6 November 2012  [3] Anti-Gay discrimination fuels HIV/AIDS in Africa: Report Reuters 01/03/07

The international community has an obligation to help poorer countries, and cannot simply walk away from it over an issue such as this. Exploitation, through imperialism and other means, has been a major feature of Western relations with Africa. From colonial policies to current trade agreements the West has exploited Africa [1] . The West now has an obligation to compensate Africa for the damage which exploitation has done to development. Aid is considered to be vital to ensuring national and international security to the world, removing donations could result in destabilisation as economic links between the government and people deteriorate [2] .  [1] Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources, Stewart, H 10/05/13  [2] United Nations The 0.7% target: An in-depth look

Persecution of homosexuals is morally wrong  From a moral perspective, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for their sexuality. Everyone should have equal rights; Hilary Clinton stated that ‘gay rights are human rights’ [1] , the derogation of such rights is a serious moral affront. There is evidence that homosexuality is not optional [2] . Discriminating on sexual orientation is therefore the same as discriminating upon factors such as race and ethnicity. Even if changeable it would be the same as discrimination on the basis of identity or religion.  Same sex relations are victimless which calls in to question whether it could ever be defined as something to be criminalised. Whilst some may point to male on male rape, these figures are low compared to male on female rape. In the U.S. where homosexuality is legal, only 9% of rape victims were male and only a small proportion of those being male on male [3] . Criminalising and institutionally embedding hatred against homosexuality has served to alienate many Africans from their families and communities [4] . Discrimination on the basis of homosexuality is not something any donor would want to endorse even implicitly it is therefore morally right to cut the aid.  [1] The Obama Administration’s Bold but Risky Plan to make Africa Gay-Friendly Corey-Boulet,R 07/03/12  [2] Kingman,S. ‘Nature, not nurture? New Studies suggest that homosexuality has a biological basis, determined more by genes and hormones than social factors or psychology, says Sharon Kingman. 04/10/1992  [3] Wikipedia Gender by rape  [4] The Guardian Persecuted for being gay. 13 September 2011

There are many in Africa who believe that sexual orientation is a matter of choice and view the act as unnatural. Religious groups in particular oppose male homosexuality due to sodomy being viewed a sin [1] . If a certain act is viewed as a sin, and it is optional, then it is only logical that this activity should be prohibited under law. In a sense, it is moral to have laws restricting homosexuality in place via this logic. [2] The U.S. and other Western states should not condemn African states and reduce aid for legislating in a way they consider moral.  [1] Islam and Africa ‘Islam and Homosexuality’  [2] Should donors rethink aid to states that persecute gay people? Ware,G. 25/01/12

Western Money, Western Discretion  When Western States threaten to cut aid, they are referring to their own money. This money should therefore be spent at the discretion of the donating country. In 2012, the USA’s and UK’s budgets for aid were £12.2 billion [1] and £9 billion respectively. The UK’s spending is set to increase to about £11.3 billion by 2014 [2] . This is money which could be spent to ease economic hardships at home, as many newspapers have pointed out [3] , however it is given to other countries to aid them instead. Donating states also spend a great deal of time attempting to convince their citizens that giving aid is a good use of their money. Should they oppose a policy which they see as discriminatory then it is understandable that they should use their discretion when donating aid.  [1] Britain second in world for aid spending Dixon, H. 04/04/12  [2] Aid: how much does the UK spend, why it’s so important and how it works. Provost,C. &amp; Tran,M. 20/03/13  [3] Britain leads the way in foreign aid-unfortunately Clark,R. 19/06/13

Cultural Imperialism has major advantages to it as well. Culture and identity has been used throughout history as a tool for fuelling the flames of conflict, leading to the mass genocides such as that of Rwanda [1] . This aspect of culture incites hatred against those who might otherwise not be targeted, such as homosexuals. [2] The desire to stamp out such attitudes does not represent a diminishment of African culture simply a change. Similar attitudes were held in the west until recently. African culture has similarly changed in the past; the comparatively recent introduction of Christianity to much of the continent (the exception being Ethiopia) was such a change.  [1] RothKopf, D ‘In Praise of Cultural Imperialism’ in Foreign Policy, no. 107 (1997) pp.38-53  [2] Ibid

While there are those who oppose gay rights in the West, there are many which support them and government policy does not have to run along the lines of consensus constantly. 2013 saw victories for gay marriage in the UK with the royal assent of the Marriage (same sex couples) Act [1] and in the USA with the removal of key elements of DOMA by the Supreme Court [2] . Those who still oppose homosexual rights are becoming the political periphery in these Western states. The current legislative success demonstrates that unity on same-sex rights is growing, and that it is not hypocritical to export this to the international stage.  [1] Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013’ Parliament of the United Kingdom 17/07/13  [2] US Supreme Court in historic rulings on gay marriage BBC 27/06/13

The reduction of aid will cause innocent people to suffer  A reduction of aid to Africa will likely affect the most vulnerable in society rather than the politicians who can adjust the law. The African continent shows signs of growth, but 40% of sub-Saharans live below the poverty line [1] . Cutting aid to states that criminalise homosexuality will increase poverty among individuals who have no influence over their government’s policy. This is an issue which both African states and African LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexuals, Transgender) groups agree upon [2] . Ahmed Lawan, a senator from Nigeria, argued that there needs to be more dialogue and diplomacy if the West is to convince them [3] . Should aggressive policies be used to leverage policy change, such as reducing aid, then African nations will be deterred from making pro-western changes to legislation. LGBT groups want donor countries to ensure that aid is distributed more evenly, and guarantee that aid directed towards human rights reaches homosexuals rather than cutting aid all together [4] . If aid is cut, it will serve to weaken ties between Africa and their donor countries, as well as worsen Human Development Indicators.  [1] Our Africa, ‘Poverty’  [2] Should donors rethink aid to states that persecute gay people? Ware,G. 25/01/12  [3] Ibid  [4] Should donors rethink aid to states that persecute gay people? Ware,G. 25/01/12

Cultural Imperialism  Cultural Imperialism is the ‘the practice of promoting a more powerful culture over a least known or desirable culture’ [1] . Culture provides an identity which is naturally coveted. Attempting to impose mainly Western, liberal values on Africa equates to a dilution of African culture. Globalisation has spread US culture throughout the world [2] . This has led many to lament the weakening of unique cultures, claiming that the USA is drowning out all cultures that do not agree morally with themselves [3] . The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) stated ‘that respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and cooperation, in a climate of mutual trust and understanding are among the best guarantees of international peace and security’ [4] . Attempting to change Africa’s attitude towards homosexuality is an attempt to increase the influence of Western culture on the continent. These cultural ties to attitudes on homosexuality are so powerful that even strict Muslims and Christians are brought together on this issue [5] . To deprive Africans of their cultures and their morals is at odds with the UNESCO’s idea of maintaining cultural diversity throughout the world.  [1] Princeton ‘Cultural Imperialism’  [2] Ezema,I.J. ‘Globalisation, information revolution and cultural imperialism in Africa: Implications for Nigerian library and information professionals.’ University of Nigeria, Nsukka  [3] Cultural Imperialism Ekeocha, O. 08/09/13  [4] UNESCO ‘Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity’ 02/11/01  [5] Islam and Africa ‘Islam and Homosexuality’

There is not universal endorsement of full homosexual rights in the West  The adoption of gay rights is by no means universal in the West, so why should Africa have to change their policies? US Christian evangelical groups have opposed the Obama administration’s policy towards homosexual rights in Africa. The Justice for Gay Africans campaign group claim that these groups have worsened hostility on the continent through action that they have taken in Africa [1] . Domestically there is opposition to gay rights as well. The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by a Democrat President and a Republican congress, enabled states to refuse to recognise same sex marriages [2] and demonstrates the opposition to gay rights in donor countries. One in six homosexuals and bisexuals have been the victims of hate crime in the UK, with only one in ten cases resulting in a conviction demonstrating homophobic attitudes in the UK [3] . The lack of consensus in the West therefore makes it hard to morally justify the imposition of homosexual rights abroad.  [1] Gay Rights: Africa, the new frontier Chothia,F. 07/12/11  [2] Defence of Marriage Act  [3] Ellison,G., Gammon,A. &amp; Guasp,A. ‘The Gay British Crime Survey 2013’ Stonewall

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue.  Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012 [1] . The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics [2] .  [1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012  [2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011

A ban on trans fats will cause specific harms which cannot be fixed by switching to other fats or food preparation methods. Particularly hard hit would be small businesses, who would struggle to make the transition because they no not have the budgets to research alternative ways to make their products taste the same and so are likely to end up at a disadvantage compared to their bigger rivals. Moreover all businesses would suffer from reduced shelf life for their products.(7)  Such a ban does not make economic sense, and despite propositions claims trans fats cannot always be easily replaced. We use trans fats because they work well. For example they are needed in hydrogenation in order to convert liquid vegetable oils in to being solid, needed for example to make margarine, the amount of trans fats used for this can be reduced but not eliminated. Moreover, Michael Mason of The New York Times argues: "for preparing certain kinds of foods, there are few alternatives besides the saturated fats that have long been high on the list of artery-clogging foods.”(18)

Healthier equivalents of trans fats exist  It is easy and inexpensive to replace trans fats with other, less harmful products without significantly altering the taste of the food. Kraft eliminated trans fats from its Oreo cookies, with little public perception of any change in taste.(1) Similarly, the Wendy's restaurant chain tested a new frying oil in 370 franchises, with customers not noticing a difference in taste. Denmark imposed a national ban on trans fats with which even McDonald's has complied.(1) Replacements for trans fats will get cheaper and cheaper with time, as they are used more frequently and as the companies that produce and distribute them increase their sales volumes and are able to sell them for lower prices.  Since trans fats are not irreplaceable, objections for the sake of consumer freedom are also unconvincing. As with lead added to paint, trans fats are unnecessary additions to products that can cause significant harm. Most people remain ignorant of the presence of trans-fats in their food, and of their effects. In this area the ban on trans fats differs from restrictions placed on the sale of alcohol and tobacco and so the two kinds of bans are not comparable. Not only are trans fats easy to substitute in foodstuffs, without impairing quality or taste, the presence of trans-fats is hard to detect. It is all-but impossible for informed and conscientious consumers to avoid buying and eating trans-fats.  While banning cigarettes and alcohol mean banning an entire product category, banning the ingredient of trans fats means no such thing. Rather, it simply means that readily available replacement ingredients must be used in the preparation of the same foods. And, since these fatty replacements are widespread and cheaply available, food makers and consumers should have little difficulty making the adjustment to making and consuming the same, albeit slightly modified, foods.

The American FDA considers the use of trans fats to be 'generally safe'.(1) The British Food Standards Agency says the UK's low average consumption of trans fats makes a complete ban unnecessary.(6) These organisations are already supposed to regulate foodstuffs and monitor trans fats, if they agreed that they needed to act surely they would.  For individuals considered especially vulnerable to the effects of trans-fat consumption, such as the old or the poor, the government should consider education, not a ban. Moreover, the real issue here isn't about health, but about the right of a citizen of a free country to choose to eat whatever foods he wishes. The role of government is not to restrict the freedoms of its citizens but to protect individuals and to defend their right to act freely. Informed, adult individuals have every right to eat whatever fattening, caloric or artery-clogging meals they please. Government health boards have no right to restrict the foods law-abiding citizens choose to put into their own bodies.(10)

Trans fats are uniquely unhealthy  One of the purposes of government is identify possible threats to health and protect the people from these threats. The fact that some government regulations seem 'silly' or misplaced, or cannot easily be understood by lay-people is not a compelling argument for having no regulations at all, or for not having regulations in the case of trans fat. The commentators who denounce the 'nanny state' do not indicate what, if any, regulations or styles of regulation they approve of. Do they think there should be no inspections of restaurants by health inspectors? No regulation at all of food or drug safety by the Food and Drug Administration? Some commentators think that people should be encouraged to study the dangers of trans fats and make their own judgements about what to eat. But people have limited time to do research on such matters. It makes sense to delegate the research to a central authority, so that instead of 300 million people trying to learn about trans fats and every other lurking menace, a handful of experts can make recommendations based on the likely responses and desires of the average, informed citizen.  Non-specialists’ capacity to absorb information on complex chemical and biological subjects is quite limited. The majority of us are reliant on the research of others for most of what we know.(5) The opinion of the experts on the dangers of trans fats is conclusive: trans fats are unsafe.  The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers all uses of trans fats to be 'generally regarded as safe.' This allows the use of trans fats in whatever way food producers desire. ’Safe’ for the FDA means 'a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under its intended conditions of use', which no longer applies to trans fats. This 'generally regarded as safe' status should be revoked which in turn would greatly restrict its use in food.  The other option would be to allow local jurisdictions to regulate trans fats, but this would be more costly and lead to a patchwork of regulations.(1) The most effective method of controlling the use of trans-fats is through centralised, nationally applicable policy making. The poor and young are particularly vulnerable to the negative health effects of trans fats; at the very least, the threat posed to these groups justifies the use of informed regulation. Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health said in 2010: "There are great differences in the amount of trans-fats consumed by different people and we are particularly concerned about young people and those with little disposable income who eat a lot of this type of food. This is a major health inequalities issue.”(6)  The government has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harms that they are not best placed to understand or avoid themselves, and so a ban on trans fats would not only save lives but would also be legitimate under the government's role to protect when citizens cannot reasonably protect themselves.

The state should ban trans fats to protect the public  One of the purposes of government is identify possible threats to health and protect the people from these threats. The fact that some government regulations seem 'silly' or misplaced, or cannot easily be understood by lay-people is not a compelling argument for having no regulations at all, or for not having regulations in the case of trans fat. The commentators who denounce the 'nanny state' do not indicate what, if any, regulations or styles of regulation they approve of. Do they think there should be no inspections of restaurants by health inspectors? No regulation at all of food or drug safety by the Food and Drug Administration? Some commentators think that people should be encouraged to study the dangers of trans fats and make their own judgements about what to eat. But people have limited time to do research on such matters. It makes sense to delegate the research to a central authority, so that instead of 300 million people trying to learn about trans fats and every other lurking menace, a handful of experts can make recommendations based on the likely responses and desires of the average, informed citizen.  Non-specialists’ capacity to absorb information on complex chemical and biological subjects is quite limited. The majority of us are reliant on the research of others for most of what we know.(5) The opinion of the experts on the dangers of trans fats is conclusive: trans fats are unsafe.  The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers all uses of trans fats to be 'generally regarded as safe.' This allows the use of trans fats in whatever way food producers desire. ’Safe’ for the FDA means 'a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under its intended conditions of use', which no longer applies to trans fats. This 'generally regarded as safe' status should be revoked which in turn would greatly restrict its use in food.  The other option would be to allow local jurisdictions to regulate trans fats, but this would be more costly and lead to a patchwork of regulations.(1) The most effective method of controlling the use of trans-fats is through centralised, nationally applicable policy making. The poor and young are particularly vulnerable to the negative health effects of trans fats; at the very least, the threat posed to these groups justifies the use of informed regulation. Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health said in 2010: "There are great differences in the amount of trans-fats consumed by different people and we are particularly concerned about young people and those with little disposable income who eat a lot of this type of food. This is a major health inequalities issue.”(6)  The government has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harms that they are not best placed to understand or avoid themselves, and so a ban on trans fats would not only save lives but would also be legitimate under the government's role to protect when citizens cannot reasonably protect themselves.

Many large and small chains have already made the transition to alternatives to trans-fat, so it is entirely possible. These alternatives will get cheaper with time as they are used more frequently and as the companies that produce and distribute them increase their sales volumes and are able to sell them for lower prices, meaning that small and individual restaurants will indeed be able to afford them and survive. Moreover, the health concerns in this debate override purely economic concerns or the closure of small businesses, as lives are involved.

Health experts agree that banning trans fats would save thousands of lives specifically because the substance is dangerous even when consumed in very low quantities. They are simply a dangerous additive, which adds no extra value to food. 'Taste' considerations are simply a red herring, as switching to other fats would produce no meaningful change in taste, as has been demonstrated by several large food corporations who have made the shift without disappointing their customer base. The fact that other foodstuffs may be dangerous is an argument for better education or regulation regarding them, or -if merited -their own bans, but is not a case against banning trans fats. Trans-fats are significantly different to all the other unhealthy foods listed by side opposition, as trans fats are easily replaceable by less unhealthy substitutes, which things like sugar are not.

The government should provide information to consumers, not restrict choice  Milton Friedman argued in the 1980s: "If we continue on this path, there is no doubt where it will end. If the government has the responsibility of protecting us from dangerous substances, the logic surely calls for prohibiting alcohol and tobacco. . . . Insofar as the government has information not generally available about the merits or demerits of the items we ingest or the activities we engage in, let it give us the information. But let it leave us free to choose what chances we want to take with our own lives."(11)  George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux asks what a trans-fat ban is a model for: "Petty tyranny? Or perhaps for similarly inspired bans on other voluntary activities with health risks? Clerking in convenience stores? Walking in the rain?"(12) Morally the government should be consistent when it bans things, the sale of an undeniably deadly products such as tobacco is sometimes allowed so far less dangerous substances should be allowed.(13)  Education should be considered an alternative to banning trans fats or other unhealthy food. There should be aggressive education campaigns to educate consumers as has been done with tobacco.. At the moment consumers are ignorant, they need to know what they are, the dangers and the consequences. Information on trans fats should also be part of a wider program of nutrition awareness which will put it in context. . Many people have rejected tobacco as a result of raised awareness; the same will occur with trans fats. The food industry would respond to consumer demand and reduce the use of trans fats and other ingredients considered ‘bad’.(13) Information on trans-fats is not hard to come by: the Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), for example, is happy to inform about the dangers of dietary trans-fat, and has no trouble getting its declarations of doom on television and into newspapers.(11) This consumer pressure is already occurring. In the United States, for example, many fast-food chains and food manufacturers have already eliminated trans fats from their products or have pledged to phase them out. To pick one case, Wal-Mart is going to reduce its sugar, sodium content and remove all trans fats from its food.(14)  Left to its own devices, the market will solve this 'problem' in all areas which consumers consider it to be a problem, all without needing an unwieldy government ban. Therefore the government should educate its citizens regarding the health concerns surrounding trans fats, but leave it up to the citizens to choose what they eat.

Banning trans fats in uneconomical  A trans-fat ban would hurt small restaurants the most. Carlie Irwin argues: “Since most of the big chains have already started the process of eliminating trans-fat from their food, the ban would be no big deal to them. But small, independent restaurants are another story. The potential ban has small restaurant owners sweating and nervously eyeing their deep fryers. As the St. Louis Business Journal points out, many small restaurant owners don’t have the ability to effectively and efficiently reformulate their menu items. So banning trans fat could mean that your favorite independently-owned fried chicken joint down the street will be shuttering its doors.”(17)  Consequently, a trans-fat ban would breed legal exceptions and inconsistencies. For example, in Illinois bakeries were exempted from their ban because lawmakers knew that it would drive up their costs and hurt the bakeries specialty items. Many other small businesses would be similarly affected Restaurants and other specialty vendors who use trans-fat products on site would also be affected. Lawmakers then have a choice of either reducing the effect of the ban and including lots of bureaucratic exemptions or punishing these businesses.(9) Tina Pantazis, the manager of Dino's Burgers, which operates two hamburger outlets in California, argues: "The only effect [a ban on trans fat] is going to have on the consumer is that we are going to have to raise our prices."(19)

Trans fats are not uniquely unhealthy  The issue with trans-fat is that there is no better substitute. The fact is that the substitutes are also as bad, if not worse, than trans-fat itself. By banning trans-fat, restaurants will have to adopt these substitute substances, thus undermining the work of the government. This process is a waste of our resources as the government will have to spend huge amount of money to bring about a ban on trans-fat without getting any positive outcome.  The trans-fat ban would only have clear benefits if it were to cause a general reduction in the overconsumption of high-fat foods, but a restaurant ban on one ingredient will not achieve this. This will mean that money will be wasted as increased costs will be passed on to the consumer while there is no benefit.(8) Trans fats are not uniquely and excessively unhealthy. Sugar is unhealthy. Salt is unhealthy. Runny eggs, rare meat, processed flour, nearly anything consumed too frequently or excessively is potentially dangerous. We would not ban these foods because they are unhealthy so the same should apply to trans fats.  The current obesity crisis within the US is not the result of regulatory failure and will not be solved by a ban on trans fats. Better choices, better parenting, exercise and personal restraint are the keys. None of these behavioural traits can be mandated by government.(9) Even if trans fats were eliminated from food products, overall a ban would do nothing to help individuals develop healthy lifestyles. While the ban would curtail consumption of onion rings (if they were cooked in trans fats), for example, it would remain perfectly legal to gorge oneself on Häagen-Dazs or chocolate, both unhealthy foods that contain no trans-fat.(10)  The main alternatives to trans-fat is not even that much healthier. In most cases, food makers will move to saturated fat, which carries all of the same health risks, for example it has been linked to diabetes and cancer.(9) The ban is therefore unlikely to have a perceptible effect on public health.  Trans-fats actually serve two useful purposes. Firstly, trans fats serve an important function of extending the shelf life of products.(1) This is necessary for both producers and consumers as it makes producing these foods cheaper and reduces waste. It also means that consumers are less likely to consume spoiled food and become sick as a result. Secondly, trans fats are tasty and offer enjoyment to consumers. Trans fats keep foods from turning rancid on store shelves; give croissants their flakiness, keep muffins moist and satisfy the sweet tooth. The enjoyment of such tasty foods has a qualitative value to one's emotions and happiness.(3) Therefore trans fats are not uniquely unhealthy and a ban would not improve general public health -it would simply remove a useful and tasty substance from the market. Thus a ban is unjustified.

Calling for an "education campaign" to inform consumers of what they are eating may sound sufficient, but this is very often just not enough. No matter what the government does, people will simply miss the "instructional" information provided by the government and will continue to consume trans fats without full information regarding its negative effects. In such circumstances, it is the government's job to step in a take action through a ban or other measures.  Moreover, when a harmful trend such as the use of trans-fats becomes endemic and entrenched, it becomes increasingly difficult for citizens to always be aware of the fact that a food has trans fats in them and make the "choice" to eat or not to eat them.(15)  Producers include trans fats into foods without adjusting labelling, further affecting consumers’ ability to purchase foods that do not include trans-fats. The trans fats hidden in many processed foods are worse for a person's health than saturated fats. In 2005, CHOICE, an Australian watchdog tested more than 50 processed foods and found many contained trans fats at unacceptably high levels. After re-tests it was still clear that, while the fast-food chains had reduced their levels of trans fats, and some of the foods tested previously had eliminated trans fats altogether, others now contained even more than before. Foods such as pies, cakes and doughnuts may contain trans fats without the consumer even knowing about it.(16)

It is not cruel if it can be shown that this restriction is in the patient’s own interest. The status quo prevents patients from living out their last days on a stream of experimental drugs. We prevent drug companies from using them as risk-free testing (under your policy drug companies would presumably be able to shrug off any responsibility for adverse consequences by saying that it was the patient’s choice to try an experimental drug), and allow them instead to receive the appropriate support for someone at the end of their life, and come to terms with that.  Further, it is important to remember that drugs at this stage are not necessarily miracle cures! If someone is refused access to a trial this is normally to reduce the risk of adverse consequences: it is wrong to give someone an experimental drug that could negatively impact the quality of their final days.

It is cruel to deny people the last hope  At a point when all ordinary medical avenues have been expended, and the outcome appears bleak, new treatments still undergoing trials can be seen as the last hope.  People are often aware of the existence of currently experimental drugs, they are likely to research into possible cures, and indeed there may have been attempts by their doctor to get the patient onto the trial.  However, not everyone who could benefit from treatment is accepted onto a clinical trial: some trials, at some stages, restrict their recruitment to, for example, patients with no complicating factors or other illnesses.  It is unethical and cruel to make people live out their last days knowing that there was something that could have helped, but to which access was restricted through no fault of their own: thus, you should allow anyone with a terminal illness access to such treatments.

First, note that the reason for the existence of the placebo arm is to determine if the drug is more effective than placebo, so in some cases the drug will not be, and nothing will have been lost!  Second, for this point to stand, it has to be shown why the present generation should be prioritised above all future ones: the consequences of giving the present patients a slightly increased chance of survival is to negatively impact patients in the future in a myriad ways (see opposition arguments).  Third, there are a number of reasons to doubt that this is, in fact in the present patient’s best interest: it is not the case that terminally ill people have ‘nothing to lose’ and can therefore be used as human guinea pigs (providing there is an, as yet unspecified, probability of survival). The large-scale provision of un-trialled drugs may well result in side-effects denigrating the quality of the patient’s remaining years.  Finally, the practical consequence considered can be sidestepped through a) better supervision of trials and b) improved doctor-patient relationships (a particular problem during the AIDS crisis). Further, note that the case of AIDS is something of an anomalous one: AIDS patients were more numerous and politicised than any other group before or since, thus enabling this sort of trial-breaking behaviour.

Freedom of Choice  We live in a free society, and accept that people have the right to do as they please; including exposing themselves to risk, as long as in so doing they do not harm others (Mill’s harm principle).1  To deny people the right to choose to take drugs that are still undergoing testing that, whilst they are risky, may save their lives, is a violation of this principle: in choosing to expose themselves to that risk, no-one else is harmed and indeed in the long run others may be saved as a result of the tests. Further, with the assistance of medical professionals and other support, the decision to take this risk can easily be well-informed and consensual.  1 Wilson, Fred, "John Stuart Mill", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition),

It is not the case that this is a policy with no harms other than to the person with a terminal illness (see opposition arguments).  Second, it seems unreasonable to suggest people are making a free and informed choice in this instance: no-one has sufficient information for taking the drug to represent anything but a gamble; this is why there is a need for tests.

It is unethical to force a ‘volunteer’ to take the chance of being randomised onto the placebo arm of a trial  Under the status quo, someone with a terminal illness is offered two choices: death, or to join a trial (where such trials exist). However, when they join a trial they face the possibility that they will be given a placebo, not the drug.  Whilst this is probably in the best interest of future patients (a good clinical trial will determine the efficacy of the new treatment), it rides roughshod over the rights of the current patients (not to be sacrificed for future generations) and the duty of physicians to act in the best interests of their present patients.  There are two consequences here: the first is that it is morally dubious to use the present patients as mere means to an end, rather than acting in their own best interests, especially where, if randomized to the placebo arm the outcome of death is a certainty.  The second consequence is a practical one: compliance with the trial is lessened at the point at which patients can take alternative measures to increase their chance of survival. This was best documented during the early stages of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, where there was evidence of ‘cheating’ during the trials1. People lied or bribed their way into clinical studies; and shared drugs to dilute the ‘risk’ of being on placebo.  This has the obvious impact of casting doubt on the scientific results of the trials: you can no longer be sure who has taken what, and what other conditions they may have.  1 Schüklenk, Udo, and Lowry, Christopher, ‘Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: reviewing the ethical arguments’, British Medical Bulletin, Vol.89, 2009, pp.7-22,

There is no reason why, under this model, you could not retain suitable precautions to ensure that this doesn’t happen.  For example, you could continue the obligation for companies to sell the drug at cost (they would, naturally, continue to be incentivised by the huge profits they expect to make when the drug is licensed). Further, you could impose financial sanctions on companies that refused to take appropriate action towards completing testing.

First, this may well be overridden by the individual rights of present patients (see proposition arguments).  Second, the greater time taken to recruit is one that may be offset by greater numbers: whilst the trial will be of a lower quality (no control group, etc.) there will nevertheless be a greater number of people willing to take the drug (people who wouldn’t have wanted to be part of a trial, but are willing to try the new treatment). Consequently, it may well be possible to compensate for the other problems with the trial. Further, alternative trialling models can be employed, for example using patients who choose not to take the drug as the control group. Whilst you lose the benefit here of having a double-blind trial (as under the status quo), you gain in terms of the benefits to current patients.

This gives people false hope  If these drugs are made available, you risk giving many people false hope in the last days of their lives. People, particularly when in desperate situations, tend to overestimate a treatment’s efficacy.  Given that these treatments are still undergoing the trial process, it is possible that they are ineffective, or have side-effects that outweigh any benefits.  Thus, to allow such drugs and treatments to be handed out during the testing process, there is a great risk of giving people false hope. This is especially the case given the compromised role of the physician in this scenario: ordinarily, if a patient wants an experimental drug, they can have a discussion with their physician that stresses the ‘in trial’ nature of the drug, and thus the uncertainty of it working. Subsequent experiences (the inconveniences of trials; filling in forms and receiving expenses) reinforce the idea that these drugs were experimental, and that the bulk of the benefit from the trial accrues for future patients.  Consequently, in that scenario it is easier for the physician to help the patient to come to terms with the end of life; to deal with this and to realise that any trial drugs give only a slim chance of improvement. In the scenario envisaged by this proposition, experimental drugs can be acquired as easily as licensed ones, and therefore there is no longer that clear distinction for the patient between ‘doing all you can’ in the ordinary sense, (trying every treatment that is known to be effective) and trying ‘one more (experimental) drug’.  Therefore, the patient is less likely to be able to come to terms with their own condition, and therefore less likely to be able to deal with the emotional trauma inflicted not only upon them, but on close family and loved ones.

This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine  By allowing anyone who is critically ill to use experimental drugs you enhance the already dubious role of drug company reps: especially in the USA, (where doctors do not operate under the NHS guidance found in the UK), there is already a problem of patterns of prescription being altered by the techniques of drug reps, rather than by evidence1. Where drugs are for sale before they have completed testing, there is even less evidence available, and therefore less ability for physicians to contest the claims of either reps or their own patients (who may have heard of the drug during their own research). Hence you magnify the problem of potentially ineffective of even harmful prescription.  1 Harris, Gwyn, ‘Pharmaceutical representatives do influence physician behaviour’, Family Practice, Vol.26 2009, pp.169-70,

This reduces the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to complete the testing process  Testing new drugs is a very expensive process, in 2000 the average cost was estimated at around 86 million for the large scale phase III tests1 however this is contested and it could be much higher it represents 40% of pharmaceutical companies R&amp;D expenditures, which since a recent estimated the development cost of a drug can be up to $5.8billion (due to including failures) the cost of trials would in some cases then be $2billion,2 which is currently funded by pharmaceutical companies. They fund these tests because it is either impossible, very difficult or very risky to access large markets before testing has been completed (e.g. in the USA companies are only allowed to sell new drugs “off-study”, i.e. during trials, at cost3)  If you allow all terminally ill patients access to experimental drugs, you reduce the incentive for companies to continue testing their products: they will have access to a large market prior to the completion of testing, and will therefore have no incentive to complete trials, which are expensive and risk finding the product ineffective.  1 DiMasi, Joseph A. et al., ‘The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs’, Journal of Health Economics, Vol.22, 2003, pp.151-185, p.162   2 Roy, Avik S. A., ‘Stifling New Cures: The True Cost of Lengthy Clinical Drug Trials’, Project FDA Report, No. 5, April 2012,   3 Schüklenk, Udo, and Lowry, Christopher, ‘Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: reviewing the ethical arguments’, British Medical Bulletin, Vol.89, 2009, pp.7-22,

Disastrous impact on medical trials  We need medical trials. It is important to have large groups of recruits, which can often be very difficult: a problem with the speed at which new treatments for rare diseases is the rate of recruitment (and therefore the length of time taken to complete the trial)1.  If you pass this motion, trials will face large problems with recruitment, an area where there are already sometimes shortages2: if people can get access to the drug without a) the possibility of being placed in the placebo arm or b) inconveniences of being part of a trial, there is a reduced chance of them choosing to enter the trial.  Consequently, the sample size in trials will be decreased. This will have a couple of outcomes:  First trials will take a longer time to be completed as a result of fewer volunteers and this is bad for patients currently taking the new drug as well as for future patients. This is because it will take longer to determine the safety of the drug meaning if it is dangerous those taking the drug will be taking it for longer before the danger is fully appreciated and if safe then the drug will have taken longer to get to the market than it could have. The longer the trials take to complete, the more people are forced to decide whether to take the drug in the absence of reliable information. This means that, at such a stressful time, people are effectively forced to gamble the quality of their remaining years with the hope of gaining a few more (new drugs are unlikely to be ‘miracle cures’. Rather, they are likely to extend life by driving the disease into remission).  It is important to remember that, at this stage, it has yet to be determined whether new drugs are more effective than old ones, and second, that the sorts of drugs used to treat terminal illnesses tend to come with substantial side effects. As a consequence, if many people are using a new treatment before trialling has been completed, they may be using something that is not effective and has side-effects that significantly impact the quality of the last years of their life.  Finally, the longer trials are delayed, the greater the chance that future trials will be biased by media hype ad speculation. It is both easy and profitable for media outlets to exaggerate early successes of a drug with claims and headlines such as “wonder drug”.  This is problematic because of the tendency towards confirmation bias on the part of researchers: the greater their expectation of a positive result, the more likely they are to alter data to receive that result. Note that this is not as a result of deliberate fraud or deception, but rather, the result of any number of small decisions that, cumulatively, create a large result.  1 Jenkins, John, ‘Considerations for Clinical Trial Designs’, U.S. Food and Drug Administration,   2 ‘Volunteer for research at UNClinicalStudies.org’, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center,

Drugs that are still undergoing clinical trials do not have a complete void of information about them. Presumably this policy covers drugs that have completed at least some testing in humans (say, phase one of the trials), and therefore at least some information would be available on which doctors and patients could base their decisions.  Further, it is implausible to suggest that doctors are entirely under the sway of advertisers: whilst drug reps under the status quo have some influence in getting a doctor to use one drug rather than another, this is in instances where there is little to choose between those products, and (importantly!) both are licensed, safe and effective. They would clearly not be so reckless as to blindly follow a drugs rep and prescribe an untested product to their patient.

Doctors are trained in the presentation of news to their patients. This includes the delivery of bad news, and the dispelling of media-myths. Patients with terminal illnesses are often well-informed about their disease, and (in particular those with chronic conditions) often gain a good understanding of the possibilities of future treatments.  The risk that they may all get carried away on a wave of false hope is, consequently, minimal. Patients in this circumstance are more than capable of reaching, in conjunction with their physician, an informed decision regarding experimental drugs, and make a choice accordingly. The moderate risk of someone making an error in no way outweighs the chance of giving someone some more time with their family.  Countries that already allow access to treatments that have not completed trials do not just allow the doctor to simply proscribe the drug as with any other. Rather the doctor will need to apply for access to the drug.1 In addition the drugs company will also have to give its approval.2 As a result it is unlikely that the patient will consider this the same way as they do normal drugs.  1 ‘Special Access Programme – Drugs’, Health Canada, 15 August 2005,   2 ‘Compassionate Use of Unapproved Investigational Product’, Pfizer,

Although the use of virtual networks and doctors may provide solutions to share knowledge it creates other difficulties. The use of VDP as an educational tool clearly has downsides. First it is not designed for training; if it were why not use a tool specifically for training? As the VDP is not any educational benefits have to be considered secondary. Unlike with a specifically educational tool there is no way for the experts to test that the knowledge they are passing on is being learnt or that their advice is being followed.  Additionally, if the use of virtual doctors is educating medical officers on the ground does it ensure the newly trained professional will stay in Zambia? The bigger picture of what the officers do, and whether the government implement competitive labour policies, requires consideration.

The network approach: promoting learning  The use of ICT and creating a network of professional experts enables learning and knowledge transfer between health workers and academics. In addition to the brain-drain, whereby skilled health professionals continue to emigrate from Zambia, Zambia also shows a slow rate of training of new health workers. Therefore the VDP provides a vital learning tool. VDP provides practical skills by healthcare workers to learn from first-hand experience while having access to a field of experts, or advisers, able to answer any questions. The quality of healthcare will be improved as workers in remote locations are given access to information and correct answers for diagnosis. A global pool of skills can be drawn upon, and utilised, when required.

Mobility remains a key issue across Africa. The WDR (2009) identifies three key sources for effective integration: institutions, infrastructure, and interventions. Infrastructure includes systems that facilitate the geographical movement of goods, services, people, and ideas - such as roads. The reality of a mobile clinic therefore relies heavily on having the infrastructure to support flexibility, mobility, and frequent movement.  Mobile clinics still won’t be able to reach all patients that need their help; public investment is required into infrastructure such as roads and railways first. The project can only work if mobile clinics are able to be mobile. Further, even if they are mobile it doesn’t necessarily ensure people become ill when the medical officer happens to be visiting.

Taking healthcare beyond basic needs  Not only does VDP improve access to primary health care but the networks developed between different health advisers mean changing health demands can be met. Across Africa there is now a shift in the type of diseases prevalent. Increasing rates of non-communicable disease are being recorded - for which advisers can provide ongoing support. Additionally, there remains a need to improve understanding and treatment of mental health issues within rural areas in particular. Concern with mental health requires greater recognition across Africa. Finally, data can be collected on health issues affecting rural areas for targeted intervention.

Tackling access: working in rural areas  Zambia’s human resource crisis in healthcare is most prominent in rural areas. Poverty remains widespread and despite Zambia’s high economic fortune as a result of copper during the 1960s it has become a heavily-indebted poor country. The World Bank (2013) classifies 76% of Zambia’s poor as residing in rural areas. With disparities in access to health prevalent, Zambia needs to train new doctors and nurses to ensure the population can access health care. The VDP is therefore tackling the issue of access within rural, and remote, areas.  Access to health is a human right, and the VDP is ensuring such rights are become a reality in rural areas and rural populations. Mortality and morbidity can be reduced as rural health workers are able to diagnose and treat a wider range of conditions.

Zambia needs to improve its health care system in general, not work on implementing a virtual programme. Physical contact is still necessary for diagnosis and treatment.  Alternative schemes are being used to meet health needs and improve the structure of Zambia’s health system. For example, the Clinton Foundation and DFID [1] have invested in the provision of community health workers. These programmes invest in training community health workers across Zambia’s rural regions. The health workers trained are therefore physically located within the regions. This is much more important than having virtual doctors on call.  [1] See further readings: Clinton Foundation, 2013.

Can the VDP go beyond basic needs and rights when the scale, and scope, of basic need is so large? Figures show a negative image not only of physical health, also the environment in which people live in. The maternal mortality ratio is calculated at around 590 per 100,000 and infant mortality (under 1) stands at 53 per 1,000 live births. However, only 61% of the population have access to improved drinking water; and 48% are able to access improved sanitation facilities (UNICEF, 2013).  Can we rely on NGO’s providing the VDP to fulfil basic needs when the challenges are so large?

A study carried out by Masiye (2007) indicates only around 40% of Zambia’s hospitals can be defined as efficient. There remains a significant problem of resource wastage in Zambia’s hospitals and the hospitals are technically inefficient in producing, and delivering, services. Health goals cannot be achieved in Zambia if hospitals continue to function inefficiently. This raises concern as to how the hospitals cope once referrals are sent? Is the wider health system adequate?  Outsourcing of medical professions into rural areas, and making improvements in the speed and quality of referrals does not resolve the issue of hospital quality. Although VDP’s can act to significantly reduce the number of inappropriate referrals investment, training, and improved management, is still required within Zambia’s hospital system. Additionally, improved access to drugs is needed. Drug shortages have been reported due to corruption scandals - funding provided to supply drugs in the health sector have previously gone missing [1] . Generic drugs are in short-supply, and high demand. Without doctors being able to access vital drugs, whether they are located in hospitals or remote areas, treatment cannot be provided.  [1] See further readings: IRIN, 2011.

Flexibility of mobile clinics  The use of mobile clinics and ICT in health not only tackles issues around location accessibility to health, by travelling into remote areas, but also the flexibility provided through the clinics mobility means a larger population can be seen and treated.  Virtual doctors are flexible; one doctor can be providing his or her expertise through numerous local doctors and nurses at any time. They can help staff with much less training make the correct decisions. By using mobile clinics the location is flexible - and can be altered depending on variations in social need and seasons -, and the time individuals can access the clinic is flexible. Mobile clinics are more responsive to demand.

Speeding up referral  Each mobile clinic will be equipped with vital tools and equipment, and staffed with a medical assistant, a midwife/nurse, and project officer. Furthermore, the presence of a medical staff team means a number of services can be provided for women, men, and children. The team are able to carry out tests on the ground, and if required refer the patient to a hospital. Referrals are made by the staff, with all required information passed on to the hospital and an appropriate appointment made.  The VDP makes each actor within the referral and treatment process aware of their position and role. The VDP appropriately delegates jobs; thus improving the system of hospital referrals and minimising unnecessary costs from inappropriate referrals.

Technology will only be required within the mobile clinics, to enable the VDP networks to be used. It is a key component, but not the only foundation of which the VDP is based on. This means that the clinics can carry equipment to ensure access to the internet remains – such as a satellite connection. Furthermore, significant developments have been made in Zambia’s technological revolution. Internet connectivity has improved in rural areas; and pioneering movements across rural areas - such as the implementation of solar-powered internet - means connectivity is spreading into rural, remote, Zambia.

Today the inclusion of private stakeholders in providing access to health is proving to be a sustainable approach. To achieve developmental impact the public sector is no longer the key source or actor. Although increased support by the government - both financial and political - may be required in the future it is not fundamental for the implementation stage. The VDP can continue to grow and be sustainable through the work of private organisations and funders. The state can later step in and expand the system nationwide when it is fully demonstrated. Private partnerships are changing how health-care is provided and its sustainability.

Resolving the health service crisis?  To what extent does the VDP resolve the lack of health service professionals in Zambia? Two caveats emerge.  Firstly, the project shows how intervention from international organisations can work against trade union demands and employment issues. The project is introducing a model of outsourcing. The medical staff do not need to be based in hospitals so reducing government costs and decentralising employees. Recent strikes by nurses [1] shows dissatisfaction with work conditions and overwork. It raises concern over the motives of the VDP. Is the VDP encouraging social protection and an ethical work environment for all medical professionals? Or is the VDP an escape mechanism to keep wages low and neglect demands made by working nurses? A majority of the expert ‘virtual doctors’ employed are volunteers. Ultimately then the government might consider the VDP a good excuse not to invest in training Zambian doctors.  Secondly, does the VDP resolve the issue of brain drain? Improved incentives and increased salaries are required for trained medical professionals, to motivate them to stay. The VDP may help educated doctors but it does not provide them with reasons to remain in Zambia, rather it gives them contacts with outside healthcare systems where their skills will be much better rewarded.  [1] See further readings: Kunda, 2013.

Will virtual doctors be used?  Even if VDPs do improve access to health services we cannot assume the health services will be used. The use of traditional healers, and practices, remains popular across rural Zambia [1] . If the population is unwilling to use modern medicine then providing better access to that medicine will be of little benefit. If formally trained doctors and medicines are not accepted, or trusted, by communities then the resources being spent on VDPs would be much better spent on education to encourage people to make better use of the facilities they already have than introducing new technology based solutions that will simply be more likely to be rejected.  [1] See further readings: Bansal, 2012.

A dangerous reliance on technology?  ICT is providing innovative solutions to resolve many social problems across Africa. However, is there now a dangerous reliance on technology? Not everyone has access to mobiles and signal remains precarious. When answers, diagnosis, and treatment, are reliant on using technology in the field it needs to be ensured that the service fitted in mobile clinics will remain reliable for field health workers. Additionally, it needs to be ensured that the network of global professionals frequently check messages for updates and respond as quickly as possible. The quality of health service cannot be improved if the response time remains low due to insufficient technology or connectivity. The scheme requires partnerships to telephone and information technology companies.  The reliance on technology is also danger when we consider what information the technology used is actually providing. The VDP will mainly involve text-based emails and messages to provide patient information. Expanding to use images and videos - such as through Skype - will ensure the virtual doctor is more involved in the process, reducing error.

How sustainable?  A key issue that needs to be raised is funding. Currently the VDP is funded by a range of corporate partners - including Microsoft and Google. However, for the project to be sustainable in the long-run investment is required from a wider range of bodies, and further partnerships need to be formed with the public sector. The government needs to be included as a funder and supporter. The neglect, and exclusion, of the government within discussion on health projects - such as VDP - only acts to remove their responsibility and obligation to tackle the social dilemma. Healthcare is the responsibility of government, not the NGOs and private firms that are providing VDP.

Figures showcasing the popular use of traditional practices, and medicine, do not show the reasons behind use. It fails to recognise the degree of choice and the nature of treatment provided. If people don’t have access to modern medicine then they will go to that which is available. The answer then is to increase access to modern medicine to provide the alternative.

The VDP is providing a number a solution to the lack of human resources within Zambia’s health sector. VDP is enabling the growth of local jobs, for Zambian nationals. Although there are no current figures to estimate the amount of jobs that will be provided within the health sector, the VDP has currently been rolled out into six sites and continues to expand. New clinics will be set-up across Zambia, as well as Tanzania, Malawi and Kenya. A growing body of health workers will be required to maintain the VDP network; reducing the doctor to population disparity in Zambia.

The added cost to public healthcare that comes as a result of diseases brought upon by smoking is vastly outweighed by the amount of money governments around the world receive in taxes on tobacco. The UK currently takes around 60% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes in tax duty. In 2008, the US took over $16 billion in tobacco tax revenue1. Such high tax duties and revenues can hardly be justified if smokers are not even to get healthcare for their money. And without the taxes, cigarettes would be much cheaper, encouraging more people to smoke. Moreover, because smokers tend to die earlier than non-smokers, per head the average health care costs are lower than those of non-smokers2. 1 Tax Policy Centre, US Tobacco Revenue Statistics, 2 USA Today, 15 Jul 11, Do smokers cost society money.. Accessed 15 Jul 11.

Smokers are a drain on economic resources  Smokers contribute a disproportionately large amount to the cost of healthcare. They are a drain on resources. In the UK it is estimated that up to 9,500 beds are blocked daily by smokers, and that up to eight million doctor consultations are required on their behalf each year. A well-informed smoker, unable or unwilling to quit, might assume an increased risk for himself but he would also be indirectly increasing the likelihood of others being unable to access necessary healthcare and this is not fair. Allowing smokers to take scarce beds or organs needed for transplants - that could otherwise go to those suffering from genuine misfortunes - is an unjust allocation of resources.

Many smokers do not choose to harm themselves, they simply can't help it. The 1988 US Surgeon General's report on the addictive nature of cigarette smoking provides proof of what is now widely accepted – smoking cigarettes is highly addictive. Moreover, there are high correlations between people smoking and being under stress or having parents that smoke. All of this suggests that people do not necessarily choose to smoke and may not be able to choose to give up. Given that smokers can therefore be portrayed as suffering from involuntary addiction, it would seem sensible to tackle this addiction alongside physical health issues, as oppose to dismissing smokers altogether.

As smokers have a higher chance of harm from surgery due to complications arising from their habit, it is more efficient to prioritize non-smokers  Failure to quit smoking before surgical procedures increases cardiac and pulmonary complications, impairs tissue healing, and is associated with more infections and other complications at the surgical site. For example, in a study of wound and other complications after hip or knee surgery, no smoker who quit beforehand developed a wound infection compared with 26% of ongoing smokers and 27% of those who only reduced tobacco use. Overall complications were reduced to 10% in those who quit smoking compared with 44% in those who continued1. This means that surgery costs more on average for smokers and is also less likely to be effective. Treating more smokers means devoting more resources for lower results. Therefore, prioritizing non-smokers, at least in certain areas of healthcare, would be beneficial to society as a whole. 1http Peters, M.J. (2007) Should smokers be refused surgery? British Medical Journal,

The law would act as a deterrent against attempts to conceal a smoking habit to procure healthcare  There are realistic ways a policy of denying healthcare access to smokers could be carried out. Insurance companies already ask lots of health-related questions, often including whether their client is a smoker, when assessing life insurance premiums. In these cases, you are required to give details of your lifestyle by law. Of course, some people do not, however this is to be expected since no law is one hundred per cent effective. Sanctions exist to discourage dishonest behaviour. A similar model could be put in place requiring a declaration of smoker status to the health authority. Indeed, many doctors already enquire about their patients' smoking statuses on an informal basis. It is also particularly hard to lie about being a smoker for two reasons. First, other people inevitably see you smoking. This means an abundance of witnesses in the case of a dispute, and thus a disincentive to lie. Second, people require doctors to undertake detailed examinations for treatment purposes, thereby allowing them to see obvious outward signs of smoking: tar deposits, tar in cough, yellowed fingernails, etc.

Denying, or even reducing, access to healthcare for smokers is impractical, and therefore an unrealistic policy goal. First, the extent to which care is denied is questionable. Does the proposition model include denying palliative care? If it does, this literally means leaving people to suffer agonising pain in emergencies while they try to locate private prescription painkillers, if they can afford them. Further, does it include denying emergency procedures such as resuscitation in the case of a heart attack? If it does, where are patients supposed to go? Private emergency rooms are few and far between, or non-existent, in many countries – never mind private ambulances. Second, in order to encourage smokers to stop smoking, the process needs to involve reactivating access to healthcare if smokers quit. But any cut-off point at which the right is re-activated will necessarily be arbitrary. Some studies have suggested that, for instance, teenagers do irreparable damage to their respiratory systems even if they stop smoking young. If all citizens make an informed decision to smoke, as the proposition argues, isn’t it the case that teenagers make an informed decision to do inordinate damage to their bodies? If it is, then why should there be an absolute cut-off point at which one reassumes healthcare rights? Should there be a relative scale? Wouldn’t this be impossible to construct on a scientific basis?

Smokers may have a higher chance of harm from surgery due to complications arising from their habit, but this is not a phenomenon specific to them. Cardiovascular disease, or heart disease to most people, is the number one killer of men and women in the United States1. It is caused by the build-up of fatty deposits that clog the vessels - those at risk are often smokers, but can just as often be those who are overweight, have diabetes or simply high blood pressure. As such, it is not justified to single out smokers when those with unhealthy diets can just as easily cause complications in their surgeries.  1. Daily News, 13 Jul 11, Cardiovascular disease: Defend yourself by lowering the risks.Accessed 14 Jul 11.

There is no evidence that limiting access to healthcare would act as a deterrent. In fact, in the developing world, where a smoker would on average have worse access to healthcare, tobacco consumption has increased significantly over the last decade.1 Furthermore, governments have indeed acted to discourage smoking through a variety of methods. These have included advertising campaigns and banning smoking in public places and they seem to have worked. Cigarette use in the developed world has declined over the last 50 years. In the UK, smoking rates have dropped by half between 1974 and 2009, from 45% down to 21%2. A majority 59% have never taken up the habit3. 1 World Health Organization, The Tobacco Atlas, 2 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011. 3 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011.

The added cost to public healthcare that comes as a result of diseases brought upon by smoking is vastly outweighed by the amount of money governments around the world receive in taxes on tobacco. The UK currently takes around 60% of the cost of a pack of  Many people have to wait for surgery when they have fallen ill or gotten injured through no fault of their own. Many of the people they are waiting behind have fallen ill out of choice. This includes smokers who have contracted diseases as a result of their habit. There is a vast array of information, easily available to smokers, on the dangers of cigarettes. If despite this, a person chooses to smoke anyway then it is unfair that others who have fallen ill out of genuine misfortune should have to wait in line behind them for healthcare. This problem is particularly in acute in states that have universal healthcare, where non-smokers are forced to wait in a queue for treatment behind those who have negligently made themselves ill smoking. In Britain for example, they have attempted to avoid this by establishing standards under which surgery is denied to obese patients1. Thomas Condliff, the patient, was denied gastric band surgery due to having a body mass index lower than the threshold under which they believed the surgery would be effective2. The priority in such cases is and should be with those who have made a conscious decision to develop an unhealthy habit. 1 BBC News, 11 Jul 11, Man appeals for NHS gastric bypass surgery. Accessed 14 Jul 11.

Denying access to healthcare for smokers would act as a deterrent, discouraging smokers  Governments should do everything they can to discourage smoking. They already attempt to do so in a number of ways, such as through ensuring graphic health warnings are present on all tobacco packaging. Many states have also introduced legislation banning smoking indoors in an attempt to discourage the habit. However, smoking is still a massive problem - millions of people still do it. The refusal of medical treatment to smokers would surely be a massive deterrent to current/potential smokers from continuing/starting the habit. The safety net of modern healthcare being pulled from underneath them would be a powerful incentive to give up the habit, and reduce the estimated $100 billion that the White House believes smokers cost the economy annually through loss of productivity1. 1 USA Today, 15 Jul 11, Do smokers cost society money.. Accessed 15 Jul 11.

Denying access to healthcare for smokers will not hurt the economy, for the health care costs of smokers are substantially larger than those of non-smokers. In fact, 'health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for non-smokers' . Furthermore, though the opposition points out that because smokers die younger, average health costs are in fact lower than non-smokers, denying access to healthcare will have two effects which will cancel each other out: more people will give up smoking, increasing gross medical costs for the state, but those who don't will die younger for they won't get treatment, which will offset the previous rise.

There are realistic and practical ways in which the policy of denying healthcare to smokers could be carried out. Smoking is a habit that has clear and demonstrable physical effects, which often correlate with the regularity and longevity of the habit; doctors are trained to recognize such symptoms and do not need patient confirmation. Furthermore, if the bill made it quite clear that healthcare was to be denied to present smokers, the hypothetical presented by the opposition is easily negated. The goal of such a bill would to be to ensure that both smokers gave up the habit and non-smokers did not take up the habit. In this case, the man taking up smoking is in the wrong and is acting contrary to the law. He would have little room for complaint.

Denying access to healthcare for smokers will lead to thousands of people being turned away and potentially dying from preventable illnesses  The denial of access to healthcare for smokers is a policy that will directly lead to the turning away of millions of people, merely for making one perfectly legal, if ill-advised lifestyle choice. In a state like France, where 20 per cent of the population, 12 million people, are smokers, such a policy would leave a large minority unable to access basic healthcare for issues that may be unrelated to their smoking habit . Furthermore, it may lead to the ridiculous situation whereby smokers are dying from preventable diseases despite hospitals being under-utilized, as a fifth of the population is no longer allowed in.

Denying healthcare to smokers is a restriction on people's liberties  Whether or not you believe it should be, smoking tobacco is legal. At the same time, healthcare is regarded as a fundamental human right, alongside rights to education, food and water. Denying someone healthcare is to impede upon his/her basic liberties and this cannot be justified when, in the eyes of the law, they have done nothing wrong. Criminals have the right to healthcare – it is often that you hear that the trial of a war criminal is being delayed while they receive treatment. Take the cases of Ratko Mladic or Slobodan Milosevic for example 1. If healthcare is given to men who have committed genocide then surely it should be given to smokers. Also, if a Government adopts the line that one's behavior determines the kind of health service one receives then what is to stop that Government applying such a mantra beyond smoking and controlling the practices of those they govern in any number of ways?  1.  and

Denying healthcare to smokers alone is victimization  The denial of healthcare, an established right, without the citizen doing anything either immoral or wrong is pure and simple victimization. Suppose you are a doctor and you have two patients waiting for a heart transplant. Patient A is 65. He does not exercise, has never had a job and has committed a series of crimes throughout his life. Patient B is in his 20s, with a first class degree from a good university. He is a trained doctor himself and wants to go and work in the developing world, to help people suffering from leprosy. But Patient B is a heavy smoker. Should you therefore prioritize patient A? It seems problematic to victimize smokers, particularly considering smoking is legal. If you are going to discriminate against smokers then surely you should discriminate against alcohol drinkers and people who do extreme sports as they are also knowingly endangering themselves. Smoking reduces life expectancy by 2.5 years for men, but obesity reduces life expectancy by 1.3 years and if high blood pressure is added to that by a total of 2.8 years all are preventable so why should only smoking be discriminated against?1 Maybe you should discriminate against people who choose to live in polluted cities. And then there are drug users. What about people who could afford private health care? Should age, occupation and past convictions be taken into account? It seems arbitrary and unfair to single out smokers. Yet, if we start to take into account all the factors that determine who "deserves" to be prioritized for healthcare, then we are left with the unsavory, illiberal practice of Social Darwinism. 1 Harvard School of Public Health, "Four Preventable Risk Factors Reduce Life Expectancy in U.S. and Lead to Health Disparities", 22 March 2010, accessed 24 August 2010.

Denying access to healthcare for smokers will hurt the economy  Economically, the healthcare of the nation is important for maintaining a productive workforce. Do we really want to lose otherwise functional members of the workforce the first time they contract an aggravated throat infection and cannot afford, or delay for financial reasons, a simple course of antibiotics? Quite apart from productivity, as The Guardian notes, smokers in the United Kingdom also contribute over £10 billion to government coffers through the tobacco tax 1. To lose this source of revenue will do more to hurt national health services than the occasional complication in surgery granted to a smoker. Lastly, because smokers die younger than non-smokers, though they cost more per year, over their lifetime their average health costs are lower than those of longer-living, non-smokers.  1.

Goods provided by the state, like healthcare, are often, and necessarily, subject to certain provisions. For example, in order to get unemployment benefits, a person must prove that they are regularly looking for a job and a means to get themselves off benefits. Denying access to healthcare for smokers does not mean denying them healthcare access forever; they can regain unlimited access if they stop smoking. Therefore, prioritizing non-smokers for healthcare in certain cases is not impeding upon smokers' basic liberties but a recognition that those who care about their own health enough to not smoke should be prioritized.

Denying healthcare to smokers is impractical  There are several reasons why limiting access to healthcare for smokers could prove impractical. Ultimately they surround the issue of how you define who is a smoker. One man might have chain smoked for 20 years but given up for a year, since a bill limiting access to healthcare for smokers was passed. Meanwhile, another might have been smoking cigarettes now and again just for the past year. Who would be prioritized if the two were on a waiting list for the same operation? If the law penalizes anyone who has ever smoked then it would not provide nearly as strong an incentive to stop smoking. But, if the law does not penalize anyone who has smoked, then choosing whom to punish would seem quite arbitrary. Furthermore, what is stopping people from simply lying about how much/whether they smoke? They might not show any obvious signs of being a smoker. Even if they do, they could claim to have given up, work around fumes or be a victim of passive smoking.

In practice, it is both viable and beneficial, in certain cases, to prioritize non-smokers for healthcare. Where there is more chance of a transplant being successful in a non-smoker for example. It is true that people can knowingly damage their health in other ways, such as drug taking or alcohol abuse and it may well be viable to limit access to healthcare in these cases also. This does not mean that every factor in a patient's life must be scrutinized in order to decide where they are placed on a doctor's waiting list. In public policy, the line must be drawn somewhere. Prioritizing non-smokers can mean that more people can be helped with same amount of resources and, where this is the case, it should be practiced.

The opposition fails to recognize the impact that such a policy will have on smokers. Access will only be denied to smokers who continue to smoke once the bill is in place, if it is proven that they have given up, they will be free to access healthcare. Therefore, the only smokers who will be turned away, and who will potentially die from preventable illnesses are those who place their habit above that of their life.

To not promote abstinence is not a neutral position, it is a position the implicitly encourages sexual promiscuity. Children are at risk of severe psychological and physical harm from having sex too young, and should be encouraged not to do so. Promoting ‘safe sex’ is implicitly encouraging sex by implying that it is safe and a normal thing to be doing. This will encourage young people to believe that there is no risk when this is not the case even if they do follow the prescriptions they have been taught about sex.

Abstinence is an outdated view, based on religious teaching, which may be a personal choice but is not to be expected as the norm for everyone  Young people express their sexuality as part of their development to adulthood. It is not having sex that is a problem, but having unsafe sex or hurting people through sexual choices. Refusing to promote safe sex would mean not moving with the times. Just because schools do not promote safe sex does not mean that adolescents will not experiment with sex. They will already be exposed to sexual imagery and ideas of sex so it is necessary that they are taught properly how to remain safe.  Schools may also want to talk about abstinence at the same time; it is a way of keeping sexually safe. However schools have to recognise that the majority of pupils are unlikely to stick to abstinence regardless of how much the school promotes it. It is therefore necessary for the school to also promote and educate about safe sex.

The problem with mandatory sex education is precisely that it presents that information in an organised fashion – by the state. In doing so the right of the parents to raise their children in accordance with their structure of beliefs is usurped.

Ignorance about sex is the primary cause of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)  The spread of AIDS in the 80s and 90s showed that education and information is more important than ever as exemplified by the slogan in the British 1980’s advertising campaign to prevent AIDS ‘AIDS: Don’t Die of Ignorance’. The campaigns were credited with credited with changing behaviour through warnings on adverts and informing through an information leaflet. [1] This shows that education can work even when starting from scratch. Giving sex education in schools is crucial to the spread of information to each successive generation, and may be supplemented by frank discussion at home.  [1] Kelly, Jon, ‘HIV/Aids: Why were the campaigns successful in the West?’, BBC News Magazine, 28 November 2011,

While a serious disease, AIDS transmission makes up only a tiny proportion of sexually transmitted infections each year. [1]  Firstly the harm of these infections has always been satisfactorily low before public Sex Education, and secondly even if mandatory public education did have a substantive benefit it would not outweigh the infringement on the moral freedom of the parents.  [1] Health Protection Agency, STI Annual Data Tables

True, but nor does it make sense to make the classes mandatory once the child reaches an age where it is legally able to decide whether it wants to partake of them. Nor does this mean that these classes need to be promoting safe sex rather than simply teaching the facts and encouraging abstinence.

The information age makes attempting to hide information on sex impossible  The internet provides a vast amount of easily accessible information about sex, of varying degrees of quality. Most children in the west now have access to the internet and are therefore likely to have access to this information on sex, or at least educational materials on sex even if the child’s access to the internet is controlled.  Given that it is impossible to prevent children from accessing this information if they really want to, it makes sense to present it to them in an organised and accurate fashion. Rather than allowing children to find information on their own through what may well be unreliable resources it is necessary that they should get good reliable information. That this information when there is safe sex education comes from the school means that the children know that they information is reliable. They can then use this information to help them decide how reliable any further information they may find from other sources is.

Restricting information to children is inconsistent with the age of consent  With the age of consent being 16 and with young people being able to vote at 18, it does not make sense for parents to have control over whether their children attended sex education classes right up until the age of 19 or whenever they finish full time schooling.  The age of consent means that there is clearly a need to be taught about sex from that age of consent. This is something that cannot be guaranteed to happen in all individual households if left to the parents whereas it can be ensured in schools.

Parents often know nothing (or worse, are armed with dangerously naive delusions) of the sexual state of their children. The picture painted by abolitionists is inaccurate – the process of deciding what is taught in schools involves parents’ groups and school governing bodies on a school-by-school basis, so parents do have a role in deciding what is taught. But ultimately, the state should be involved in educating the whole child, not just in doling out academic ideas – and should work hard to safeguard sexual health of youngsters, a field near-impossible to separate from sex education.  This is a subject just as important for the development of young people as the conventional subjects such as maths and English. The role of ‘teacher’ has to change with time. Once, teachers only instructed the children of the well-off or acted as a branch of the church, now they teach everyone in a secular society. As their role changes, they must remain responsible and obey the law: thus, the scaremongering of suggesting teachers will abuse their students or lure them into relationships is irrelevant, as both sides believe that is wrong, and should be prosecuted.  Rules banning discussions of sex in schools can deny teachers the ability to deal with real problems. When an individual student comes to a teacher with a problem, a rule against discussing such things in the classroom will probably mean that this outlet of help the troubled adolescent has sought out, often because he feels the family isn’t the place to get help, will be denied to him, will turn its back on him. Like it or not, in today’s fractured society teachers have taken on the role of counsellor, and this rule will indirectly curtail their ability to fulfil it. The result of that will be appalling.

Our children are sexually active. They are making decisions that can affect the rest of their lives. They should be able to choose responsibly and be well-informed about the likely outcomes. They should know about sources of free or cheap contraception, who to turn to when pregnant or if they suspect they have a venereal disease, how to use contraception to avoid both, and, contrary to the impression of abolitionists, they should be told the benefits of abstinence. How can you tell people about that if you refuse to discuss sex? How can you imagine they will take you seriously if you turn a blind eye to something so many of their peers are doing?  They need an external source of support to resist peer pressure, and have sex later rather than sooner: lamentably, it is presumed amongst many young people that having unprotected sex with many partners at an early age is the norm and they encourage others to do it (and attempt to humiliate those that don’t). We need mechanisms to support those that want to resist that pressure: sex education is such a mechanism. Sex education is part of a package of provisions needed to help our teenagers avoid the terrible pitfalls of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease. This problem is here – pretending that it isn’t won’t make it go away. How else do opponents of sex education propose to deal with the huge problems of STDs and teen pregnancy? Effective and widely supported sex education programs can achieve real results. For example, in the Netherlands, amongst people having intercourse for the first time, 85% used contraception – compared to 50% in the UK.

Children are bad decision makers  Sex education informs children about sex, and then invites them to make a choice. But as demonstrated all the time, children are bad decision-makers, often choosing what is bad for them. That is why adult society often needs to decide for them – what they should eat, what they should watch on T.V., when they are mature enough to be able to choose whether or not to drink or smoke. Surely sex is just as important as those things – just as dangerous, just as potentially destructive. The abdication of our responsibility in the sexual arena is shameful; we should be unafraid to simply tell children this is something they cannot do, aren’t mature enough to consent to yet – a responsibility we seem to shrink from even though it is reflected by the stated aim of society enshrined in the law of the age of consent. Lessons implicitly lauding the pleasures of intercourse are entirely contrary to that aim.

Sex education for underage children undermines the law  Sex education classes for those under the age of consent undermines the law. It says, ‘don’t do this – but given that you are, do this, this and this.’ This sends a terrible message about the law – that breaking it isn’t serious, that authority (as represented by teachers) tacitly approves of that illegality, will tolerate it and even encourage it.  Sex education fails to tell our children clearly what is right and what is wrong. And remember that these are children, who need clear boundaries to guide their behaviour, and who may not understand the subtleties appreciated by liberal educationalists. In any case, so few teachers want to teach this subject that the quality of teaching is awful. Those that do end up teaching it are often the oddest characters in the teaching establishment. Many teachers happy to ‘cover’ other subjects are uniquely embarrassed by this one, or object to it on moral grounds and will not do so, leaving it to the most liberal members of staff.

Responsibility for children's moral and sexual upbringing is not the responsibility of schools  This is none of the state’s business. Teaching this subject en masse in a classroom reduces it to biological notions, group embarrassment and crude jokes. Furthermore, children have never needed this from the state: left alone, they learn from their family and surroundings and grow naturally into adults without the state’s involvement. Few things are responsible for parental disaffection with education more than the teaching of sex and sexuality in ways contrary to their wishes.  Parents have a right to determine the moral environment in which their children develop and this is a huge intrusion into that right. That moral environment has been manipulated again and again over the last forty years by a liberal teaching establishment set on undermining traditional values and beliefs. Sex education has been a prime weapon in that social engineering. That tool should be taken away from teachers, who as a body have proven themselves undeserving of it. As for the tedious idea that children somehow need the nanny state to look after their sexuality – who knows children and their needs better than parents? Schools are responsible for so much that is wrong with our children, and by giving them free licence to delve into students’ sexuality, things become so much worse, blurring the line between teacher, adviser, confidante, and sometimes in extremes, between teacher and lover – an abuse of power that bringing sex into the classroom makes so much easier.

Sex education leads to experimentation and early intercourse, and indirectly encourages promiscuity  Sex education leads to experimentation and early intercourse, and indirectly encourages promiscuity. The most moral form of Sex Education says ‘you shouldn’t do this, but we know you are,’ thus pushing children to consider their sexual existence before they need to or indeed should. Thus sex education’s message is invariably confused – on the one hand, by saying ‘here are the perils of teen sex – so don’t do it,’ and on the other hand, ‘here is how to have teen sex safely.’  Less moral forms start by saying, ‘the best form of a relationship is a loving, constant relationship’ and then say, here are the ways to use protection if you’re not in such a relationship’ – a logic which presumes children are in sexual relationships to begin with. The justification for this is that ‘adolescents know all about sex’ – an idea pushed in our permissive society so much it’s almost a truism – but contrary to that bland generalisation, many children don’t do these things early, don’t think about these things – they actually have childhoods, and these lessons stir up confusion, misplaced embarrassment or even shame at slower development. They also encourage children to view their peers in a sexualised context.  The openness with which education tells students to treat sex encourages them to ask one another the most personal questions (have you lost your virginity? – how embarrassing, how uncool, to have to say no), and to transgress personal boundaries – all with the teacher’s approval. Inhibitions are broken down not just by peer pressure, but by the classroom. As pro-sex education people love to point out, children develop in their own time – but that means that some are learning about this too early, as well as ‘too late.’ We in society are guilty of breaking the innocence of childhood, earlier and earlier – and these lessons are a weapon in the forefront of that awful attack on decent life.

Well taught sex education does no such thing. Sex and responsibility classes must tread a fine line, first stressing the importance of waiting until ready before having sex, and pointing to the physical benefits of fewer partners and starting sex later – but must then move on to the reality of modern Britain’s sex-ridden teen culture, without applauding it, and try to decrease the very high levels of STDs and pregnancy. Yes, that’s hard to do – but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. On the contrary – it’s one of the most important duties society faces today. Arguments about poor teaching apply equally to maths. We often have to try to recruit teachers in unpopular fields – true, difficult, but hardly unique. The answer is to improve teacher training, both for new graduates and for practising teachers, and to bring in outside consultants from the health and social welfare sectors, who have deep experience in this area.

That logic might sound impressive – but it’s the same one that fails to control underage drinking, underage smoking, the watching of rated movies by those forbidden to do so, the eating of bad food – and underage sex. It’s the same poor parental logic that has seen a generation of children grow up divorced from the society around them, children who die from drugs overdoses and whose parents say (honestly), ‘I just had no idea.’ It’s time to talk to our young people about what they do – honestly, frankly, without frightening them into dishonesty and deception. To do otherwise perpetuates the cycle of ignorance about youth society, and perpetuates the status quo of being able to do nothing to change it.

Force feeding is undignified. The World Medical Association considers “Even if intended to benefit, feeding accompanied by threats, coercion, force or use of physical restraints is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment.” [1] This is treatment which the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits in Article 3 on the prohibition of torture. [2] The patient’s right to refuse treatment should be respected even if they are mentally ill. (N.B. Anorexia is not recognised as a mental illness in every country).  [1] World Medical Association, ‘WMA Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers’, 2006  [2] European Court of Human Rights, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’, 2010, P.4

Anorectic patients are not able to make the decision for themselves.  Anorectic patients are typically treated under mental health legislation (e.g. the UK 1983 Act). They do not make a free choice because they are not rationally able to weigh up decisions and consequences, they ‘feel’ fat when they obviously are not and are irrational as they are willing to starve themselves to the point of death when suicide is not their intent. [1] The patient is not “capable of forming unimpaired and rational judgements concerning the consequences” (British Medical Association 1992). There have been court cases that have confirmed that force feeding should be allowed when a patient is considered mentally ill. For example the case of “B vs. Croydon Health Authority” in 1994 it was judged, that B (a borderline personality disorder patient, which involves suffering from an irresistible desire to inflict-self-harm) can be force fed, even though she did not give consent to the treatment.  The court explained that because she was not aware of the seriousness of her condition and she had found it difficult to break out of the cycle of self-punishment, she was deemed unfit to make decisions about her nutrition. [2]  [1] Fedyszyn &amp; Sullivan, ‘Ethical re-evaluation of contemporary treatments for anorexia nervosa’, 2007,  , p.202  [2] Keywood K., B v Croydon Health Authority 1994, CA: Force-Feeding the Hunger-Striker under the Mental Health Act 1983., University of Liverpool,  , accessed 07/22/2011

Far from helping solve the patient’s psychological problems force feeding is just as likely to exacerbate the problems and make them much less willing to seek out treatment, something that they are often already unwilling to do. [1] While it may be the case that when starved people over-estimate their own size those who are anorexic in the developed world did not start out starved so there must have been a different initial cause of the anorexia that will need to be found and solved, there are numerous different types of psychological treatment that can help do this. [2]  [1] Jimerson, Shane R. et al., ‘Eating Disorders: Treatment’, 2002,   [2] NHS Choices, ‘Treating anorexia’, 2010,

Life is more important than dignity  Life is more important than dignity, many medical treatments are unpleasant or painful but they are necessary to preserve life. Without force feeding the anorectic patient will often die. In Australia about 80 per cent of all anorexic children required hospital admission (from 101 cases), and of those, 50 per cent required tube feeding as a life-saving measure to manage starvation. [1] When a patient requires emergency treatment doctors should do what is necessary to save the patient’s life. Psychological problems can only be treated if the person is alive. Treatment for the psychological problem should be considered to go hand in hand with saving the patient’s life as in the B vs. Croydon Health Authority where force feeding was ruled to be complemented the use of other methods to treat her psychiatric problems. [2]  [1] McLean T., Half of anorexic kids need force feeding, 2008,  , accessed 07/22/2011  [2] Keywood K., B v Croydon Health Authority 1994, CA: Force-Feeding the Hunger-Striker under the Mental Health Act 1983., University of Liverpool,  , accessed 07/22/2011

Life is more important than dignity. None the less there is a significant difference between someone who is in an emergency condition being treated without their consent and someone who has previously refused treatment being forced to have treatment. Patients are allowed to make decisions doctors believe are unwise. [1]  [1] Patients.co.uk, ‘Consent To Treatment (Mental Capacity and Mental Helth Legislation)’ 2009,

When it comes to hunger strikes the World Medical Association says that “Forcible feeding is never ethically acceptable.” [1] While there are obviously differences in terms of the objective when it comes to the consent of the patient there is no difference. In both cases the patient does not want to be force fed and understand what the consequences may be.  [1] World Medical Association, ‘WMA Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers’, 2006

Force feeding can help psychologically.  A healthier body weight is necessary to be able to treat the patient’s psychological problems. Studies in Minnesota show that when normal volunteers were starved, they began to development anorectic patterns. They over-estimated the sizes of their own faces by approximately 50%. This shows the impact of starvation on the brain. [1]  [1] Fedyszyn &amp; Sullivan, ‘Ethical re-evaluation of contemporary treatments for anorexia nervosa’, 2007,  , P.202

In the first instance, doctors should always act to keep a patient alive  Medical ethics say that a doctor has a responsibility to keep the patient alive to administer treatment. In the UK Diana Pretty was denied the right to die by the House of Lords even though she consistently requested it. The Israeli Courts ordered the force- feeding of political hunger strikers arguing that in a conflict between life and dignity, life wins. India prosecuted a physician who allowed a hunger striker to die. The medical profession take their responsibility for life very seriously on a global level.

Yes there will be negative consequences to such a step as force feeding however this is only done when it is absolutely necessary and the negative consequences of not doing so are much worse. Doctors will only force feed if they are convinced that doing so is for the good of the patient, indeed they are prohibited from taking such a step if it is not absolutely necessary.

Short term success is all that is necessary to save a life. Once the anorectic patient is out of danger then more long term treatments can be explored. This means working out how to reduce the fear of food and of weight and if the patient has become worried about going to hospital then at least there is time to sort that out as well. While emergency force feeding has to be within a hospital not all treatment has to take place in such an environment and ongoing psychological treatment can take place elsewhere.

Anorexics need to be able to trust their doctors.  The most successful policies are where anorectic patients feel safe and trust their doctors so are willing to go to clinics voluntarily as they feel that they are in control of the situation. [1] Conversely an anorectic patient’s fear of weight gain, especially forced weight gain in hospital is an obstacle to treatment. If an anorexia nervosa sufferer thinks that they will be force- fed they may be less likely to seek treatment or advice.  [1] Susic, Paul, ‘Anorexia Treatment and the Unwilling Patient’,  , accessed 07/21/2011

The focus should be on palliative care.  Some doctors advocate focusing on palliative care (relief of pain but not treatment of cause) due to the low full recovery rates of anorexia sufferers. Research Studies show that over 10 years only approximately 20% of patients recover. Those patients who are sufferers for more than 12 years are unlikely to ever recover.

Force feeding strategies may cause physical harm  Force-feeding has negative consequences. If the patient is dangerously thin and is then force-fed, it can led to Hypophosphataemia (reduction of phosphates in the blood) which causes heart failure. Anorexics are characterised by self-denial and often do not come forward voluntarily. Indeed it according to Dr Sacker anorexia is often not even about food rather "By stopping food from going into the body, what they really feel is they can be in control of their body.” [1] This desire is actively harmed by force feeding as a result they are even less likely to come forward voluntarily if they are faced with the possibility of force- feeding.  [1] CBS, ‘A very thin line’, 02/11/2009,  , accessed 07/22/2011

Compulsory treatment is not a long term solution.  Compulsory treatment may only be successful in the short term. In the long term it does nothing to reduce the fear of food, weight and hospital felt by the patient and is a barrier to treatment. Hospital admission often has a worse outcome for the patient; there are increased mortality rates which are then even higher for those who are admitted against their will. [1] Suicide accounts for 27% of anorexia deaths. [2] Compulsory treatment may make the patient more depressed and at greater risk from harm.  [1] Fedyszyn &amp; Sullivan, ‘Ethical re-evaluation of contemporary treatments for anorexia nervosa’, 2007,  , p.201  [2] BBC News, ‘Compulsory treatment ‘helps anorexics’’, 1999

Palliative care is defeatist and does not attempt to cure the problem. Recovery is always a possibility and that is what doctors should be striving for “In a 10 year follow up of 76 severely ill women with anorexia, Eckert et al found that 18 (24%) had fully recovered, about half had a benign outcome, and only five (7%) had died.” [1] Doctors do not often have to deal with severe or chronic anorexia. Just because it is a very long treatment schedule that can be harrowing for a doctor, this not a reason to settle for palliative care. Better support structures ought to be put in place to enable the doctor to fulfil their obligation to the patient.  [1] Williams, Christopher J. et al., ‘We should strive to keep patients alive’, 1998,

In 1997 the Mental Health Act Commission opened the door to allowing force feeding of anorexic patients in the UK by allowing the compulsory admission of anorexics to hospital. This change of policy did not reduce the number of patients being admitted for treatment which has gone up from 419 in 1996-7 to 620 in 2005-6. [1]  [1] Disordered eating, Anorexia Nervosa Statistics (Uk),  , accessed 07/22/2011

A range of health programs are already available. Many employers offer health insurance and some people deliberately choose to work for such companies for these benefits, even if the pay is a little lower. Other plans can be purchased by individuals with no need to rely on an employer. This means they are free to choose the level of care which is most appropriate to their needs. For other people it can be perfectly reasonable to decide to go without health insurance. Healthy younger adults will on average save money by choosing not to pay high insurance premiums, covering any necessary treatment out of their own pockets from time to time. Why should the state take away all these people’s freedom of choice by imposing a one-size-fits-all socialist system of health care?  Human resources professionals will still be needed to deal with the very many other employment regulations put in place by the federal government. Instead of employees being able to exercise control over their health care choices and work with people in their company, patients will be forced to deal with the nameless, faceless members of the government bureaucracy.

Current health care systems are not sustainable  American health insurance payments are very high and rising rapidly. Even employer-subsidised programs are very expensive for many Americans, because they often require co-payments or high deductibles (payment for the first part of any treatment). In any case employee health benefits are being withdrawn by many companies as a way of cutting costs. For those without insurance, a relatively minor illness or injury can be a financial disaster. It is unfair that many ordinary hard-working Americans can no longer afford decent medical treatment.  Moving to a system of universal health care would reduce the burden on human resources personnel in companies. At present they must make sure the company is obeying the very many federal laws about the provision of health insurance. With a universal system where the government was the single-payer, these regulations would not apply and the costs of American businesses would be much reduced.

The United States government cannot afford to fund universal health care. Other universal social welfare policies such as Social Security and Medicare have run into major problems with funding. Costs are rising at the same time that the baby boomer generation are growing old and retiring. Soon tens of millions of boomers will stop contributing much tax and start demanding much more in benefits than before. In such a situation we cannot afford to burden the nation with another huge government spending program. Nations that provide universal health care coverage spend a substantial amount of their national wealth on the service.  With government control of all health care, caps will be placed on costs. As a result many doctors would not be rewarded for their long hours and important roles in our lives. The road to becoming a doctor is long and hard; without the present financial rewards many young people will not choose to study medicine. Current doctors may find that they do not want to continue their careers in a government-controlled market. The American Medical Association does not back a government-controlled, single-payer universal health care system.  The current system of offering group insurance through employers covers many Americans with good quality health insurance. The group plan concept enables insurance companies to insure people who are high risk and low risk by mixing them in the same pool. Issues over losing or leaving a job with health benefits are dealt with by federal laws which require companies to continue to offer workers cover for at least 18 months after they leave employment.

Health care would substantially reduce overall costs  With universal health care, people are able to seek preventive treatment. This means having tests and check-ups before they feel ill, so that conditions can be picked up in their early stages when they are easy to treat. For example in a recent study 70% of women with health insurance knew their cholesterol level, while only 50% of uninsured women did. In the end, people who do not get preventive health care will get treatment only when their disease is more advanced. As a result their care will cost more and the outcomes are likely to be much worse. Preventative care, made more accessible, can function the same way, reducing the costs further. [1]  In addition, a single-payer system reduces the administrative costs. A different way of charging for the care, not by individual services but by outcomes, as proposed by Obama’s bill, also changes incentives from as many tests and procedures as possible to as many patients treated and healed as possible. [2]  We thus see that not only does universal health coverage inherently decrease costs because of preventative care, much of the cost can be avoided if implemented wisely and incentivized properly.  [1] Cutler, D. M., Health System Modernization Will Reduce the Deficit, published 5/11/2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Wirzibicki, A., With health costs rising, Vermont moves toward a single-payer system, published 4/7/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011

While the idea that better access to preventative medicine will quickly and drastically lower general medical care costs is an incredible notion, it sadly is just that – a notion.  As an aside, the same argument – lowered costs – could be made for simply improving the existing tactics of preventative medicine without the need to invest into universal coverage.  Returning to this proposition though, while it might be realistic to expect some reduction in costs from improved prevention, those would very unlikely ever amount to a significant amount – and certainly not an amount that would make introducing universal health coverage a feasible strategy. [1]  Universal health care will cause people to use the health care system more. If they are covered, they will go to the doctor when they do not really need to, and will become heavy users of the system. We can see in other countries that this heavier use leads to delays in treatment and constant demands for more resources. As a result care is rationed and taxes keep going up.  [1] Leonhardt, D., Free Lunch on Health? Think Again, published 8/8/2007,  , accessed 9/18/2011

There are several reasons why health care should not be considered a universal human right.  The first issue is one of definition – how do we define the services that need to be rendered in order for them to qualify as adequate health care? Where do we draw the line? Emergency surgery, sure, but how about cosmetic surgery?  The second is that all human rights have a clear addressee, an entity that needs to protect this right. But who is targeted here? The government? What if we opt for a private yet universal health coverage – is this any less moral? Let’s forget the institutions for a second, should this moral duty of health care fall solely on the doctors perhaps? [1]  In essence, viewing health care as a right robs us of another, much more essential one – that of the right to one’s own life and one’s livelihood. If it is not considered a service to be rendered, than how could a doctor charge for it? She couldn’t! If it were a right, than each of us would own it, it would have to be inseparable from us. Yet, we don’t and we can’t. [2]  We can see that considering health care as a basic human right has profound philosophical problems, not the least of them the fact that it infringes on the rights of others.  [1] Barlow, P., Health care is not a human right, published 7/31/1999,  , accessed 9/18/2011  [2] Sade, R., The Political Fallacy that Medical Care is a Right, published 12/2/1971,  , accessed 9/18/2011

Health care programmes currently do not offer equality of care  The United States as a whole spends 14% of GDP (total income) on health care. This includes the amount spent by the federal government, state governments, employers and private citizens. Many studies have found that a single-payer system would cut costs enough to allow everyone in the USA to have access to good health care without the nation as a whole spending more than it does at the moment. Medicare, a government-run health care program, has administrative costs of less than 2% of its total budget.  The current system of health maintenance organisations (HMOs) has destroyed the doctor-patient relationship and removed patients’ ability to choose between health care providers. Patients find that their doctors are not on their new plan and are forced to leave doctors with whom they have established a trusting relationship. Also, patients must get approval to see specialists and then are allowed to see only selected doctors. Doctors usually can’t spend enough time with patients in the HMO plans. By contrast a universal health system would give patients many more choices.  In the current system the employee and the employee’s family often depend on the employer for affordable health insurance. If the worker loses their job, the cost of new health insurance can be high and is often unaffordable. Even with current federal laws making insurance more movable, the costs to the employee are too high. With a single-payer, universal health care system, health insurance would no longer be tied to the employer and employees would not have to consider health insurance as a reason to stay with a given employer. This would also be good for the economy as a whole as it would make the labour market more flexible than it has become in recent years.

Healthcare has been recognised as a right  The two crucial dimensions of the topic of introducing universal health care are morality and the affordability.  Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” [1]  Analyzing the text, we see that medical care, in so far, as it provides adequate health and well-being is considered a human right by the international community. In addition, it also states, that this right extends also to periods of unemployment, sickness, disability, and so forth.  Despite this, why should we consider health care a human right? Because health is an essential prerequisite for a functional individual – one that is capable of free expression for instance – and a functional society – one capable of holding elections, not hampered by communicable diseases, to point to just one example.  Universal health care provided by the state to all its citizens is the only form of health care that can provide what is outlined in the Declaration.  In the US the only conditions truly universally covered are medical emergencies. [2] But life without the immediate danger of death hardly constitutes an adequate standard of health and well-being. Additionally, programs such as Medicaid and Medicare do the same, yet again, only for certain parts of the population, not really providing the necessary care for the entire society.  Further, the current system of health care actively removes health insurance from the unemployed, since most (61%) of Americans are insured through their employers – thus not respecting the provision that demands care also in the case of unemployment. [3]  But does insurance equal health care? In a word: yes. Given the incredible cost of modern and sophisticated medical care – a colonoscopy can cost more than 3000 dollars – in practice, those who are not insured are also not treated. [4]  [1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, published 12/10/1948,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Barrett, M., The US Universal Health Care System-Emergency Rooms, published 3/2/2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [3] Smith, D., U.S. healthcare law seen aiding employer coverage, published 6/21/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [4] Mantone, J., Even With Insurance, Hospital Stay Can Cost a Million, published 11/29/2007,  , accessed 9/17/2011

Profits do drive innovation. But there is nothing out there that would make us believes that the profits stemming from the health care industry are going to taper off or even decrease in a universal coverage system. In short in a single-payer system, it’s just the government that’ll be picking up the tab and not the private companies. But the money will still be there.  An expert on the issue from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital opined that this lack of innovation crops up every time there is talk of a health care reform, usually from the pharmaceutical industry, and usually for reasons completely unrelated to the policy proposed. [1]  Whereas the opposition fears new research into efficiency of medical practice and procedures, we, on the other hand, feel that’s exactly what the doctor ordered – and doctors do too. [2]  [1] Klein, E., Will Health-Care Reform Save Medical Innovation?, published 8/3/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011  [2] Brown, D., ‘Comparative effectiveness research’ tackles medicine’s unanswered questions, published 8/15/2011,  , accessed 9/18/2011

It is not, in fact, universal health care itself, that’s inefficient, but specific adaptations of it. Often, even those shortcomings are so blown out of proportion that it’s very difficult to get the whole story.  Universal health care can come in many shapes and sizes, meant to fit all kinds of countries and societies. When judging them it’s often useful to turn to those societies for critiques of their coverage systems.  Despite the horror stories about the British NHS, it costs 60% less per person than the current US system. Despite the haunting depictions of decades long waiting lists, Canadians with chronic conditions are much more satisfied with the treatment received than their US counterparts. [1]  We should not let hysterical reporting to divert us from the truth – universal health care makes a lot of economic, and, more importantly, moral sense.  [1] Krugman, P., The Swiss Menace, published 8/16/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011

Universal healthcare is not affordable  No policy is created, debated or implemented in a vacuum. The backdrop of implementing universal health coverage now is, unfortunately, the greatest economic downturn of the last 80 years. Although the National Bureau of Economic Research declared the recession to be over, we are not out of the woods yet. [1] Is it really the time to be considering a costly investment?  With estimates that the cost of this investment might reach 1.5 trillion dollars in the next decade, the answer is a resounding no. Even the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – a left leaning think tank – opined that the Congress could not come up with the necessary funding to go ahead with the health reform without introducing some very unpopular policies. [2]  Does this mean universal health care should be introduced at one time in the future? Not likely. Given that there are no realistic policies in place to substantially reduce the “riot inducing” US public debt [3] and the trend of always increasing health care costs [4] the time when introducing universal health care affordably and responsibly will seem ever further away.  [1] New York Times, Recession, published 9/20/2010,  , accessed 9/18/2011  [2] New York Times, Paying for Universal Health Coverage, published 6/6/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011  [3] Taylor, K., Bloomberg, on Radio, Raises Specter of Riots by Jobless, published 9/16/2011,  , accessed 9/18/2011  [4] Gawande, A., The cost conondrum, published 6/1/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011

Universal healthcare stifles innovation  Profits drive innovation. That’s the long and short of it. Medical care is not exception, albeit the situation is a bit more complicated in this case.  The US’s current system has a marketplace of different private insurers capable of making individual and often different decisions on how and which procedures they’ll choose to cover. Their decisions are something that helps shape and drive new and different practices in hospitals. A simple example is one of virtual colonoscopies. Without getting into the nitty gritty, they often require follow up procedures, yet are very popular with patients. Some insurers value the first, some the other, but none have the power to force the health care providers to choose one or the other. They’re free to decide for themselves, innovate with guidelines, even new procedures. Those are then communicated back to insurers, influencing them in turn and completing the cycle.  What introducing a single-payer universal health coverage would do is introduce a single overwhelming player into this field – the government. Since we have seen how the insurer can often shape the care, what such a monopoly does is opens up the possibility of top-down mandates as to what this care should be. With talk of “comparative effectiveness research”, tasked with finding optimal cost-effective methods of treatment, the process has already begun. [1]  [1] Wall Street Journal, How Washington Rations, published 5/19/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011

Universal healthcare systems are inefficient  One of the countries lauded for its universal health care is France. So what has the introduction of universal coverage brought the French? Costs and waiting lists.  France’s system of single-payer health coverage goes like this: the taxpayers fund a state insurer called Assurance Maladie, so that even patients who cannot afford treatment can get it. Now although, at face value, France spends less on healthcare and achieves better public health metrics (such as infant mortality), it has a big problem. The state insurer has been deep in debt since 1989, which has now reached 15 billion euros. [1]  Another major problem with universal health care efficiency is waiting lists. In 2006 in Britain it was reported that almost a million Britons were waiting for admission to hospitals for procedures. In Sweden the lists for heart surgery are 25 weeks long and hip replacements take a year. Very telling is a ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court, another champion of universal health care: “access to a waiting list is not access to health care”. [2]  Universal health coverage does sound nice in theory, but the dual cancers of costs and waiting lists make it a subpar option when looking for a solution to offer Americans efficient, affordable and accessible health care.  [1] Gauthier-Villars, D., France Fights Universal Care's High Cost, published 8/7/2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Tanner, M., Cannon, M., Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets, published 4/5/2007,  , accessed 9/18/2011

We need to analyze this issue from a couple of different perspectives.  The first is this trillion per decade cost. Is this truly a cost to the American economy? We think not, since this money will simply flow back into the economy, back into the hands of health care providers, insurance companies, etc. – back into the hands of taxpayers. So in this sense it is very much affordable.  But is this a productive enterprise? For the millions of people that at this very moment have absolutely no insurance and therefore very limited access to health care, the answer is very clear.  In addition, the reform will more or less pay for itself, not in a year, not even a decade – but as it stands now, it’s been designed to have a net worth of zero. [1]  Lastly, just because we live in a bad economic climate doesn’t mean we can simply abandon all sense of moral obligation. There are people suffering because of the current situation. No cost can offset that.  [1] Johnson, S., Kwak, J., Can We Afford Health Care Reform? We Can't Afford Not to Do It., published 9/1/2009,  , accessed 9/18/2011

People will only make better choices regarding their food only if people actually read the labels.  A survey of Irish consumers found that reading labels is rare. In fact, 61% of men and 40% of women never read the labels on food before they make the purchase. [1]  In addition, when labels are actually read, they seem to work only in more affluent parts of the society and so this is only going to have any effect in tackling obesity in one segment of society. [2]  [1] Hills, S., Half of all consumers ignore food labels, published 2/24/2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Kersh, R., Obesity &amp; the New Politics of Health Policy, published in February 2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011

Food labeling helps people make better choices regarding their food  Given that there is a global trend of increasing numbers of overweight and obese people, [1] food that is fattening and therefore contributes to this problem needs to be clearly labeled so people can avoid them.  Research shows that having this nutritional information helps people make better choices. Up to 30% of consumers reconsider buying a food item after reading the food label and finding out what’s inside [2] .  Another study points out that there were “significant differences in mean nutrient intake of total calories, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, dietary fiber, and sugars” when people could go ahead and use the information about the food they were considering buying. [3]  It is therefore clear that making more information about food available, especially in the form of readily available food labels, helps people make choices that will help the fight against obesity.  [1] Elseth, M., Obesity numbers rise in 28 states, published 6/29/2010,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [2] Arsenault, J. E., Can Nutrition Labeling Affect Obesity?, published in 2010,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [3] diabetesincontrol.com, Nutritional Labeling and Point-of-Purchase Signs Work to Make Better Choices, published 8/10/2010,  , accessed 9/15/2011

For every company that actually makes an effort to create a program of healthy products, there ten that use labels to promote a “functional food” gimmick.  More and more products are being labeled with the “health food” and “functional food” labels. One strong example of that is the “contains added vitamins and minerals” label in the U.S., with foods being fortified with vitamins – so seemingly improved for the better. Yet the U.S. population’s vitamin deficiencies are at an all time low. An epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania also notes that these fortifications and the labels that come with them are mostly a tactic used to distract consumers from actual nutritional problems – those of excess. [1]  [1] Narayan, A., Figuring Out Food Labels, published 5/2/2010,  , accessed 9/17/2011

Food labeling is an important form of consumer protection  It is a basic right for us as consumers to know what it is we eat.  Today more and more foods that we buy are processed [1] , they include many harmful additives, causing conditions such as hyperactivity in children [2] , or are advertised as health food, but are in reality loaded with sugar or salt [3] .  It is therefore necessary for consumers to be made aware of all their food contains in order to make safe and healthy choices for themselves and their families.  [1] Parvez, S., Processed food exports rise 41pc, published 3/26/2009,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [2] Rosenthal, E., Some Food Additives Raise Hyperactivity, Study Finds, published 9/6/2007,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [3] Smellie, A., That 'healthy' bowl of granola has more sugar than coke... and more fat than fries: Busting the diet food myths, published 5/21/2011,  , accessed 9/15/2011

Food labeling rarely helps consumers find out what exactly it is they are eating, because of the convoluted names companies use to describe ingredients.  Forcing companies to label food does not mean they will actually make those labels easy to understand and useful. Even when it comes to things as important as common allergens in food, it is very difficult to understand whether it is included or not. [1]  [1] Webster Family Wellness Center, Confusing terms make food labels difficult to understand, published 5/7/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011

Food labeling encourages food companies to provide food more in tune with consumer values  Innovation is inevitable. That holds true for food industry as much as any other industry – and the food companies want to share their progress with the consumer to benefit from it. With the impact food labeling has on consumer choices, companies turned the issue on its head, producing food that is more in tune with what the people want and using labels to tell us about it.  An example is PepsiCo’s “Smart Spot” program that is intended to help consumers identify healthier products – products the company developed as a consequence of consumer pressure for healthier drinks that contain less sugar. What is more, the strategy proved very profitable for the company, with the smart spot products sales increasing 13 percent or three times as fast as the rest of the business. [1]  We see that companies were able to adapt to the pressure labeling created with excellent products, in tune with consumer values, and make a profit as well.  [1] Warner, M., Under Pressure, Food Producers Shift to Healthier Products, published 12/16/2005,  , accessed 9/15/2011

Although we agree that it is the role of government to ensure a fair marketplace, we do not agree that the case described should be included in this definition.  What we see is simply consumers reacting in accordance to their values – and currently the public opinion is quite opposed to the introduction of GMOs into their diets (71% in EU). [1] So it is only natural that products that include them are valued less.  It also goes to show that these products should be labeled, so that consumers can make informed decisions in accordance to what they believe – something much more important in this case than a company’s profits.  [1] Bonny, S., Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe, published 4/15/2008,  , accessed 9/17/2011

There are two things we need to respond with in this case. One regarding the current state of labels and the other the strategy of fighting obesity.  It is a fact that the current label designs leave something to be desired. If currently only a certain (but not at all negligible) percentage go ahead and actually read the labels that does not mean that labels are inherently ineffective. It might just as well, if not more likely, mean that the current design of labels is simply not attractive and useful enough for people to pay attention to. Therefore efforts are being made to revamp the food label to improve its effectiveness. [1]  As to the second, food labels are but a weapon in our arsenal against fighting obesity. It might be that on their own they will not defeat the epidemic, but they certainly play a key part of the overall strategy. [2]  [1] Associated Press, New food nutrition labels from FDA coming, published 9/3/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Benassi, M., The launch of a dynamic process, published in May 2006,  , accessed 9/17/2011

Food labeling allows companies to deceive consumers  What we have seen with introducing visually impressive food labels is that companies started adopting similar visual elements to promote their products in a dishonest way.  Let’s take for instance Dannon’s Activia, which was marketed as health food (with very convincing packaging that went with that strategy). The labels claimed that the product helped improve digestion by hastening it. Yet the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) found this claim to be false.  On a similar note, Kellogg’s Rice Krispies featured packaging purporting that the product boosted immunity. Again, the regulator found this untrue. [1]  We see that the companies, so in essence telling consumers to trust information on the packaging, can easily misuse labeling.  [1] Singer, N., Foods With Benefits, or So They Say, published 5/14/2011,  , accessed 9/15/2011

Food labeling introduces unfair prejudice against certain products  Requiring companies to label their products a certain way might unfairly influence the sales of this product. Let us observe this point on the example of GMOs in food.  For instance, a study investigated the influence of labeling a cornflakes product with different variations on the theme of containing GMOs. The packaging might say that the product contained "USDA approved genetically modified corn" or "may contain genetically modified corn", basically stating the same thing. Yet the first product was evaluated much more favorably than the second, with a 6% price perception difference. [1]  Considering that GMOs are considered safe by the health authorities, [2] it would be unfair to prejudice against these products by specifically targeting them, when they pose no risk to health.  [1] Onyango, B. M., et al., U.S. Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Food Labeled 'Genetically Modified', published in October 2006,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [2] WHO, 20 questions on genetically modified foods, published 12/10/2010,  , accessed 9/15/2011

Food labeling does not change consumer behavior  Food labels may include useful dietary information, but they will not significantly impact actual consumption for two reasons.  The first is that people don’t really read or use the labels. A study at WSU shows that only 41% of men actually read the labels. The women did better, but still only 59% of them actually read the labels – which does not mean they actually understood or heeded the advice on them. [1]  The second reason concerns the connection between actually getting the information and acting on it. Research on posting calories on restaurant menus shows that customers actually ordered slightly more calories compared to before the information was made available. [2]  Thus we see that food labels are not enough to nudge customers towards better and healthier food choices.  [1] Warman, S., Reading food labels can help battle obesity, published 9/16/2010,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [2] Hartocollis, A., Calorie Postings Don’t Change Habits, Study Finds, published 10/6/2009,  , accessed 9/15/2011

These examples do not really demonstrate that food labels do not work or are deceptive but rather that consumers should be educated better about how to actually read and recognize them – something the consumers themselves want, a fact known now for decades. [1]  On the other hand, stricter regulations on packaging advertising are being called for as well, attacking the problem from another perspective. [2]  We contend that better educated consumers on the one and better regulations on the other will uproot this problem at hand. In addition, this just goes to show that food labels are anything but ineffective – they just need to be known and regulated better.  [1] Hackleman, E. C., Food label information: what consumers say they want and what they need, published in 1981,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Neuman W., U.S. Seeks New Limits on Food Ads for Children, published 4/28/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011

It is difficult to assess the true harm caused by cannabis. There are limits to the scope for information on its effects because of its illegal nature1. However, it is widely acknowledged that there are links between cannabis use and mental and physical health problems2. It is also widely acknowledged that excessive cannabis use can harm relationships and prevent people from acting as functional members of society. Cannabis is generally smoked with tobacco and cannabis users are more likely to drink alcohol. Regardless of whether cannabis itself is worse for you than tobacco or alcohol, it is still bad for you and therefore it should remain illegal.  The reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is not related to their effect on our health. They (alcohol and tobacco) are legal as they have existed in this country since long before laws were passed in relation to health and were far more popular than cannabis so it would have been much harder to ban them. Cannabis is illegal not because it supposedley is worse but because it is was less commonly consumed. That said, alcohol and tobacco are irerelvent in this debate.  1 Wolff , J. (2009, December 1). The art and science of evidence about drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Guardian:  2 Frank. (n.d.). Cannabis. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Talk to Frank:

Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs, yet remain legal.  Although cannabis can have some harmful effects, it is not nearly as harmful as tobacco or alcohol. Research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is more addictive. In England and Wales, cannabis was said to have helped cause 17 deaths, compared to 6627 for alcohol and 86,500 for tobacco1. A study, published by The Lancet, that scores drugs out of 100 for the harm they cause the user and others, gave alcohol 72, tobacco 27 and cannabis 202.  Given that tobacco and alcohol are more likely to harm the user and other people, it seems ludicrous that they should be legal and cannabis should not be. The legalization of cannabis would remove an anomaly from the law. 1 TDPF. (n.d.). Drug Related Deaths. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Transform Drug Policy Foundation: 2 The Economist. (2010, November 2). Scoring Drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from The Economist:

Legalizing cannabis would not stop the criminals who currently sell it from continuing to commit crimes. They could simply diversify their activities. Many of them would already be dealing other drugs or involved in other criminal activities. The legalization of cannabis could simply give them a legitimate base from which they may operate.  In order to end the "war on drugs" and the problems of violence associated with it, all drugs would have to be legalized. While some debate the harmful effects which cannabis may have, few argue that drugs like heroin and crack cocaine do not present a serious threat to people. To sell these kinds of drugs legally would be irresponsible and would ruin lives, families and communities.

People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies  It is important that we have the liberty to do what we want to our own bodies. People are allowed to eat or drink to their detriment. In many countries it is legal to take one's life. Why then, should people not be allowed to harm themselves through cannabis use? (Assuming that cannabis use is harmful. In most cases, this is highly debatable.)  Smoking cannabis may have effects on others, such as through the effects of passive smoking. However, regulation has been brought in to minimize the effects on others for alcohol and cigarettes, such as bans on smoking in public places, and the same thing could be done for cannabis.

While individual liberty is an important good, there are cases in which a Government can be justified in behaving in a paternalistic manner, even to prevent individuals harming themselves. Few people debate the law that you must wear a seatbelt in cars, for example.  Moreover, cannabis can harm others and many of the ways in which it does so would not be possible to counter with regulation. In the words of philosopher George Sher, "Drug use harms strangers by involving them in the collisions, shootouts and other catastrophes to which the impaired and overly aggressive drug users are prone. It harms family members by depriving them of the companionship and income of their addicted partners. It harms fetuses by exposing them to a toxic and permanently damaging prenatural environment. It harms children by subjecting them to the abuse of their drug-addled parents"1. 1 Wolff, J. (n.d.). Regulation of Recreational Drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from University College London:

Cannabis does not open the mind. Rather, it harms it. Many researchers have concluded that cannabis impairs short-term memory, cognition and motivation. It has also proven to be highly addictive for some users and has damaged people's mental capabilities and abilities to function in society1. 2 Mabry, C. D. (2001, October). Physicians and the war on drugs: the case against legalization. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Qualified Surgeons:

If cannabis was legalized, it could be regulated  Many of the problems associated with cannabis use arise from the fact that it is illegal. Cannabis is the world’s most widely used illegal drug – 23% of Canadians admit to having smoked it and up to 7 million people in the UK are estimated to do so.  In 2009, the UN estimated that the market for illegal drugs was worth $320 billion. This market is run by criminals and is often blighted by violence. It has cost thousands of innocent lives, particularly in supplier countries such as Mexico and Afghanistan 1. In the US, Milton Friedman estimated that 10,000 people die every year as a result of drug dealers fighting over territory 2. Many of the victims are innocent people, caught in crossfire. By legalizing cannabis, the size of this market for illegal drugs would be significantly reduced and so, effectively, would the number of crimes and unnecessary deaths that come with it.  Another way of seeing the problems of prohibition is to look at the failed attempt at alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. People continued to consume alcohol, only it became 150 per cent stronger, was as easy to obtain for minors as for adults, and was sold by murderous gangsters like Al Capone 3.  Given all of the problems associated with prohibiting cannabis, it seems nonsensical to spend billions fighting a drugs war when instead governments could reduce crime and make money by selling cannabis in a regulated manner. They could spend some of the profit on treating people who did experience any harmful effects.  1.United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2010,   2.Hari, 2009,

Cannabis opens the mind in a positive and beneficial manner  Cannabis use can alter one's perception of reality or consciousness. The alteration need not be thought of as spiritual or religious to be respected for what it is; a fresh look on a reality that we are programmed as humans to perceive only in a particular manner. Cannabis can help humans perceive that complex reality from simply a different perspective, which can benefit our appreciation for that reality and our unique and limited perceptions of it. With this more intelligent approach to cannabis consumption, it is easy to argue that mental, perceptual, and societal benefits exist1. 1 Harris, S. (2011, July 6). Drugs and the Meaning of Life. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Huffington Post:

First, it is not necessarily a bad thing for cannabis use to increase. Countries with the highest usage rates include some of the most prosperous in the world – Canada, Australia and New Zealand for example.  Secondly, even if increased cannabis use is a bad thing, there is little evidence to prove usage would necessarily go up if cannabis were legalized. Usage may have risen slightly in the Netherlands but cannabis was depenalized in 1976 and usage rates remain lower than in the US today. Moreover, there are other reasons why usage rose. According to Dirk Korf of the Institute of Criminology at the University of Amsterdam, "There is no appreciable causal connection between the Dutch decriminalization of cannabis and the rate at which cannabis use has evolved" 1.Portugal decriminalized drug use in 2001 and, a decade later, drug usage and drug related crime rates have fallen and cannabis use remains below the European average2 .  1. Griffin, 2011,   2. Hari, 2009,

There is little evidence of cannabis being a gateway drug. In fact, there is a higher correlation between cigarette smoking and hard drugs. If anything, the only way in which cannabis could be said to be a gateway drug is that it is illegal and people may be inclined to buy other illegal drugs after they have bought cannabis, particularly as some dealers will sell other drugs. This problem, however, would be immediately eradicated if cannabis were legalized.  Furthermore, the people who refer cannabis as a "gateway drug" don't take into consideration the prerequisites and situations people are in prior to ones marijuana use. The people who use it as an additive to relaxation occasionally and are in a relaxed environment, maybe with a few friends over to hang out aren’t using it as an escape from reality but at an additive to their relaxation and fun. When cannabis is referred to as a “gateway drug” people are generally and unknowingly referring to the people who use marijuana as an escape from a much less than pleasant reality and “smoke themselves sober” therefore requiring a harder drug to get the same high and escape that cannabis once provided for them.

Uncertainty over the effects of cannabis means it is best to be prudent  The debate over the effects of cannabis is based largely upon conflicting evidence. For example, some argue it can cause psychosis while others argue it only has positive effects on the mind. The effect of any illegal drug is a very difficult area to study 1. Most drug users use more than one drug and researchers are often limited to studying those who admit themselves into clinics with a crisis – something of a skewed sample.  Given that Governments cannot accurately predict what the effects of legalizing cannabis would be, it is prudent to maintain illegality. What if, for example, a state decided to legalize cannabis, to only discover five years later that it has a dramatically more negative impact on human cognition than previously thought, or that it substantially increased the risks of psychosis?  1.Wolff, 2009,

Cannabis is harmful  Studies have shown that cannabis may cause a number of physical and mental problems. It can cause respiratory problems, increase one's heart rate and lower one's sperm count. Cannabis use is also associated with causing or worsening some forms of psychosis. It has also been found to increase tiredness, depression and paranoia, impair short-term memory and hormone production and cause general cognitive decline1. As for cannabis' medicinal qualities, safer, more effective drugs are available. They include a synthetic version of THC, cannabis' primary active ingredient, which is marketed in the United States under the name Marinol. 1 Frank. (n.d.). Cannabis. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Talk to Frank:

More people will use cannabis if legalized  If cannabis is legalized, it will become socially acceptable and more people will smoke it. It will also become more readily available. In the Netherlands, cannabis usage went up after it was legalized1. With more people smoking, more people will experience the adverse physical and mental health effects - more people will be harmed. Furthermore, as Dr. David Murray has noted, 'marijuana use is the leading cause of treatment need for those abusing or dependent on illegal drugs'2; therefore not only will more people use cannabis, more of them will be addicted.  1 Mackenzie, D. (1998, February 21). New Scientists Marijuana Special Report. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from UKCIA: 2 Dubner, Stephen J., 'On the Legalization - or not - of Marijuana', Freakonomics, 30 October 2007

Cannabis is a gateway drug  People who use cannabis will be more likely to move on to harder drugs. While the bad effects of cannabis may be disputed, the harmful effects of hard drugs cannot – they seriously damage people’s health. A major study in 2011 found that ‘smoking cannabis daily sets users up for a lifetime of multiple drug use’ 1. Heavy users are more likely to resort to crime to fund their addiction. Their habit often harms their relationships with friends, colleagues and family. State money then has to be spent on benefits, on policing, and on rehabilitation programs.  1. Griffin, 2011,

While there are studies that argue that cannabis is harmful, there is no substantial proof of many of the harmful effects it is accused of having. Indeed, there are many studies that claim it does not have these harmful effects. For example, a 15-year John Hopkins University study published in May 1999 found "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and non-users of cannabis."1 It is also claimed by many researchers that while cannabis has some potentially harmful effects, it is far less harmful then tobacco and alcohol2. Cannabis is also known to have medicinal qualities, such as in relieving pain for MS sufferers. In California, for example, it is possible to obtain a "medical marijuana" card. 1  2 The Economist. (2010, November 2). Scoring Drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from The Economist:

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.

Surely the fact that what is healthy is also considered sexy should be embraced. Any motivation to lose a few pounds in a country where more than a quarter of people are obese [1] is surely a good thing for public health. Prop bemoans that diet advertising is targeted at the young and yet this is the group that policy makers routinely target with legislation to encourage healthy living and an early acceptance of the need for good health.  [1] Jeremy Laurance, ‘Britain is the fattest nation in Europe’, The Independent, 17 November 2012,

Selling to the vulnerable  Diets are predominantly targeted at those who feel desperate. It has nothing to do with medical need, a constant round of being told that there is only one way to look attractive inevitably encourages people to adopt a mindset that 'thin' equals 'attractive'. This has nothing to do with a medical need nor do diets represent a medical solution; at least not in the meaning of 'diet' at the focus of this debate.  The pressure on people, especially young people, to conform to a certain stereotype of physical perfection is astonishing and comes from many sources – music, magazines and the celebrity culture endemic in the media. It is notable that there is a well studied correlation between mass media consumption and eating disorders and fears of poor body image. [1]  Diet programmes sell the dream that as long as you look like a given ideal you will come to be like them. This is nearly always untrue. [2] However, it is particularly attractive to those who are most susceptible to peer pressure; primarily the young but really anyone with a desire to fit in. The advertising picks up on this, pictures of happy, smiling, thin people with successful personal lives. It's simply an illusion and has little to do with the realities of medical need.  [1] Kristen Harrison and Veronica Hefner, ‘Media Exposure, Current and Future Body Ideals, and Disordered Eating Among Preadolescent Girls: A Longitudinal Panel Study’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol.35 No.2, April 2006, pp.153-163, p.153   [2] Federal Trade Commission, ‘Weighing the Evidence in Diet Ads’, November 2004,

There is no doubt that weight is not purely a medical issue but that a positive appearance helps self-confidence and opens lifestyle opportunities. Different people approach losing a few pounds in different ways, some have the time for the meticulous dietary exercise and training regime Prop is suggesting but most don't. Promotion of other option is simply meeting that need.

Medical concerns  Dieting is a medical choice and should be treated as such; advertising the available options rather than discussing this with a doctor means that people do not have all of the available information and cannot make their decision in a safe environment.  In comparable areas such as giving up smoking, controlling drinking, making decisions about exercise, knowledge about inoculations before travel and so forth, we prize medical expertise. The diet industry in the UK is worth £2bn [1] (it's $61bn in the US) and is marked out by allowing the same people to tell us that we are sick in the first place and then tell us the cure and then do it all again when the solution didn't work.  Generally accepted medical opinion is that this is a slow process with miracle cures both unlikely to work in the first place and, where they do, more unlikely to last. In some cases the dieting may even threaten health. For example French doctors have criticised the Dukan diet, Dr Boris Hansel for example says "There are real risks … infertility, sleep apnoea, high blood pressure, type-two diabetes, liver disease or cardiovascular problems. Following this diet is not harmless; it could cause real health problems" but its endorsement by celebrities mean that many will ignore such warnings or never even hear of them. [2]  Most ridiculously, the solution that does work – moderate eating and regular exercise is absolutely free and available to all.  [1] Arabella Weir. Try it – don't diet. The Guardian. 31 December 2010,   [2] Kim Willsher, ‘Dukan diet divides French doctors over effect on health’, The Guardian, 30 May 2011,

People often wish to change their appearance for cosmetic rather than medical reasons. As with other cosmetic changes, from a new wardrobe to surgery, this can be expensive, and may even have some risks, but it is accepted because we know that it makes people feel better. It's a lifestyle choice and is no more the business of government than choosing a new jacket or deciding to get an earring.

Inventing the idea of fat  There's a lot to be said for eating well and being generally healthy. It's not just a matter of weight but the effect that bad nutrition has in contributing to heart conditions, blood pressure, energy levels and other health indicators. [1] None of these things are helped by trying to drop three stone in a couple of months by filling your body with one thing regardless of what it needs at the time as many of these diets do  Our physical appearance should be an indicator of our lifestyle not an accessory to it.  The diet industry has poured considerable time and effort, with help from Holywood and the publishing industry, in to promoting the idea that thin and emaciated are the same thing.  Fad diets are, for many, less healthy than being a little overweight.  [1] BMJ, ‘Obesity – how to lose weight’, 31 October 2012, p.3,

There is an enormous difference here. Even fast food chains themselves accept that their product should not be eaten all day everyday. Supermarkets have taken on board healthy messages about people's five a day or low fat brands. They've built these messages into their wider marketing strategy. Diet ads, by contrast, do claim to be a panacea that will instantly make you sexy, healthy, popular and, apparently successful. They are 21st century snake oil merchants and should simply be run out of town.

It's simply not true to say that people automatically take their adverts with a pinch of salt. Research in the US suggests that 1 in five young adults trust advertising to always tell the truth and a clear majority think it does “most of the time” [1] , as this is exactly the group that is primarily of concern it can't be taken for granted that they will use caution or undertake further research.  [1] Harris poll. Young adults more trusting of advertising. 5 November 2010.

Banning advertising won't work  How exactly is a ban on promoting diets supposed to work? Proposition isn't talking about tackling advertising online, presumably because it's difficult to do, nor is prop tackling the issue of books promoting certain techniques. So this ban would have failed to catch the largest craze of recent years, the Atkins diet.  Equally diets are a mainstay of teen and women's magazines and a fairly central pillar of lifestyle sections of newspapers. Even so called 'quality' papers endlessly talk about lifestyles issues such as how they don't work and everyone would be better off retiring to a country manor in Shropshire for Swedish massage and a diet of organic barley.  Unless prop is talking about starting to ban books or shut down entire sections (and profitable sections at that) of publishing companies then it is difficult to see how this measure will have any real affect.

Countercase; Tackling food advertising  If the Proposition is so keen to tackle obesity then regulating then it should tackle food advertising rather than the advertising of diets. [1] Banning the promotion of dieting ads while people are sitting in front of the TV munching on the take away food or complaining that the remote is 'all the way' on the other side of the room, smacks of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.  Diets are a response, one of many as Prop is keen to point out, to a serious problem that only government can begin to address.  From before we are old enough to walk most people in the developed world are hooked on a fat-, sugar- and salt-rich diet. [2] Going after dieting ads is simply an effort by governments to be seen as doing something in a way that has little electoral impact. People will still use diets because of the gaps, such as the web, already mentioned however it doesn't require government to say anything as risky as “You're fat because you eat rubbish and don't move around much” to the electorate – or worse still, “Your children are fat because you can't put your foot down and tell them they can't have another choc-ice or more chips”.  Prop's entire case is tokenism of the highest order.  [1] Denis Campbell, ‘Call for ban on TV junk food ads before 9pm watershed’, The Guardian, 4 September 2012,   [2] AP, ‘Study: Bad Eating Habits Start Near Age 2’, InteliHealth, 27 October 2003,

It's my body and I'll starve if I want to  The main problem facing Prop's entire case is that this is simply none of the government's business. What people eat or don't eat is a private matter and the intervention of the nanny state would have us all on a diet of compulsory cabbage and nut roast.  People can be grown up about this, and where they're children, their parents can be grown up about this. The entire health and education system already exists to tell us to eat our greens and cycle to work; for those people who chose not to do so, they have a range of diet option and advertising tell them what those options are. The government regularly runs healthy eating advertising campaigns, and they often focus on obesity such as the Change4Life campaign, so there is plenty of opportunity to get the other side across. [1]  It's free speech, it's a free choice for the consumer, it's called the market.  Prop seems to think that consumers are idiots, nobody believes that a diet for a couple of weeks will make them look like a super model any more than buying a pair of speedos will. However, they can assess the different products, decide which one they trust more, do further research if they want to and then choose.  [1] Politics.co.uk Staff, ‘Anti-obesity campaign launched’, Politics.co.uk, 2 January 2009,

The fact that it is difficult to do everything is no reason not to do something. At the very least articles and books have to go through an editorial process and are open to challenge by other articles and books. That's not true for bought space.  In the same way that we regulate the claims that can be made about cars, gambling websites and dating agencies to protect consumers without banning discussion of transport, money or love, advertising and journalism are treated differently.

Human beings are naturally inclined towards violence and conflict. Sex and violence are primal parts of our genetic make-up and we do not need alcohol to bring them to the surface.  A study conducted by the University of Osnabrück (Germany) explains that individuals who are the cause of domestic violence usually have very little or no capacity for empathy from the early stages of their development. It states, that the domestic violence is deeply rooted in their psychology. Thus, nothing to do with alcohol as the cause of third party harm. [1] Alcohol, at worst, may slightly exaggerate these tendencies - but that makes it the occasion not the underlying cause of violent crimes. The underlying causes are biological and social and abuse would happen anyway, even without alcohol. [2]  Making rape and murder illegal does not eradicate rape and murder, so it is unlikely that making drinking alcohol illegal will do so either.  [1] European Council of Europen - Human Rights, Explaining the inclination to use violence against women, October 1999,  , accessed 08/17/2011  [2] Hanson D., Drinking Alcohol and Domestic Abuse, State University of New York,  , accessed 08/17/2011

Banning alcohol protects third parties (family members) from harm.  Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge proportion of disputes and distress in society. It also contributes to the psychological problems of the alcohol consumer children. While the problem might not be connected to one individual in society, it is important that laws protect those, who might abuse their rights and with this hurt others.  Currently in the US alone, there is an estimated 6.6 million children under 18, which live in households with at least one alcoholic parent. [1] It was never the fault of these children that others started to drink and harm them. According to psychological studies many of the children coming from alcohol abuse families have problems such as low self-esteem, loneliness, guilt, feelings of helplessness, fears of abandonment, and chronic depression. Children of alcoholics in some cases even feel responsible for the problems of the alcoholic and may think they created the problem. [2]  Alcohol is also a great contributor not only to psychological, but also to physical damage. Many times, alcohol is an easy excuse for domestic abusers. The incidence of domestic abuse in households, where there is alcohol abuse is a lot higher and the abusers name the effects of alcohol as their main cause of violence. [3]  With taking away alcohol we take away the fuel of many of the abusers, thus protecting third involved parties.  [1] Alcohol Information, Alcohol Statistics,  , accessed 08/14/2011  [2] Parsons T., Alcoholism and it’s effects on the Family, AllPsych Journal, published 12/14/2003,  , accessed 08/16/2011  [3] University of Minnesota, Alcohol and Domestic Violence,  , accessed 08/17/2011

First of all alcohol abuse (excessive amounts of alcohol) contribute only to a small percentage of all alcohol use in society. Even in Germany, where prices of beer are very low in comparison to other beverages, the data shows, that only 1.7 million (in a country of more than 80 million) use alcohol in a harmful way. [1] So why force people to give up something, just because a minority is not sure how to use it.  Further on, even if it was a concerning amount of people whose health is impacted by alcohol abuse, campaigns and information have very effectively reduced the death rate for cirrhosis. During a 22-year period, death from cirrhosis: dropped 29.8% among black men, 15.3% among white men, 47.9% among black women and 33.3% among white women [2]  [1] Ryan R., The Highs and Lows of Germany's Drinking Culture, published 11/18/2006,  , accessed 08/18/2011  [2] Hanson D., Alcohol – Problems and Solutions, State University of New York,  , accessed 08/18/2011

Governments have the obligation to protect citizens from harmful substances  Alcohol is a mind altering drug, which can cause individuals to take actions they would have not done otherwise. This does not refer to loosened inhibitions, but also extends to harmful acts against themselves and others.  Democracy is based on the principle that the majority of people are to elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time which they have to use, to get well equipped to make more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. One of the principles in society therefore is that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. Alcohol for a long time has been kept because the government trusted the people; they would make responsible decisions regarding alcohol. However, each year, the society loses, on a 30 year based average, more than 75,000 individuals to alcohol related diseases or accidents. [1] Thus the citizens proved not to be responsible; even though they had information available they did not make the choice that would keep them alive.  The government has a duty to protect those irresponsible citizens, because otherwise they will not be able to contribute to society to the extent they could without alcohol. And because the government does not know who is the one that will make a stupid decision that will engender their lives in the long run, for the sake of few individuals’, alcohol has to be banned for all.  Therefore, because the government has been trusted with the duty to make informed decisions instead of the individuals and to protect the individual, it is right to allow them to ban alcohol if they believe it is very harmful.  [1] msnbc.com, Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year, published 06/25/2005,  , accessed 08/13/2011

Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and no other individual.  Since the pleasure gained from alcohol and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress alcohol use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of alcohol abuse.

Banning alcohol would lead to healthier individuals.  A ban of alcohol would have a great impact on the health of every individual.  Alcohol and especially alcohol abuse are very common problems in today’s society. Long lasting abuse of substances leads to many chronic diseases such as liver cirrhosis (damage to liver cells); pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas); various cancers, including liver, mouth, throat, larynx (the voice box), and esophagus; high blood pressure; and psychological disorders. [1]  With a ban of alcohol we would very much lower the rates of consumption, as already current drug laws show. Even though drugs have a similar effect as alcohol, because of the risk of consequences when using those substances.  Therefore in general the number of alcohol addiction would sink and cause also less of a financial health burden. According to the US alone, the economic cost of alcohol abuse in 1998 was 184.6 billion dollars. [2] This is a burden which many state budgets have to bear.  Therefore if this cost can be prevented, the lives of people improved (by not getting the chronic diseases) we should do so.  [1] Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Alcohol and Public Health,  , accessed 08/17/2011  [2] Harwood, H.; The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992. Report prepared for the  National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,  , accessed 08/17/2011

Laws change attitudes. Many times laws are the first step towards more approval of a certain new societal value and even lead the step to a quicker mentality change.  This was seen with the legalizing of gay marriages in many countries, among them also in some states in the US. In 2010 the approval among US citizens reached more than half of the population, which is a drastic improve from the past. [1] In the beginning there was very little approval of the policy and same-sex marriages in general, an open discussion about the law, the first actual practical implications of the law and consequences have over time gained more acceptances in most Western countries towards gay marriage.  The same principle will apply to an alcohol ban. While in the beginning there will probably be a lot of protest, there will probably also be a change of mentality later on.  [1] Gallup, Americans acceptance of gay relations crosses 50 %  , accessed 08/13/2011

The state is obligated, when the health of citizens is on the line, to pass laws and regulations that protect them. The precedent has already been established in most countries with most forms of drugs. Citizens’ rights in this case are not a right to have drugs, but a right to be protected from the harmful effects of the substances, not merely on their own bodies but society as a whole. Governments would be derelict in their duty if they did not act to remove such harmful substances from society.

Prohibition would be impractical and serve only to create an enormous black market  In comparison to any other drug, alcohol is very easy to produce (hence the great amount of vineyards) and very much engraved in the culture of especially European countries.  Therefore a ban would be very ineffective, as the people would do it due to the ease of producing alcohol and the cultural acceptance. A ban would bring just more deregulation and loss of taxes through the black market.  We might acknowledge that the legal implications will scare away some people from drinking alcohol, but the main part of population will want more. Because there is a strong inelastic demand and the illegal supply will flourish.  This can be seen already with both and illegal drugs. It is also the lesson of Prohibition in the USA in the 1920s. Smuggled alcohol brought in from much cheaper continental countries will undercut both pubs and law-abiding retailers, and will circumvent the normal regulations which ensure consumer safety, such as proof-of-age or quality controls. In Saudi Arabia, a country with an alcohol ban, the Saudi police had seized over 100,000 bottles of eau-de-cologne with an expired expiration date. The methanol in cologne recently led to the deaths of over 20 people who drank it and many others were blinded. Earlier, over 130,000 bottles were confiscated. [1] Because people wanted alcohol so badly and could not get it. While in Europe there might not be much of poisoning going on, a great amount of alcohol because of the different wine regions. Only Spain has already 2.9 million acres of land devoted entirely to the planting of wine grapes. However, it is only number 3 when it comes to the amount of wine actually produced. [2] So in comparison to the Arabic countries, there is a lot of ground where easily to produce alcohol and therefore making it hard to control.  Worse, criminals will find a market for cheap, home-brewed alcohol, of the kind which kills or blinds hundreds of people a year in countries like Russia. [3] Overall criminality will flourish, with the gang violence associated with Prohibition or the drugs trade.  An alcohol ban has worked mainly in countries where it is very tight tied to religion and to the religious practices. Especially in countries that are secular and more multicultural, the ban would be impossible to enforce. The harms associated with black market alcohol are too great for us to risk introducing this proposal.  [1] Hanson D., Alcohol – Problems and Solutions, State University of New York,  , accessed 08/18/2011  [2] A Beginners Guide to Spanish Wine,  , accessed 08/18/2011  [3] Sodertorns Hogskola, The Alcohol Use in Russia and the Baltic Sea Region, published April 2000,  , accessed 08/18/2011

Banning alcohol harms the economy.  Not only would banning alcohol infringe people’s civil liberties to an unacceptable degree, it would also put thousands of people out of work. The drinks industry is an enormous global industry.  In 2007, it was a $970 billion global market for alcoholic beverages, experiencing a period of unprecedented change. While about 60 percent of the market was still in the hands of small, local enterprises, truly global players are steadily emerging and creating an even greater market. There are not good enough reasons for wreaking this havoc on the world economy. [1]  A point further on is that currently governments raise large amounts of revenue from taxes and duties payable on alcoholic drinks. To ban alcohol would take away a major source of funding for public services. In addition, the effect of banning alcohol would call for additional policing on a huge scale, if the prohibition were to be enforced effectively. If would create a new class of illegal drug-users, traffickers, and dealers on an unprecedented scale.  [1] Jackson J., Spirited performance, published May 2007,  , accessed 08/17/2011

Banning alcohol is a quick fix to a wider societal problem.  By banning alcohol the government is searching for a quick way out of the problem of people excessively drinking, making bad decisions when under the influence of alcohol.  Alcoholism and also drunk driving is a problem in many countries over the world. It has taken governments for over 30 years to decrease the number of drunk driver accidents, to decrease the number of drinkers in certain regions. This is a hard campaign battle, the government has to battle. According to a recent study, by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, campaigns contribute to approximately 13 % of decrease in drinking through time. This is a number with which many governments are not satisfied as they are pouring a lot of money in the campaigns. [1] In Scotland alone, the annual expenditure for the “drink driving campaign was £141000. [2] Because of quite high expenditure on campaigns, countries may see a ban as an easy way out of these expenditures. Therefore for the government it seems maybe reasonable to prevent just all citizens from drinking. With this the government might be saying that the problem is fixed (because no one is allowed to drink alcohol anymore), but mainly it is just superficially solving it.  As people’s mentality has not changed just through a law passing, they have created only more problematic users, they cannot target with campaigns and so do not impact the society. A quick public message that they fixed the superficial problem, while leaving citizens in their misery.  [1] Elder R., Effectiveness of Mass Media Campaigns for Reducing Drinking and Driving and Alcohol-Involved Crashes, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, published 2004,  , accessed 08/13/2011  [2] Institute of Alcoholic Studies, Economic cost and benefits,  , accessed 08/13/2011

The state should keep alcohol legal in order to maximize citizens’ rights.  Governments are not there to be the mothers of citizens, but should allow people to freely live their lives as long as they do not hurt others.  A government might have the wish to build a society that is obedient, productive and without flaws. This may also mean a society without alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or any other addictive substances. Such a society might have its benefits in a short term, but seen long term it has more unsatisfied individuals.  With drinking alcohol responsibly no one is getting harmed; in many cases not even the individual, as it is actually beneficial for the health. A glass of wine per day is good for decreasing the risk of cancer and heart disease, scientists say. [1]  So if someone in society has decided that it is good for them for whatever reason possible to use a substance that impacts only them, the state should not prevent them from doing so. This is because the society has been made from the different individuals, which lead different lifestyles and therefore have very opposing opinions views on what freedom is. A society that is free and where individuals are happy is a society where individuals engage more and also give more back to the society. So if alcohol will make the people happy and then more productive, we should maintain status quo.  [1] Bauer J., Is wine good for you ?, published 6/4/2008,  , accessed 08/14/2011

It is true that currently thousands of people are employed by the alcoholic drinks industry. However the fact that an immoral industry employs a lot of people is never a good argument to keep that immoral industry going (similar arguments apply to the cases of prostitution, arms dealing, fox hunting, battery farming, etc.) Instead, a gradual process would have to be implemented, which would include governments providing funding for training for alternative careers.  Also it is true that tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned. However, again, this is not a principled reason to reject the proposition, simply a practical problem. It should be pointed out that governments would save a huge amount of money on police and health spending (through the reduction in crime and alcohol-related illness) which would go at least some of the way to offsetting the decreased tax revenues.

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes). [1]  The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.  [1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol,  , accessed 08/17/2011

Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence. [1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem.  Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine. [2]  This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs.  [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6–13.   [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002,  , accessed 08/01/2011

Patients will be better informed than under the status quo  Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to.  Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy.  Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients. [1]  56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected. [2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health.  Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients.  In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization.  [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups,  , accessed 08/07/2011  [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002,  , accessed 08/08/2011

This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.  The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.  Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]  [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011,  , accessed 08/07/2011

Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement  Advertising serves an important purpose by informing the public about a specific product. It is also regulated from manipulation, and therefore deserves no special restrictions; these same restrictions and watchdogs would be in place if advertising of drugs were allowed to make sure that no drug is misrepresented. We trust consumers to view adverts with a level of skepticism and we know that they form only one part of the research that goes into, say, buying a car. Drug companies have become more open in recent years. For instance, GSK now publishes the results of all their drug trials (including the ones that fail) online and there are plenty of other sources of information on drugs available. A drug that remains unused is a drug that is helping nobody; adverts are simply a reasonable way for drug companies to help consumers find out about their products within a safe and highly regulated environment [1] .  When the first discussion in the European Parliament was started, regarding the advertisement of pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical industry specifically pointed out the anomaly that exists: “Specific laws stood in the way of it communicating with patients over its products, even when others could. Presumably, this meant information was communicated by the media about new medicines. In this regard, the restrictions on the pharma industry contrast with the freedom enjoyed by manufacturers of vitamins and herbal remedies, who routinely advertise products to patients.” [2] This shows that it is unjust to make any differences between the companies.  [1] Debate: Should Drug Companies be allowed to advertise prescriptions direct to the public.   [2] Jessop N., Will DTC Advertising appear in Europe ?, published 01/07/2011,  , accessed 07/29/2011

Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be.  Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood.  It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role. [1]  [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt , accessed 08/07/2011

Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research.  The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies [1] . Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% [2] .  “U.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs. This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising. [3]  Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a ‘blockbuster’ drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug [4] .  So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more.  [1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003,  , accessed 07/30/2011  [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go,  , accessed 07/30/2011  [3] PR Newsmedia – United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010,  , accessed 07/29/2011  [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift.

Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses  Advertisements—especially those that identify symptoms—can lead to a healthier citizenry, as consumers become aware of their diseases earlier, and can thus find the drug that targets their problem at an earlier stage. Many drugs can prevent or reduce the likelihood of a patient requiring surgery (for instance anti-cholesterol drugs can reduce the buildup of atheroma in blood vessels, which cause cardiovascular heart disease and strokes, thus reducing the likelihood of a heart bypass being required and improving any post-stroke rehabilitation). This not only saves money but is also better for patients. Surgery involves the risk of complications as well as taking time both directly and in post-operation rehabilitation.  Also many degenerative conditions can be best treated by early intervention; if patients are aware of the drugs that are available at an early stage they are more likely to take them, thereby increasing their standard of living and reducing their long-term cost to state or private health cover providers.

Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs  We should not attack drugs companies for making profits from their products, nor for encouraging patients to use them. Each new drug costs an average of $500m to produce and very small percentage of the drugs that are researched ever make it to the market. [1] The more profitable the industry, the more new drugs it can afford to research and develop and thus the more patients who can receive appropriate treatment. Many of the complex cures being developed for diseases like cancer, HIV/AIDs, SARS and Avian Flu will take decades to research. In the meantime, drug companies require funding streams from other drugs to continue research.  Drugs have become increasingly expensive and advertisement helps to cover those costs. From 1980 and 2004, from about $6 billion (in 2005 dollars) to $39 billion. There has been a real growth rate of about 8 percent a year, on average.  By comparison, drug firms’ gross margins—sales revenue minus costs and income taxes—have been increasing more slowly, by about 4 percent annually. [2]  So, with more personalized medicine and greater costs in drug development, the industry needs a greater source of revenue in order to research therapeutics further. Advertising would provide this revenue.  [1] Hollis A., Me-too drugs: is there a problem ?, University of Calgary, published December 2004,  , accessed 08/08/2011  [2] Congres of United States, Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry, October 2006,  , accessed 08/01/2011

According to a financial study conducted by the Villanova School of Business explained that there is no significant burden to the health care system due to direct-to-consumer advertising. The study, conducted in the years 2001 – 2005 in the United States, shows that there is no significant relationship between advertising and price sensitivity. The comparison with other countries shows, the prices of pharmaceuticals and the price for health care (for drugs) have not risen in the United States.  Through advertising, after the introductory phase of a drug, the health system is not burdened more. Simply put people are just able to choose between drugs, in a comparable price range easier and therefore do not cost additional money to the state. [1]  So a greater financial burden is no excuse from prohibiting companies to advertise products.  [1] Villanova University, DOES DTC ADVERTISING RAISE PRICE? THE IMPACT OF  PHARMACEUTICAL ADVERTISING ON CONSUMERS’ PRICE SENSITIVITY, published 2005  , accessed 08/07/2011

Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients  If a patient sees a drug that is inappropriate for him, and asks their doctor for it, if his doctor does not prescribe it, then he may ignore his doctor and seek a second or third opinion. In private health care systems it is likely that economic pressure will result in a doctor eventually agreeing to the patient’s demand.  In nationalized health services ‘pester power’ has resulted in doctors giving in to patients in the past rather than arguing with them (seen, for example, in the massive over-prescribing of antibiotics by British general practitioners for viral infections against which they are ineffective). If the doctor prescribes another drug (perhaps a cheaper generic version), even if it is chemically identical to the branded and advertised drug, the reverse-placebo effect may result in the drug being less effective than it should be, because the patient believes it is a weaker treatment. The patient may also be less willing to complete the prescription, or to visit that doctor again, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship. [1]  Prescription medicines are fundamentally complex and dangerous, which is why they require a prescription by a qualified doctor. It is not helpful to have a patient who lacks the decade of medical training a GP has self-diagnosing on the basis of an advert.  [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt , accessed 08/07/2011

The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system  Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system.  As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising.  Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States [1] .  Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than £300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least £100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter. [2]  Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea.  [1] Heath Care in the United States.   [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004,  , accessed 07/30/2011

Creating a mentality of illness  Advertising to patients promotes a ‘pill for every ill’ mentality as the drug industry seeks to ‘create’ new markets for its drugs by convincing patients that a pill can solve their problems.  This leads both to greater hypochondria and to self-diagnosis of normal conditions as medical ones. For instance in October 2001, GSK ran advertisements for Paxil in the New York Times, claiming the drug would solve chronic anxiety. These advertisements came at a time when the events of 9/11—rather than a medical condition—were probably to blame for New Yorkers’ stress. The FDA declared in a 1999 study that fewer than one in four new drugs has any therapeutic value and the medical community now accepts that prevention through lifestyle choices is often the best way to tackle disease (for instance, rather than seeking a weight-loss or diabetes wonder-pill, childhood obesity should be tackled through exercise and healthy eating).  Pill-popping seems easier and so is more attractive to many patients but in practice it is worse for the long-term health of society. By allowing the prescription drugs to be advertised we are making more people believe they are ill and need pills for them, rather than explaining to them that their back pain and high blood pressure are problems caused by their lifestyle choices. [1]  [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011,  , accessed 08/07/2011

The majority of products that are advertised treat currently under-treated conditions. Drugs dealing with diseases such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol are some of the most frequently advertised. These advertisements can help inform viewers about their conditions, and prompt visits to physicians, who can help treat the problem early on.  Additionally, informed citizens are good for society, as physicians do not always recommend necessary or helpful drugs. In the status quo, patients do not visit their doctors often enough to be diagnosed. Only approximately half the patients in America get beta blockers after a heart attack. Clearly, an advertisement for beta blockers would be informational, rather than harmful.

Legalising sex work means legalising the trading of bodies as a commodity. The practice is disempowering and undermining human rights, not vice-versa. It remains immoral that the state should grant such transactions and introduce prostitution as a career path. By legalising sex work to control HIV, the state becomes an active agent in illegitimate practices. Further, the state makes money while no gains are made for workers. Who really benefits from legalisation?

Sex work is legitimate work.  Sex work is employment, and therefore requires legal protection. It remains the government responsibility to provide security for their productive workforce and enable them to organise, and unionise. Sex work empowers women and men by providing a means of income, independence and control over sexual practices, and flexible employment. A legal framework will enable sex workers to be able to unionise. Unions remain a source of power in politics.  Recognising sex work as legitimate work enables positive intervention. Firstly, taxes can be collected by the state; and social security schemes established. Pensions can be set up and a safety-net for if workers become ill and or infected provided. Sex workers will be recognised as citizens, contributing to national wealth. Secondly, labour laws - such as minimal wages, hours, and safety, can be implemented. Labour laws are a means of regulating conditions of employment and workplaces preventing exploitation [1] .  [1] ILO (2013) defines ‘decent work’ as productive work; work whereby rights are guaranteed and social protection provided; and work that promotes social organisations.

Introducing new ‘good’ laws can drive sex work activities underground, and contradictorily reduce access to necessary health care services. Legislation does not ensure universal access: legalising sex work does not stop unequal politics.  First, the provision of HIV/AIDS treatment and care is dependent on the global-economy and influenced by investor faiths, ethics, and motives [1] . Therefore access to ART (Antiretroviral treatment) among sex workers is controlled by who is providing aid and distributing resources. Second, the most effective prevention strategy is believed to be ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, and use a Condom). Such mottos exclude sex workers, and directly place the burden of HIV/AIDS to the individual. Such mottos are founded on strong Christian beliefs - legalising sex work cannot easily change traditional structures.  [1] A decline in global AID funding has been noted with the global economic downturn (World Bank, 2011). Further, the impact of faith-based institutions, and PEPFAR’s ‘anti-prostitution pledge’, on HIV/AIDS has been discussed (NSWP, 2011 Avert, 2013).

Gender equality.  Engaging in sex work is a choice; a reflection of individual agency, whereby control is granted over their own body. One has the right to choose how they use their body; therefore legalising sex work legitimising a woman’s, or man’s, right over their body and sexuality.

Decriminalising increses sex workers’ rights.  Sex workers remain stigmatised across Africa. Legalising sex work enables the practice to be decriminalised, and rights provided.  Being a sex worker where it is illegal creates additional risks and vulnerabilities. Reports from South Africa show that criminalizing sex workers makes them more likely to be victims of inhuman police action [1] . Sex workers are raped, abused, and harassed. The risk of unsafe sex is therefore practiced outside of their occupation as no legal rights are provided. Legalising, and subsequently decriminalising, sex work will first, tackle corrupt police soliciting sex. Secondly, a new rights framework is provided. Sex workers are able to fight exploitation and claim rights for protection by prosecuting perpetrators if raped or abused.  Sex work will continue either way - but legalising it means legal safety, protection, and negotiation, is provided.  [1] The legalisation of sex work has been introduced by the ANC Women's League (ANCWL) in South Africa. See further readings: BBC, 2012; Daily News, 2013)

The reality of a causal relation between legalising sex work and decriminalisation remains questionable. Accepting sex work within the legal framework does not ensure the practice is de-stigmatised or becomes regulated. Such contradictions indicate the depth of social stigmatisation towards sex work.  Taking the case of Senegal, where prostitution has been legalised, police abuse continues and sex workers actively choose to work in unregulated environments. In Senegal’s booming sex trade industry, prostitutes are required to register with the police and granted a identity card confirming health requirements have been met. However, their identification places sex workers open to discrimination by the police and social stigma [1] . Further, the legalisation of the industry in Senegal has attracted immigrants and refugees to work within the industry. They lack citizenship rights; therefore legal protection is limited and abused. Clandestine sex work remains prevalent. Sex workers represent around 18% of HIV prevalence, particularly higher amongst women (Aids Alliance, 2013).  Sex workers rights will only emerge once sex work is de-stigmatised, the act of selling sex is no longer taboo, and corrupt laws changed to provide sex workers with respect and protection beyond the law. The stigma of sex work is the basis of illegality and criminalisation.  [1] Senegal has a predominantly muslim population.

Gender inequality, hierarchies and violence, will become legalised [1] . Across Africa, women account for a higher proportion of the population living with HIV - gender inequalities are a key driver of the epidemic. For example, patriarchal structures encourage polygamy in marriage; and women’s roles in the reproductive sphere forces them into the caregiver role when someone in the household gets HIV/AIDS.  The legalisation of sex work will ensure the epidemic continues to ‘feminise’. Women will become commodified, meeting male demands and desires, within a unequal gender society.  [1] Further readings on the debate of gender and sex work see: Richter, 2012.

The inclusion of youths and children misses out a crucial component - poverty. Busza (2006) identifies three forms of ‘sexual exchange’: sex work, transactional sex, and survival sex. Children are often recruited into the sex trade as a result of poverty, desires for consumption, and a lack of social support.  The ”sugar daddy” phenomenon across Africa is a case in point. Older men are able to entice young women, and children, through false promises and material products [1] .  Without providing key necessities, and alternatives to meet needs, practices will be driven further underground and youngsters placed at greater risk.  [1] For examples see: IRIN, 2013a; 2013b.

Legalising ensures health care and safe sex.  Legalising sex work will enable regulation. Responsive laws can promote safe sex practices and enable access to health services [1] .  Firstly, sex workers fear asking for health assistance, and treatment in public services, due to the illegal and criminalised nature of sex work. WHO (2011) predicted 1 in 3 sex workers received adequate HIV prevention; and less are able to access additional health services. Access is limited due to the criminalised status, but also cost of treatment and transport, inconvenient opening hours, and humiliation [2] . Secondly, the illegal nature of sex work has been attached to safe-practice tools. In Namibia, where prostitution remains commonly practiced but illegal, the criminalisation of accessing condoms enhances vulnerabilities. Following stop and searches by the police 50% of sex workers reported their condoms were destroyed (OSF, 2012). Within the 50%, 75% subsequently had unprotected sex. Being defined as illegal puts workers at greater risk.  Through legalisation sex workers can access tests and openly seek treatment, care and support.  [1] ICASA, 2013, has argued national responses need to enable inclusive, and universal, access to health care treatment to combat HIV/AIDS.  [2] See further readings: Mtewwa et al, 2013.

Monitoring who enters the sex trade.  By including sex workers under a legal framework regulatory rules can be imposed on who enters the profession, such as is found in Senegal. The introduction of Senegal’s Identity Card means frequent health checks are required upon registration to be a prostitute. Additionally, the use of children and youths within the sex industry can be controlled.  Global estimations of HIV/AIDS show young people are at highest risk. The UNDP (2013) called for a legal framework able to ensure the protection of children and youths. Regulation and monitoring is the only way to do so.

By legalising sex work the duty, and ethics, of care are granted to national bodies. The state is able to intervene and act when the rights of sex workers are identified as being breached. The individual self becomes empowered, and integrated into, a legal framework.

Legalising sex work means control and regulation can be imposed on all aspects of the industry. Legalization ensures the sex workers are recognised as citizens, and workers, with rights. It does not preclude similar action relating to the demand aspect.

The causality is wrong.  Legalisation doesn’t prevent HIV/AIDS transmission, safe sex, or effective regulation. Workers need to be taught about safe sex; safe sex needs to be legalised; and HIV transmission criminalised. National governments need to concentrate on providing access to prevention tools - such as condoms.  Legalisation should not suddenly be announced by government but only done if it is what sex workers want and is the best option for them, this can be done through consolations with groups such as the Global Network of Sex Workers Projects(see NSWP, 2013), to help formulate policy that will work for everyone

Legalization leaves ‘risk’ in the hands of the worker.  Legalising sex as work, puts the burden of risk to the sex workers themselves; and having its basis from European law models raises questions over applicability across Africa. Although, in theory, a legal framework will enhance a duty of rights and a voice for workers, it also becomes the individual who need to be aware of rights, safe practices, and security risks. Legalisation means individuals become responsible. However, when considering how youths are lured into cities, and workers enter the profession following promised opportunities, is that ‘just’? Before legalising the profession individuals need to be granted choices to not engage in such practices. The family relations forcing migration and prostitution need evaluation. How much power can national legislation have when traditional, local, and family power relations limit choices to enter sex work? Will state actors follow laws when sex work remains culturally unacceptable? Further, legalization needs to be met with opportunities to exit the industry.

The market framework: sex work is an industry.  Sex work needs to be understood as a market-based industry. Sex workers are influenced by supply and demand [1] . It needs to be questioned both who, what, and why sex workers are forced into sexual exchanges and alternatively, why demand is found.  The legalisation of sex work focuses on the supply-side - potentially ensuring safer, and just, practices for sex workers. However, demand is not resolved. First, legalization does not ensure customers are tested for HIV/AIDS and take precautions. Legalisation may not change behaviour or attitudes. Second, legalization may increase demand through sex tourism, commercial trafficking or exploitation. What drives the sex industry? Legalisation will result in expanding the sex industry, as seen in the 25% increase in the Netherlands following legalisation (Daley, 2001). In Uganda, condom use declines with more regular customers (Morris et al, 2009).  We need to ask what should be included within a legal framework - supply, demand; brothels, customers, or sex workers?  [1] The ‘Swedish model’ rolled out in Europe is based on tackling demand. The legal reforms have been set to target the demand for prostitution through its criminalisation.

Criminalising HIV transmission puts human rights in greater jeopardy. The stigmatisation of HIV/AIDS will remain prominent. The acceptance, and inclusion, of sex workers will become further marginalised as they become symbols of risk, disease, and transmission. This is something no sex worker would want. Countless articles from Ghana, Zimbabwe, and South Africa suggest public support legalising sex work (i.e. see Ghana Web, 2013).

This argument assumes that we know God’s intentions. Evidently, there is no biblical statement on the ethics of human cloning. Who is to say that it is not God’s will that we clone ourselves? Hindu thought potentially embraces IVF and other assisted reproduction technology (ART). [1] Moreover, every time that a doctor performs life-saving surgery or administers drugs he is changing the destiny of the patient and could be thus seen as usurping the role of God. Furthermore, we should be very wary of banning something without being able to say why it is wrong. That way lie all sorts irrational superstition, repression, fundamentalism and extremism.  [1] Tierney, John, ‘Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion’, The New York Times, 20 November 2007,

Playing God  Cloning is playing God. It is not merely intervention in the body’s natural processes, but the creation of a new and wholly unnatural process of asexual reproduction. Clerics within the Catholic, Muslim and Jewish faiths have all expressed their opposition to human cloning. However, this objection to cloning is not specifically theological. David Hume, the eighteenth-century Scottish moral philosopher, warned us to heed our feelings as much as our logical reasoning. Leon R. Kass of the University of Chicago has stated in relation to human cloning, that mere failure to produce scientific reasons against the technology does not mean we should deny our strong and instinctive reactions to it. As he states, there is a "wisdom in repugnance". [1]  [1] Kass, Leon R., ‘The Wisdom of Repugnance’, New Republic, Vol. 216, Issue 22, 2 June 1997,

This argument is wholly unsuited to the modern age. Society freely allows single people to reproduce sexually, whether by accident or design. Existing lawful practices such as sperm donation allow deliberate procreation without knowledge of the identity of the father. Surely it is preferable for a mother to know the genetic heritage of her offspring, rather than accept sperm from an unknown and random donor? Moreover, reproductive cloning will allow lesbian couples to have children genetically related to them both. It might be better for the welfare of the child for it to be born into a happy relationship, but the high rates of single parenthood and divorce suggest that this is not always possible.

Cloning treats children as objects  Cloning treats children as objects. Children will be manufactured by an expensive technological process that is subject to quality control. The gulf between an artisan and an artefact is immense. Individuals will be able to have a child for the sake of having children, or as a symbol of status, rather than because they desire to conceive, love and raise another human being. Cloning will not only allow, but actually encourage, the commodification of people.

Cloning is unsafe  The technology is unsafe. The nuclear transfer technique that produced Dolly required 277 embryos, from which only one healthy and viable sheep was produced. [1] The other foetuses were hideously deformed and either died or were aborted. Even today, cloning animals through somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply inefficient. The success rate ranges from 0.1 percent to 3 percent, which means that for every 1000 tries, only one to 30 clones are made. Or you can look at it as 970 to 999 failures in 1000 tries. [2]  Moreover, Ian Wilmut and other commentators have noted that we cannot know whether clones will suffer from premature ageing as a result of their elderly genes. Dolly the sheep herself suffered from premature arthritis. [3] There are also fears that the reprogramming of the nucleus of a somatic cell in order to trigger the cell division that leads to the cloning of an individual may result in a significantly increased risk of cancer.  [1] Barnes, Deborah, ‘Research in the News: Creating a Cloned Sheep Named Dolly’, National Institutes of Health Office Science Education,   [2] University of Utah, Learn Genetics: Cloning,  , accessed 08/20/2011  [3] Kilner J., Human Cloning: What's at Stake, published 08/10/2004,  , accessed 08/20/2011

Cloning is in this respect no different from any other new medical technology. Research is required on embryos in order to quantify and reduce the risk of the procedures. Embryo research is permitted in Britain until the fourteenth day of embryo development. Many other Western countries are also actively engaged in embryo research. The thousands of ‘spare’ embryos generated each year by IVF procedures and destroyed could be used to the good purpose of human cloning research. It should be noted that cloning has come a long way since dolly in 1997. In 2008 Japanese scientists managed to create clones from the bodies of mice which had been frozen for 16 years. [1]  [1] BBC News, Scientists clone from frozen mice,  , accessed 08/20/2011

The decision making and the effort that will be required to clone a human suggests that the child will be highly valued by its parent or parents. Furthermore, we should not pretend that every child conceived by sexual procreation is born to wholly well-intentioned parents. The desire to have ‘a son and heir’ is common around the world but does not concern the welfare of the future child. Similarly, children are often conceived out of marital custom, in order to consolidate a relationship, or even in order to gain free accommodation from local housing authorities. Finally, many children are not intended at all, but are born as a result of unplanned pregnancies. There would be no fear of ‘accidental cloning’ that could bring a child to a parent who was unprepared, or unwilling, to love it.

When people resort to talking in wholly empty abstract terms about ‘human dignity’ you can be sure that they have no evidence or arguments to back up their position. It is difficult to understand why the act of sexual intercourse that leads to sexual procreation is any more ‘dignified’ or respectable than a reasoned decision by an adult to have a child, that is assisted by modern science. The thousands of children given life through IVF therapy do not suffer a lack of dignity as a consequence of their method of procreation. The Catholic church regards every embryo from the moment of existence as a living person. This position is not shared by most Western governments, and it would deny not only cloning, but IVF and all the medical knowledge and benefits that have accrued from embryo research.

Cloning harms families  Reproductive cloning harms the integrity of the family. Single people will be able to produce offspring without even the physical presence of a partner. Once born, the child will be denied the love of one parent, most probably the father. Several theologians have recognised that a child is a symbolic expression of the mutual love of its parents, and their hope for the future. This sign of love is lost when a child’s life begins in a laboratory.

Cloning violates human dignity  Reproductive cloning is contrary to human dignity. ‘Donum Vitae’, the declaration of the Catholic church in relation to the new reproductive technologies, holds that procreation outside the conjugal union is morally wrong. [1] Many secular organisations, such as the WHO [2] and UNESCO [3] have issued statements that similarly find cloning violates human dignity. Assisted reproductive technologies might all be seen as challenges to human dignity, including IVF and sperm donation. However, human cloning is a completely artificial form of reproduction, which leaves no trace of the dignity of human procreation.  [1] Cardinal Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day’, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,   [2] Brock, Dan W., ‘Cloning Human Beings’, e-3,   [3] The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights’, UNESCO 29th General Conference, 11 November 1997,

Human reproductive cloning is unnecessary. The development of in vitro fertilisation and the practice of sperm donation allows heterosexual couples to reproduce where one partner is sterile. Moreover, merely 300 babies are adopted each year in the United Kingdom. [1] It might be better for potential parents to give their love to existing babies rather than attempt to bring their own offspring into an already crowded world.  [1] Thompson, Joanna, ‘Is Adoption A Better Way’, CARE Centres Network,

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.  [1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning,  , accessed 08/20/2011

Clones will still be individuals  There is much more danger of eugenics associated with developments in gene therapy and genetic testing and screening, rather than human cloning. The notion of clones of Hitler is frankly preposterous. Psychologists have shown that nurture is at least as important as genes in determining personality. It would be impossible to produce another Hitler, or Elvis, or whomever, by cloning or any other ART. Clones (people with identical genes) would by no means be identical in every respect. You only need to look at identical twins (who are genetic clones of each other) to see how wrong that assumption is, and how different the personalities, preferences, and skills of people with identical genes can be. [1] The idea of breeding huge fighting forces is also confined to the realm of science fiction. The necessity of thousands of willing mothers, the nine month gestation process, and the many years rearing this child towards adulthood, means that cloning would hardly be an efficient technique for any mad dictator to raise an army. And there is no reason, in any case, to suppose that a clone would be any more willing or effective a soldier than any other human being - clones (like twins) are just as conscious and free as everyone else.  [1] Harris, John, ‘”Goodbye Dolly” The ethics of human cloning’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 23, 1997, pp.353-360,

Cloning should be allowed for those who can’t otherwise have a child  The desire to have one’s own child and to nurture it is wholly natural. The longing for a child genetically related to oneself existed long before biotechnology, but it is only recently that medicine has been able to satisfy it. In vitro fertilisation remains an imperfect technology. Couples typically submit to four cycles of costly treatment before producing a child as the chances of having a child can be as low as 10%. [1] Evidently, the technique does not assist homosexual couples, couples where both partners lack gametes, or where the female partner suffers from a mitochondrial disease. Cloning would allow a child to be born to all these couples.  [1] Wildsen S., Human Cloning – role of the scientist, West Virginia University,  , accessed 08/20/2011

Will allow the elimination of diseases  Cloning is unlikely to be widespread so any dangers from any reduction in the diversity of the human gene pool will be so limited as to be virtually non-existent. The expense and time necessary for successful human cloning should mean that it will only be used to the benefit of the small minority of people who require the technology. The pleasure of procreation through sexual intercourse does not suggest that whole populations will prefer to reproduce asexually through cloning. The only significant lack of diversity which can be expected will be in women who suffer from a severe mitochondrial disease. They will be able to use cloning by nuclear transfer in order to avoid passing on the disease which is carried in their egg cells to any offspring. This elimination of harmful genetic traits from the gene pool is no different from the eradication of infectious disease, such as small pox, and should be welcomed. So against these very marginal worries there is potentially great good to be done through cloning. Currently already we have IVF and genetic screening which can prevent that babies with certain diseases are born. In 2000 the baby Adam Nash was born, genetically manipulated through IVF, as a genetic fit to cure his sister Molly from Fanconi anemia. [1] While this was not cloning it gives an idea what cloning could possibly cure. It could be a way of curing siblings from chronic diseases and also ensuring that the transplants (for example) will not be rejected due to genetic differences.  [1] BBC News, ‘Designer baby’ ethics fear, published 10/04/2000,  , accessed 08/20/2011

Cloning will lead to eugenics, or the artificial manipulation and control of the characteristics of people. An American geneticist, Dr. Dan Brock, has already identified a trend towards ‘new and benign eugenics’ that is perpetrated by developments in biotechnology. This can particularly be seen on a small scale with ‘designer babies’. [1] When people are able to clone themselves they will be able to choose which type of person shall be born. This seems uncomfortably close to the Nazi concept of breeding a race of Aryan superhumans, whilst eliminating those individuals whose characteristics they considered unhealthy. The ‘Boys from Brazil’ scenario of clones of Hitler, the baby farms of ‘Brave New World’, or even the cloning or armies of identical and disposable soldiers, might soon be a very real prospect.  [1] BBC News, Designer baby row over US clinic, published 03/02/2009,  , accessed 08/22/2011

Of course all drugs can be abused but introducing one into the system full in the knowledge that it will be abused is an entirely different matter. On the basis of the balance of probabilities, the moment any government says that cannabis is safe to use and, more than that, beneficial to health then every pothead in that jurisdiction has an excuse.  The only way the War on Drugs can work is if prohibition is applied universally. We expect doctors to work within the law and the government, along with medical governing bodies, has a role in determining what it is appropriate to prescribe and what is not [i] .  There are no situations where society simply stands back and leaves it to individual clinicians to act without guidance. They act within a framework that gives primacy to clinical need but does not ignore the wider social implications. Society regulates when a doctor can rules that someone is incapable of work or needs surgery at the expense of the state. In this particular regard, governments feel that society is best served by not adding cannabis to the pharmaceutical melting pot.  [i] Comment. “Kent Doctor Richard Scott Warned Over Faith Discussion”. BBC. 23 May 2011.

All drugs can be used for a variety of purposes some appropriate some inappropriate that’s a matter of choice, treatment should be based on medical reality  Any drug, legal or illegal, can be used sensibly or it can be abused. If society bases its decisions on the medical provision of drugs on the presumption of abuse the shelves of most drugstores would be empty. The idea that the burden of proof should be set at demonstrating that nothing else can achieve the same results is absurd – let’s ban Codeine because Aspirin works just fine. Drugs that have similar effects are distinguished according to the speed, duration and efficacy of those effects, in addition to the drug’s side-effects. Different individuals experience the pain-relieving effects of aspirin in different ways. A wider range of individuals may experience a longer lasting reduction in pain if taking codeine. Similarly, an even larger number of individuals respond positively to cannabis.  The reality is that we trust doctors to make judgments on what is a sensible course of treatment, not politicians and certainly not a hysterical media.  As the law currently stands, politicians are stopping medical professionals from making decisions in the best interest of their patients because nobody wants to be seen to blink first. California and Nebraska already blinked, as have Austria, Canada, Spain and Germany as well as other nations. A failure to recognize this fact is simple political cowardice [i] .  [i]

Ultimately, in most countries where this is even under discussion, politicians run away from this issue because there are no votes in it. The people don’t want it and that view must be respected.  Drugs policy is, ultimately driven by a standard of what the people in a democratic nation consider appropriate; a couple of drinks after work on a Friday is okay, getting stoned on a regular basis isn’t.  Governments have a responsibility to set out a moral code that is acceptable to the broadest possible spectrum of the society they represent. If they accept that cannabis can be used to alleviate suffering in patients then why not accept that it is okay to drink at work. Both substances have a similar pain relieving effect, both have similar negative effects. It is easy to envisage, on the basis of the proposition side argument given above, that an individual may claim that alcohol does more to address his various aches and pains than aspirin or codeine. Society works because there are limits.

Cannabis has many medical properties, notably the alleviation of suffering in chronic diseases. It should therefore be freely available  Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for at least 5,000 years most frequently as an analgesic, that is to say it reduces pain. It also stimulates hunger and can be used as an anti-emetic to control nausea and vomiting. As the DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young noted in a 1988 ruling [i] , there is no evidence of a fatality resulting from the misuse of cannabis. Indeed the Dutch government currently permits doctors regulated by its Ministry of Health and Welfare to prescribe cannabis to their patients. Further, the Dutch state has licensed a pharmaceutical firm to provide cannabis of a guaranteed level of purity to pharmacies and medical professionals. [ii]  There are accounts and studies of its successful application to treat the effects of chemotherapy as well as its palliative [iii] use in MS and AIDS [iv] . For governments to turn their backs on a perfectly useful drug simply to prove a point is confusing at best and petulant at worst.  [i] Docket No. 86-22. “OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF Administrative LAW JUDGE.” FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge. 6 September 1988.  [ii] Bedrocan BV home page, 15 November 2011.   [iii] “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.” Espacenet patent search. 07 October 2003.   [iv] “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.” Patentstorm. 07 October 2003.

Government has a role in establishing what is an acceptable level of behaviour within society. Full in the knowledge that some people will use any substance responsibly and others less so, governments make decisions to protect their citizens and to show a lead. It is the settled will of most people in most countries that cannabis is not a drug they consider acceptable for use in a modern society. Furthermore, there are plenty of other drugs that can be used for all of the uses Proposition has identified. Legalizing cannabis for medical use would send out the message that it is safe to use when all practical evidence suggests that the social, if not the medical, ramifications are anything but safe. Proposition need to demonstrate a medical use for cannabis that cannot be met by existing pharmaceuticals.

For governments to refuse treatment on the basis of an unreasonable assertion is cruel and blindly ideological  The current legislation on drug use in most countries was delivered without canvassing medical opinion and under the influence of public hysteria and moral panic. Seemingly logical but flawed theories linking the use of “soft” drugs to later use of “harder” varieties (cocain, amphetamins) have often been used both to justify and to promote drugs legislation. The apparent sense of these arguments belies the fact that they have been repeatedly disproven [i] .  Lurid, prurient portrayals of the catastrophic consequences of narcotics use in the mass media are frequently used to back up arguments that drugs- even cannabis- are so dangerous that even carefully controlled medical applications are unacceptably risky.  It is clearly the case that when any substance has a proven medical benefit it should be available for prescription. Legislation already exists in most countries to contain the possibility of misuse of prescribed drugs.  However, it is clearly the case that politicians are avoiding this issue not because there is medical doubt on the matter but because they are incapable of reaching a logical conclusion for fear of hysterical – and easy – headlines. To withhold treatment from patients who need it on the basis that a tabloid will run a ‘Soft on Drugs’ story the following morning is the height of irresponsibility.  [i] Degenhardt, L, et al. “Whoare the new amphetamine users? A ten year prospective study of young Australians. Adiction, volume 102, 8, p1269-1279. August 2007.

Government policy on this issue has long been confused. When it is perfectly acceptable for politicians, celebrities and other public figures to admit that they have broken the law and face no sanction, it is time for the law to change. Virtually all of the societal problems caused by its usage are directly as a result of its illegality. None of those problems speak to its role in a medical setting.  When not under the threat of tabloid headlines, opinion leaders from across the political spectrum accept that this makes sense [i] . The difficulty is that policy makers only accept the fact after they’re in office, not while they’re facing election. The use of the word ‘Former’ in pronouncements on this subject is noticeable  [i] Lyn Nofziger, former Press Secretary to Ronald Reagan, wrote the following in the foreword to the 1999 book Marijuana RX: The Patients' Fight for Medicinal Pot, by Robert C. Randall and Alice M. O'Leary

There is compelling evidence that people are more than capable of making the distinction between the use of a drug for recreational and medical use [i] . The long term effects of using alcohol or nicotine recreationally have been demonstrated to be fatal; the same cannot be said for cannabis. Further this is about using the drug in a medical setting under the supervision of medical professionals.  As Opposition has conceded, this is something that already happens. As societies, we condone the use of far more powerful drugs on a daily basis. This is a clear example of a situation where politics is ignoring reality out of expediency. This is not a proposal for vending machines to sell crack but for the medicinal use of a drug with a proven track record.  [i] Gary Langer. “High Support for Medical Marijuana”. ABC News. 18 January 2010.

By expanding the legal use of the drug, it simply makes the illegal, recreational use easier as there’s a greater supply  If the drug were made available, it would need to be grown somewhere, stored somewhere and sold somewhere. Increased supervision of pharmacies and users would be required, in order to guard against the possibility that medical cannabis might be sold on for recreational purposes. Although other pharmaceuticals have narcotics effects, none has the marketability, or market share of cannabis. Many legal types of pharmaceuticals already form the basis of criminal empires and this move would exacerbate that.  Moreover, the increased visibility and mobility of cannabis within the economy will make it easier for determined criminals to hide or obscure the origins of cannabis produced illegally. Individual citizens will be less likely to consider cannabis use that they are victim to as being illegal. It will become harder and more expensive for the police to enforce restrictions on the use and production of cannabis for recreational purposes.  It has been well argued that “drugs are not a threat to society because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are a threat to society” [i] . Legalization in any form will be misconstrued and the health effects will be damaging [ii] . Even if side proposition can demonstrate that the health effects of cannabis are negligible, the risk of incentivizing increased production of cannabis in foreign territories and increased trade and transfer of cannabis at home is simply too high for the state to accept.  [i] Charles D. Mabry, MD, FACS, Pine Bluff, AR. “Physicians and the War on Drugs: The Case Against Legalization”. Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons. October 2001.  [ii] Hillary Rodham Clinton, JD, US Secretary of State and US Senator (D-NY) at the time of the quote, stated the following during an Oct. 11, 2007 town hall meeting at Plymouth State College

By promoting the use of soft drugs in any context, encourages young people down a slippery slope toward harder drugs  Part of the attraction of cannabis, especially among younger users is its appeal as a ‘forbidden fruit’. Removing that would mean that other, harder drugs would be sought out to fulfill the same need to rebel.  A government sanction on a drug with a proven tendency to effect memory and other neurological functions would still hold open the door to other, more dangerous, drugs as a form of rebellion. In this regard the continued ban on cannabis – and the relative tolerance of the breach of that ban – sends out a clear message of ‘this far and no further’.  Any signal that this narcotic is acceptable simply increases the stakes.

In most countries where there is an acceptance of the medical value of cannabis it is fairly easily available, this would simply condone its recreational use  At a time when governments, along with health professionals, are trying to restrict the use of legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine, giving the use of cannabis the sanction of government approval would take health policy in a direction that most people do not wish to contemplate.  Effectively, such a change in policy would announce, ‘We’d rather you didn’t drink or smoke but it’s okay to get high’.  In most nations where this discussion is even happening the personal use of mild narcotics is ignored by law enforcement. However, legalizing the use of drugs in any way says to the world at large, ‘this isn’t a problem, do what you like’.  The production of drugs ruins lives and communities. Any attempt to fully legalise marijuana for medical use would only be effective in western liberal democracies. There is a high probability that it would incentivise increased production of the drug in states where it remains illegal. For the reasons given above, legitimatizing cannabis’ use as a medicine would increase or entrench its use as a recreational drug Restrictions on cannabis production would place the market under the control of criminal gangs. As a result, cannabis growing would continue to be defined by organized violence, corruption, smuggling and adulteration of the drug itself.  Legitimatising cannabis use via state legislation ignores and conceals the human suffering caused by the production of drugs in both developed and developing states. .  Moreover, many organized crime networks prefer to grow and sell cannabis over other, more strictly regulated drugs. It remains highly likely that the legal market for cannabis that the state proposes to create would become a target for organisations attempting to launder the proceeds of crime, or pass off tainted marijuana as medical grade forms of the drug.

Ultimately there is a clear difference between the medical use of a drug, the banning of which is both harming patients and is against the wishes of many societies and allowing a free-for-all. As a society we regulate the use of other products to ensure that they are not available to minors or open to abuse.  Clearly there would need to be regulations and, equally clearly, sometime those regulations would fail. However, that is true of all regulated product and the blanket ban isn’t producing terribly impressive results at the moment.  There is compelling evidence of the palliative effects of cannabis as well as popular support for its medicinal use; good policy should not be bound by a reactionary response to the simple mention of the word. There are side-effects to the use of almost any drug but they are relatively benign in this instance compared to many alternatives.

A refusal to purchase healthcare insurance can have an effect on interstate commerce, because in shrinking the risk pool of insured the premiums would incrementally rise. In 2007, healthcare expenditures amounted to $2.2 trillion, or $7,421 a person, and accounted for 16.2% of the gross domestic product. These statistics leave no doubt that regulating health insurance is synonymous with regulating interstate commerce.(10)  Not engaging in economic transactions is a form of commercial behaviour that Congress can regulate. The Supreme Court held that Congress could require that hotels and restaurants provide services to African-Americans. Their refusal to engage in commerce still was deemed to be within the scope of Congress's commerce clause power.(10)  The likelihood is that everyone will require medical care at some point. An uninsured person in a car accident will be taken to the emergency room for treatment. An uninsured person with a communicable disease will be treated; indeed, it is necessary for the health and welfare of the general population to provide treatment to individuals suffering from infectious diseases. Congress can ensure that there is an adequate fund to pay for everyone's medical needs.

The mandate is not constitutional under the commerce clause  Many attorneys general have fought constitutionality of mandates. Since the passage of the legislation in March of 2010, many state governments, governors, and attorney generals have pressed forward with lawsuits centred on the idea that the individual mandate in the legislation is unconstitutional.(7) Underlying these legal challenges is a debate about the basis of the national Congress’s lawmaking powers. In order for laws passed by Congress to be considered legitimate and enforceable, those laws must be based on a power conferred on congress by the Constitution. On those areas of law and public life where the Constitution is silent, legislative power rests not in the hands of Congress, but rather is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”(9)  It has been argued that the individual healthcare mandate is authorised by the Constitution's empowerment of Congress to “regulate interstate commerce” (known as the “commerce clause”), however this is not true and the commerce clause does not authorize health insurance mandates. As the Congressional Research Service has written: "Despite the breadth of powers that have been exercised under the Commerce Clause, it is unclear whether the clause would provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance. Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.”(2) The most obvious reason for this is that an omission to buy health insurance can in no way be termed 'interstate commerce', as there is no activity or commerce going on. This is not in keeping with the commerce clause, unlike other previous federal healthcare laws.  There is no doubt that Congress can regulate an entire array of economic activities, large and small, inter- and intra-state. Thus, for example, there is no problem, Constitution-wise with having Congress regulate health care insurance purchase transactions. The problem with an individual insurance purchase mandate, however, is that it does not regulate any transactions at all; it regulates human beings, simply because they exist, and orders them to engage in certain types of economic transactions.(8)  While most health care insurers and health care providers may engage in interstate commerce and may be regulated accordingly under the Commerce Clause, it is a different matter to find a basis for imposing Commerce Clause related regulation on an individual citizen who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction. The decision not to engage in affirmative conduct is arguably distinguishable from cases in which Commerce Clause regulatory authority was recognized over intra-state activity: growing wheat, for example, (Wickard v. Filmore) or, more recently, growing marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich).(6)  If Congress were to invoke its Commerce Clause authority to support legislation mandating individual health insurance coverage, such an action would have to contend with recent Supreme Court precedent limiting unfettered use of Commerce Clause authority to police individual behaviour that does not constitute interstate commerce: United States v. Lopez, invalidating the application of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 to individuals, and United States v. Morrison, invalidating certain portions of the Violence Against Women Act.  In the case of a mandate to purchase health insurance or face a tax or penalty, Congress would have to explain how not doing something – not buying insurance and not seeking health care services – implicated interstate commerce.(6) Therefore, it is clear that Congress is not empowered to regulate the choice not to buy healthcare, as it lacks constitutional authorisation to interfere in this aspect of individual Americans’ private lives.

The healthcare insurance can be unprecedented but still be constitutional as Erwin Chemerinsky argues: “Anything that has never been done before is literally unprecedented, which means it lacks any precedent. So the question is, will the Supreme Court want to authorize this new extension of congressional power in light of the fact that it violates the first principles it affirmed in Lopez and Morrison? Or, to the contrary, will it want to take the opportunity reaffirm that these principles still apply, notwithstanding Raich, in a case with no further implications beyond the statute in question?”(10)  Regarding the argument that the healthcare mandate will allow Congress to regulate everything and everyone, such hyperbole and apocalyptic predictions are familiar in this area. In 1918, in Hammer v. Dagenhart, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a federal law that prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of goods made by child labour. The Court concluded its opinion by declaring: "[I]f Congress can thus regulate matters entrusted to local authority by prohibition of the movement of commodities in interstate commerce, all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the states over local matters may be eliminated, and thus our system of government practically destroyed." For more than 70 years Congress has prohibited child labour and none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Nor would allowing Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance mean that Congress could regulate who people invite to their homes for dinner or end our system of federalism.(10)

Penalizing a non-act is unconstitutional  It is unconstitutional to require individuals to buy private insurance, and penalize them for not doing so (that is, penalizing their non-act, their omission to purchase insurance). As David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argue: “… Can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.”(1)  The Congressional Budget Office believes “a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”(2) An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it imposes a duty on individuals due to them being members of society. Second, it requires the purchase of a specific service on pain of tax penalties if that product is not purchased. (2)  As noted by Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican: "Anything we have ever done, somebody actually had to have an action before we could tax or regulate it."(3) As Robert A. Levy and Michael F. Cannon of the CATO Institute argue: “Congress' attempt to punish a non-act that harms no one is an intolerable affront to the Constitution, liberty, and personal autonomy. That shameful fact cannot be altered by calling it health-care reform.”(4) The individual healthcare insurance mandate would, for the first time, mean the government setting uo a monopoly or a cartel with which every citizen of the US would be compelled- by a statutory power- to do business. This destroys any pretence of individual market freedom, individuals would be required to contribute money out of each and every pay check they earned to either a government entity which would be staffed and/or controlled by political appointees or to a cartel made up of companies that would owe their continued existence on the cartel list to the acquiescence of political overseers. Either way, the reduction in individual autonomy and freedom over health care choices would be dramatically decreased and inevitably politicized. This has obvious worrying possibilities for corruption, the party in power would favour those who donate to the party.(5)  Enforcing the mandate may also intrude on Constitutional rights. Sherry Glied, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has warned, “[d]eveloping a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws [people who flout the law] will take effort and ingenuity, particularly in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable.”(6)This is likely to mean much more intrusive inspection, for example hospitals having to report to the government patients they have who don’t have health insursnce..(6) This is why a majority of the states, and numerous organizations and individual persons, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate, and several courts have already struck it down on constitutional grounds.(7)  For all these reasons it is clear that for Congress to try to penalize a non-act is an unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab, and so the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

The federal government mandates positive activities all the time, and this is why several courts have also upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate.(7)  Regarding the charge that the individual mandate penalizes a 'non-action', Stephanie Cutter, an adviser to President Barack Obama, has argued: "Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us—when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab."(7) Thus these people are not engaging in a 'non-action' but rather in an economic choice which has negative implications for other Americans, something Congress has the constitutional power to regulate under the commerce clause and the constitution's provision that Congress should promote the general welfare.

The individual mandate gives too much power to the Federal Government  The vertical separation of powers, under which the federal government possesses limited and enumerated powers, while the States wield general powers (including the right to operate their own police forces), is a key part of America's constitutional architecture. Far from being an 18th century affectation, these structural limitations on government powers were designed to protect individual liberty. In the Framers' view, limiting the ability of the federal government to exercise authority was core to ensuring that no single government entity would grow too powerful. This is because, under the Supremacy Clause, any constitutionally compliant federal legislation trumps exercises of individual state’s powers. Therefore, an infinitely capacious Commerce Clause (which would be produced if the mandating of healthcare were to be allowed) would rob States of any remaining authority.(8)  When any choice or non-action which has economic impacts becomes termed as “economic”, every aspect of consumer behaviour, or, for that matter, any aspect of individual behaviour, would become an economic activity, and thus nothing would fall outside of Congress' power to regulate under the commerce clause.(8)  The individual health insurance mandate would set dangerous precedents for federal power. The Congressional Budget Office acknowledged the unprecedented nature of an individual mandate when assessing the Clinton health care reform proposal of 1993: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate has two features that, in combination, make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would have to be heavily regulated by the federal government."(2)  The 'commerce clause on steroids', as imagined by supporters of the healthcare mandate, would fundamentally warp America's constitutional architecture. Because every single decision by individual Americans, be it buying health insurance, cars, health club memberships or any other good or service, has some impact on the economy, it could be subject to regulation by Congress. Indeed, Congress would be able to dictate how individuals would dispose of every penny of whatever monies they have left after paying taxes, transforming Americans into virtual serfs.(8) For all these reasons the individual healthcare mandate would give too much power to the federal government, in ways which are antithetical to the Constitution as the Founders envisioned it and set it out (with restricted and separate powers), and so it should be deemed unconstitutional.

Mandatory health insurance is not analogous to car insurance. Car insurance requirements impose a condition on the voluntary activity of driving; a health insurance mandate imposes a condition on life itself.  States do not require non-drivers, including passengers in cars with potentially bad drivers, to buy auto insurance liability policies -- even though such a requirement undoubtedly would lower the auto insurance premiums for those who do drive. The auto insurance requirement is linked to driving and to the possibility that bad driving may cause injuries to others, including passengers in the driver's car, not to those who benefit from roads generally.(2) The primary purpose of the auto insurance mandate was to provide financial protection for people that a driver may harm, and not necessarily for the driver himself. And the auto insurance mandate is a quid pro quo for having the state issuing a privilege: in this case a driver’s license.(6)  Regarding the claim that Medicare tax provides a justifying precedent for the individual healthcare mandate, it is worth noting that the architects of Medicare harboured grave doubts about its constitutionality, which was ultimately settled on the taxing power of the United States government. However, in contrast to an individual mandate, federal benefits are attached to Medicare taxes and there is a specific “contract” involved between the current payment of taxes and future government benefits. No such relationship would exist with the individual health insurance mandate. Additionally, while one can “opt-out” of receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits, although one must still pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, none of the individual mandate proposals provide for an “opt out”, other than for yet undefined religious objections. Interestingly, a suit being led by former House Majority Leader Richard Armey is challenging a federal regulation that suggests that opting out of Medicare will put a person’s Social Security benefits at risk.(6)

Insurance mandates are not a tax and therefore are outside of constitutional powers. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor, claims that health insurance mandates are not a tax, and therefore falls outside congressional power. “You're fining people for failing to enter a private insurance contract.”(3)  Moreover, as Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith argue: “the question of whether the compelled purchase of health insurance constitutes the 'taking' of private property under the Fifth Amendment. Given the novel nature of the individual health insurance mandate, a Fifth Amendment challenge can be expected. Requiring a citizen to devote a per-cent of his or her income for a purpose for which he or she otherwise might not choose based on individual circumstances could be considered an arbitrary and capricious “taking” no matter how many hardship exemptions the federal government might dispense.”(6)  Regarding the “general welfare” arguments adduced by side opposition: The words 'general Welfare' show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8: 'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States'. Significantly, Notice the Constitution does not say the 'general welfare of the citizens of the United States.' It says "general Welfare of the United States.' This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project, including health care.(13)

The mandate is constitutional under the commerce clause  Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy.  Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. Where a Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that ”strong” and potentially more intrusive forms of action are less supported than weaker ones.(11)  Critics of an individual mandate cite recent Supreme Court cases in which the Court has limited the commerce clause’s power. However, those cases (Lopez and Morrison) involved regulation of non-economic activity. The individual mandate regulates the relationship between sellers and buyers of health care insurance. Moreover, the Court was concerned in Lopez and Morrison with efforts by Congress to intrude into areas that are properly regulated by state governments and thereby to upset the balance of power between the federal and state governments. By contrast, congressional regulation of the health care industry does not violate state prerogatives.  To be sure, much regulation of insurance occurs at the state level, but that is because Congress has chosen by statute to defer to state regulation. The Constitution does not prevent Congress from revoking its statutory grants to state governments.(12) Those who argue that this is unconstitutional maintain that those not purchasing health insurance, by definition, are not part of interstate commerce. There are numerous flaws with this argument.  First, Congress can regulate activities that themselves are not part of interstate commerce if they have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. For example, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate wheat that farmers grew for their own home consumption. More recently in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court ruled that Congress could prohibit cultivating and possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use. Even though the individuals were not personally engaged in commerce, the matter still fit within the commerce power.(10)  Second, the decision to abstain from particular economic transactions is a form of commercial behaviour that Congress can regulate. The Supreme Court held that Congress could require that hotels and restaurants provide services to African-Americans. Their refusal to engage in commerce still was deemed to be within the scope of Congress's commerce clause power.(10) This is made more significant by the fact that the decision to remain uninsured can affect commerce- both within and between states- by raising health insurance premiums. This is because insurance premiums tend to rise in response to reductions in the size of the pool of individuals to whom financial risk can be distributed.(14)  Citizens who forego health insurance are forcing other Americans to cover their costs if they are sent to hospital for emergency treatment. They are also forcing others to pay higher insurance rates, now that insurance companies can no longer legally exclude those with pre-existing conditions.(15)  Third, the likelihood is that everyone will require medical care at some point. An uninsured person in a car accident will be taken to the emergency room for treatment. An uninsured person with a communicable disease will be treated. Congress can ensure that there is an adequate fund to pay for everyone's medical needs. In other words, the health care system is part of interstate commerce. Providing care for all unquestionably has a substantial economic effect. Congress, then, can use its authority under the necessary and proper clause to make sure that the system that it is creating is viable and capable of providing health care for all.(10)  Therefore the individual healthcare mandate is constitutional because it is authorized under the commerce clause of the constitution.

Mandatory health insurance is analogous to constitutional mandates  Federal mandates are a cornerstone of the American legal system and the everyday life of every American. As Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and Iowa's attorney general Tom Miller, argued in 2010: "We live under mandates every day. Without them, society as we know it would disintegrate. Every criminal law tells us what we cannot do. And sometimes the law tells us what we must do. Congress can require young Americans to register for the draft to serve in the military, for example, or can require us all to pay taxes for programs like Social Security and Medicare. We can- and do- argue about what shape these laws should take, without claiming that our leaders are constitutionally barred from dealing with our most pressing problems."(16)  Car insurance is mandatory, so why not health insurance too? If the government requires that individuals buy car insurance, why should it not also be allowed to require that individuals buy health insurance? Some say that there is no mandate to buy car insurance because if you don't want to buy that car insurance, you simply don't have to drive. Yet, for the majority of families and workers, driving is a necessity and not a choice. So, the mandate on drivers to buy insurance is, therefore, directly analogous to a mandate on individuals to buy health insurance.  Medicare tax also sets an important justifying precedent for the individual healthcare mandate. The Medicare program imposes a payroll tax on Americans as a way to fund coverage of their hospital costs once they reach age 65. People cannot opt out of Medicare; it is an obligatory system of health care insurance for one's senior years. Similarly, Congress can use a payroll tax to implement a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance before they reach age 65. Under the House bill, for example, people will pay a 2.5 percent tax on their income unless they have health care coverage.(12)  It is significant here that there is no fundamental right to go without insurance under the Constitution; no core constitutional rights are violated by the individual mandate. Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive, alongside treatment that they might not be able to consent to (by reason of infirmity), but that doctors and hospitals may be ethically obliged to provide.  The “liberties” that are modified by the individual mandate are purely economic and have none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that are normally used to invoke Constitutional protection.  In short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat. The closest plausible argument is one based on a federal statute protecting religious liberty, but Congress is Constitutionally free to override one statute with another.(11) This means that the healthcare mandate is no different to the many other mandates the federal government imposes on the American people to support the general welfare, and as such should be upheld as constitutional.

The mandate falls under taxation and general welfare powers  An insurance mandate would be enforced through income tax laws, so even if a simple mandate were not a valid 'regulation,' it still could fall easily within Congress’s plenary power to tax income. For instance, anyone purchasing insurance could be given an income tax credit, and those not purchasing could be assessed an income tax penalty.  The only possible constitutional restriction is an archaic provision saying that if Congress imposes anything that amounts to a 'head tax' or 'poll tax' (that is, taxing people simply as people rather than taxing their income), then it must do so uniformly (that is, the same amount per person). This technical restriction is easily avoided by using income tax laws.  Purists complain that taxes should be proportional to actual income and should not be used mainly to regulate economic behaviour, but our tax code, for better or worse, is riddled with such regulatory provisions and so they are clearly constitutional. (11) In many ways, the 'mandate' could be considered a tax, but a tax which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes what is called an “excise tax”, a tax on transactions or events, or a “penalty tax”, a tax for failing to do something (e.g., filing your tax return promptly). The tax is levied for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan. Taxing uninsured people helps to pay for the costs of the new regulations. The tax gives uninsured people a choice. If they stay out of the risk pool, they effectively raise other people’s insurance costs, and Congress taxes them to recoup some of the costs. If they join the risk pool, they do not have to pay the tax. A good analogy would be a tax on polluters who fail to install pollution-control equipment: they can pay the tax or install the equipment.(17)  Health insurance mandates incentivize behaviour like many other laws. At one time, the Supreme Court restricted the ability of Congress to use its taxing power to regulate people's activities. In the early part of the 20th Century, the Court drew a distinction between taxes designed to raise revenue, which were permissible, and taxes designed to regulate behaviour, which might not be permissible. However, this distinction was jettisoned by 1937, and the taxing power is now recognized as a broad congressional power.(12) Moreover, Congress has the power to make laws which promote the general welfare. As Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer argued in November of 2009: “Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility." The words "general Welfare" show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”(12)  The power to promote the general welfare becomes crucial when it is considered that it is impossible to create a national health insurance system and help the current 30 million uninsured is to mandate everyone to buy health insurance. You cannot have universal health insurance without a mandate. Every country in the world that has a universal health-insurance system either requires its citizens to buy health insurance, or includes its citizens in a default insurance programme automatically and taxes them for it (which is effectively the same thing). The reasons for this are simple, and have been covered hundreds of times since the current debate over universal health insurance began during the Democratic presidential primaries in late 2007. If citizens within a state are not obliged to participate in a healthcare scheme (whether privately of publicly organised), then many young and healthy people will bet on not needing insurance, and will decline to buy it. Such behaviour will alter the composition of the risk pool, such that it is made up of older, sicker people with higher medical costs, and thus premiums will rise. That in turn will cause more healthy people to leave the system. This is the phenomenon of "adverse selection". Ultimately you're left only with rich old sick people, and nobody else can afford insurance. This is known- somewhat histrionically- as an “insurance death spiral”.  States that wish to pursue the goal of creating an affordable, universally available system of healthcare, must ensure that the majority of their citizens buy into such a scheme.(13) Because there is a compelling benefit to the "general welfare" in instituting a national welfare program, the federal government may rely on Constitutional authority to impose a health insurance mandate. If the States were left to do this, with some instituting a mandate and some not, many would be left uninsured and the risk pool would not be adequately spread. The difference in benefits to the country clearly justifies federal action to create this individual mandate under the Constitution.

These arguments overlook the existence of two major cases – United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison – in which the Supreme Court has specifically rejected the notion that Congress can regulate non-commercial behaviour merely because, arguably, such behaviour can have an impact on Commerce. The Court's overarching reason for doing so was its compellingly articulated belief that the Commerce Clause is a limited grant of power and one that cannot be infinitely capacious. This reasoning is unassailable, and demonstrated that the individual mandate is not a reasonable application of the commerce clause.(8) Rather, this interpretation of the commerce clause could potentially America's constitutional structure. Every single decision made by individual Americans, be it buying health insurance, a car, health club memberships or any other good or service, has some impact on the economy. Such decisions could therefore be subject to regulation by Congress. Indeed, Congress would be able to determine how individuals would dispose of every penny of whatever monies they have left after paying taxes.  Meanwhile, the Supremacy Clause- which ensures that any constitutional federal legislation trumps exercises of state power- would all but guarantee that an infinitely capacious Commerce Clause would rob States of any remaining authority. This point was ably articulated by Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion in Lopez.(8) Accordingly, there is a great deal at stake here. No matter how important the cause of health care reform might be, it is not consequential enough to destroy the very sinews of America’s constitutional system.

It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.  The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.

There is no distinction between "natural" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement  The natural/unnatural distinction is untenable. Already athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements, exercises, equipment, clothing, training regimes, medical treatments, etc. to enhance their performance. There is nothing ‘natural’ about taking vitamin pills, wearing whole-body Lycra suits, having surgery on ligaments, spending every day in a gym pumping weights or running in shoes with spikes on the bottom. Diet, medicine, technology, and even just coaching already give an artificial advantage to those athletes who can afford the best of all these aids. Since there is no clear way to distinguish from legitimate and illegitimate artificial aids to performance, they should all be allowed. So taking these drugs is no more unnatural than what happens today.  A practical example of an unnatural aid is the Speedo worn in 2008 at the Beijing Olympics. FINA, the world governing body of swimming was concerned about the extraordinary statistics in Beijing where swimmers wearing the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit won 90 per cent of all available medals and broke 23 world records. Since Speedo launched the suit in 2008, 108 world records have fallen (until February 2009) (1).  Simon Hart, Swimwear giant Speedo hit back at 'unfair advantage' claims, 02/19/2009,   ,accessed 15/05/2011

Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.

Athletes should be free to take risks when training and competing  Freedom of choice: If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do so. They harm nobody but themselves and should be treated as adults, capable of making rational decisions upon the basis of widely-available information.  Even if there are adverse health effects in the long-term, this is also true of tobacco, alcohol and boxing, which remain legal. We allow world class athletes to train for 23 hours a week (on average), adjust their diets and endanger themselves by pushing the boundaries of their body. We let them do it, because it is what they chose which is best for them. According to the NFL Player Association the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 58 years of age (1). Thus already we allow athletes to endanger their lives, give them the choice of a lifestyle. Why not also extend this moral precedent to drugs?  Judd Bissiotto, 15 Surprising facts about world athletes,   , accessed 05/18/2011

Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.  An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.

There will always be a black market for cheaper or for new untested drugs that will give an athlete an edge before others have a chance to try it. Legalization is therefore unlikely to result in large health benefits as the competitiveness of sport will always result in athletes being willing to take a risk.

Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport  The use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years.  The fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it.  Millard Baker, Riccardo Ricco Tests Positive  for Undetectable New Drug Mircera at 2008 Tour de France, 07/18/2008,  , accessed 05/20/2011

Improving safety standards in sport  It does not take a lot for chemists to produce performance enhancing drugs, the Scientific American reports: “Rogue scientists start with testosterone or its commercially available analogues and then make minor structural modifications to yield similarly active derivatives.” The underground chemists make no effort to test their creations for effectiveness or safety, of course. Production of a simple new steroid compound would require "lab equipment costing maybe $50,000 to $100,000,". Depending on the number of chemical reactions needed for synthesis, "some of them could be made in a week or two. Others might take six months to a year."(1) As a result of legalizing performance-enhancing drugs a backstreet industry can become regulated as a result there will be much more control and testing to ensure the health and safety of the athletes who take the drugs.  Steven Ashley, Doping by Design, Scientific American 01/12/2004,  , accessed 05/19/2011

Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.  In the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).  All about Traumatic Brain Injuries:  , accessed 05/15/2011

Sport is also about the spectacle for spectators.  Sport has become a branch of the entertainment business and the public demands “higher, faster, stronger” from athletes. If drug-use allows world records to be continually broken, and makes American Football players bigger and more exciting to watch, why deny the public what they want, especially if the athletes want to give it to them?  The criterion that athletes should only be applying their ‘natural abilities’ runs into trouble. The highly advanced training technologies, health programs, sports drinks, use of such things as caffeine pills, and other energy boosters seem to defeat the notion that athletes are currently applying only their 'natural abilities'. Performance enhancing drugs would not go too far beyond the current circumstances for athletes.

Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use  Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years’ time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs. An example of the pressure is cycling. The American Scientific magazine explains: “Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a “clean” rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.” (1)  Michael Shermer, The Dopping Dillema, 03/31/2008,  accessed 05/15/2011

Protecting young and vulnerable athletes  Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalized for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country, something which would be problematic for sports that are global. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressures to use drugs, if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.

Protecting the health of athletes  Laws should in general protect people from making uninformed decisions. Due to the potential severe consequences the ban has to be upheld. An analogy with the seatbelt can be used: the government forces people to use them, because of the possibility of severe injury in case we do not use it.  The use of performance-enhancing drugs is the opposite – use can lead to severe health problems.  Thus, if all people are treated as equals under law, then the law should equally protect athletes as the law does other would- be drug users.  Equality before law also means athletes can’t be exempt from the moral standards we have for others. Firstly due to value of life and secondly because many times athletes themselves are not aware of the severe consequences of performance enhancing drugs.  BBC Drugs and Sports (GCSE Bitesize):  , accessed 05/15/2011

Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport  The show and the celebration of human physical achievement is what makes sport enjoyable to the public. The reason people enjoy sport is because it is a demonstration of what other fellow human beings can achieve and what humans can achieve collectively, as a species.  A spectacle is designed to amaze. It doesn’t need to be human achievement to be amazing (no one would call monster truck driving a sport). So, when humans start taking drugs to improve performance, it is no longer a sport, it is a spectacle, because there is no human physical achievement, but instead a chemical achievement.  It also becomes a celebration not of human physical achievement, but of human intellectual achievement, of who can design the best drugs. Even with fancy running shoes, we are still celebrating human achievement, which will not happen once you take it to the extreme of allowing drug use.  This doesn’t benefit athletes in the long run. Athletes won’t be celebrated but scientists will!

The temptation of youth to try illegal substances is not just a problem in sports. In all environments you will have age restrictions.  To say that we should uphold the ban for the sake of children is as if we would advocate a ban of alcohol for everyone, because some teenagers like to socialize with adults who are legally able to drink alcohol. There is always going to be an age restriction and it is the duty of institutions, trainers and athletes to uphold it, so that later in life as adults, athletes can make an informed decision.

There is no such thing as a forced decision. Everyone has complete control over their own body and their own decisions. Everyone has an absolute right to possession of one’s own body. If you own your body then you can choose what to do with it, and any exchange, such as money to an employer in exchange for use of your body (labour) is justified, because it was a voluntary exchange and you still possess yourself. If you choose to take drugs, you have not been forced into it no matter the peer pressure you may be under or that other having taken the drugs may make you uncompetitive.

The proposition is wrong in assuming that increased media coverage will have the drastic effects it claims on changing public perceptions towards women’s sport. The problem with lack of interest in women’s sport is not caused by a lack of media coverage. It is because of deep-rooted social conceptions of gender roles and sport (as the prop have acknowledged). Sports like figure-skating and gymnastics have traditionally been viewed as female-appropriate whereas high-contact sports like football, rugby, American football or basketball are generally seen as male-appropriate. [1]  Crucially, the proposition are wrong in claiming that such social perceptions are easily changed. Simply providing more media coverage will not have the proposition’s desired effects. In the United States increased participation by women in sport has not lead to changes in perceptions so it seems unlikely media coverage will.[2] This is what was observed when the newly formed Women’s Soccer Association (WSA) in the United States which signed a lucrative TV-rights agreement in 1999. This proved to be overly ambitious for the WSA which, despite having a huge amount of air-time, failed to generate interest and viewer ratings were very low. Subsequently, the WSA collapsed in 2003 setting women’s professional soccer in the USA back immensely. [3]  This is evidence that media coverage cannot change public perceptions in the way the proposition wants. Instead, increased funding to development programs for women’s sport and, more importantly, time are what is needed. Over the last decades, women’s sport has moved on from female-appropriate sports only, to sports like tennis, athletics and swimming that are now largely seen as gender-neutral. This is clear evidence that women’s sport is heading in the right direction despite the fact that media coverage is low. It time, contact sports traditionally viewed as male-appropriate will also become normalised for women.  [1] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.  [2] Hardin, Marie, and Greer, Jennifer D., ‘The Influence of Gender-role Socialization, Media Use and Sports Participation on Perceptions of Gender-Appropriate Sports’, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol.32 No.2.  [3] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.

Increased media coverage changes public perceptions towards gender roles and women’s sport.  The male world-view which dominates sports media and conveys to the public that women’s sport are inferior to men’s reinforce traditional gender stereotypes and deter young girls from becoming active in sport. Gender perceptions have obviously come a long way in the last 100 years, but the media classification of women’s sport as inferior to men’s is severely slowing this progress in the field of sport.  Humans are social beings with esteem needs, and as social beings we like to be viewed in a positive light by our peers. This is best achieved on a general level by conforming to social expectations and norm. This also applies for societal conceptions of gender. The fact that the media deems women’s sport to be of lesser importance which (as we have seen) conveys to the public this message, reinforces the notion that sport is not a worthwhile activity for women and girls. Instead, it is an activity more appropriate for men and boys. This kind of discourse has the effect of moulding gender identities both in terms of how men perceive women and how women perceive themselves. In this way, the lack of media coverage of women’s sport fuels a self-affirming perception of gender which effectively denies many young girls a realistic choice of becoming engaged in sport as perceptions affect confidence in one’s ability; as a result of this gender bias boys as young as six rate themselves as being much more competent in sports than girls do.[1]  By forcing the media to provide equal coverage of both men’s and women’s sport, we take an effective step in breaking these societal discourses and transforming gender perceptions. This is because increased coverage will make sport seem like a worthwhile activity for girls and women. As more women take part in sport, this has a further cyclical effect of re-affirming gender conceptions around sport which, in turn, induces further women to become engaged in sport. This is a desirable outcome from the government’s perspective because sport has a positive impact on the health of those who are physically active. Those who are physically active are not only less likely to suffer from things like Coronary Heart Disease and cancer, but they have also been shown to lead more psychologically happy lives due to the endorphins released while exercising, and the joy of feeling physically fit.  [1] Jacobs, Janis E., and Eccles, Jacquelynne S., ‘The Impact of Mopthers’ Gender-Role Stereotypic Beliefs on Mothers’ and Children’s Ability Perceptions’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 6, 1992, pp.932-944, p.934.

The proposition themselves have mentioned three examples of female athletes that are excellent role models for young girls. The huge publicity received by female athletes at the Olympic Games alone, but also at Tennis Grand Slams indicates that there are already sufficient sporting role models for girls to admire. Of course more would be better but this should not come about through mandatory extra coverage.  If the proposition’s concern lies in the lack of female role models in traditionally masculine sports like football, then the proposition are still going about this the wrong way. You cannot simply artificially create role models. Sporting heroes may be glorified by the media, but they are not made by them. For a sporting hero to be glorified, the athlete needs to prove himself or herself as exceptional in his or her field and distinguish him or herself. When relatively unknown athletes and sports teams do distinguish themselves, they receive due credit and glorification in the media. Examples include the victory of the USA Women’s soccer team winning the world cup in 1999, and Ireland’s remarkably successful campaign in the 2007 cricket world cup. Both were relatively minor sports with low fan bases and did receive media coverage for their achievements. This indicates that the status quo is sufficient for providing role models even in more niche sports. The proposition may complain that the media attention in such situations is always short-lived, but this is only natural. As we saw with the example of women’s soccer in the USA, media coverage where demand remains limited is unsustainable.

The sports world is unfairly dominated by a male-orientated world-view.  Sport is dominated by a male-orientated world view. This is the case in two respects:  In terms of the way sports media is run. Sports media are almost entirely run by men, who somewhat inevitably are more interested in men’s sport.[1] In the news media for example only 27% of top management jobs were held by women.[2] In addition, women who enter the world of sports media are subjected to those male-orientated perceptions. For them to succeed as journalists they feel a need to cover men’s sport. [3] These two factors explain why the gap between media coverage of men’s and women’s sport is not closing despite the increase in participation and interest in women’s sport.  The media dictates what is “newsworthy”. Public opinion is hugely influenced by the media. Stories, events or sports that receive a large amount of coverage give the impression to the public that they are important issues that are worthy of being reported on. Similarly, sports that are not covered appear to the public as being of lesser importance. This applies in the case of women’s sport which in the male-dominated world of sport media will always be perceived as of lesser importance.  This male dominated world-view is unfair on female athletes. Sport is supposed to be a celebration of the human mind and body, and it is right that athletes that push themselves to the brink in search for glory receive due praise. The hugely skewed coverage of sport against women’s sports caused by the male world-view in the media is hugely unfair on female athletes, as they do not get the deserved recognition their male counterparts receive.  [1] Turner, Georgina, “Fair play for women’s sport”, The Guardian, 24 January 2009.  [2] ‘Global Report: Men Occupy Majority of Management Jobs in News Companies’, International Women’s Media Foundation.  [3] Creedon, Pamela J.: “Women, Sport, and Media Institutions: Issues in Sports Journalism and Marketing”, taken from Media Sport, Wenner, Lawrence A. (ed), Routledge, 1998.

The skew in media coverage is not down to personal preferences of sports journalists. If journalists simply reported on what interested them, media companies would not be very successful. Instead, they focus on reporting on sporting events that are more popular and are likely to attract more public attention. The large amount of media coverage of women’s sport in the Olympic Games and Tennis Grand Slams is testimony to this point. It shows that sports journalists are not all subconsciously sexist as the proposition might suggest, they simply cover what they deem to be appropriate and of interest to the public. The Olympics and Wimbledon are sufficiently high-profile to warrant high coverage of the women’s events. The national women’s football league in the UK, however, does not.  Moreover, media coverage is not a matter of fairness as the proposition suggest. It is to do with popularity. If fairness was the main priority, then media would have to cover all stories no-matter what their significance to the general public, to the same level. This would simply be pointless and impractical.

The unpopularity of the events sports media would be forced to cover would mean less money, not more money going into sports. This is because incentives for lucrative TV rights deals, sponsorships and advertising only exist where there is a high expectation of positive returns for the advertisers and media companies. For example, if Sky Sports feel there is not much scope in broadcasting every single women’s football league match in the UK, it is unlikely to make a particularly lucrative offer. If anything it will detract from valuable air-time that could be used to show other more popular events that are seen as more profitable.  Moreover, it is not true that media coverage is necessary to incite government funding. For example, the British Government offered for the huge amount of funding for relatively unknown sports for the Beijing and London Olympics, not because they are popular [1], but because the government independently believed it was a worthwhile investment. The fact that such government schemes have succeeded in attracting young girls despite of the lack of media coverage is indicative of this.  [1] BBC News: “Funding for Britain’s Olympic sports extended to Rio 2016”, BBC News, 12 August, 2012.

Increased media coverage creates more role models for young girls to engage in sport.  A more obvious problem with the limited coverage of women’s sport is the distinct lack of sports role models available as sources of inspiration for girls. Having sports role models is crucial for children to attain the desire and motivation to partake in sport. Boys often want to be like Lionel Messi in football, or Lebron James in basketball. Boys can access such figureheads because they are world famous. Their sporting achievements and prowess are glorified in all forms of media and people can very easily watch them play their sport live on TV. The same does not exist for girls because female athletes receive nowhere near as much media attention as their male counterparts. Girls often can’t even name any female sports stars so lack role models in sport.[1] Although it is true that children can have role models of either sex, the divide in the sports world between men’s and women’s sports means girls cannot aspire to compete alongside the likes of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps.  The successes of British female athletes like Rebecca Adlington, Jessica Ennis and Victoria Pendleton, or the young Katie Ledecky from the USA in the recent Olympics have captured the hearts and imagination of a huge number of young girls across the UK and already, as local sports centres and athletics clubs have seen participation amongst girls soar during and after the London Olympics. This is no coincidence – it is because of the media attention and glorification female athletes receive. The Olympic Games are an example of what equal media coverage of men’s and women’s sport can achieve, The equal coverage of Grand Slam tennis and the subsequent glorification of the likes of Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams is another example. We must take action to provide the same sort of role models across all sporting events.  [1] ‘Girls’ attitudes explored… Role models’, Girlguiding UK, 2012, p.14

Increased media coverage will lead to increased funding towards women’s sport  Increased media coverage will lead to more money going into women’s sport. This will happen for several reasons.  In the short-term, increased media coverage means more money from advertising and sponsorship, both through the media and directly sponsoring sporting events, clubs and athletes. Increased media involvement also generates revenue for sports in the form of TV and radio licenses (i.e. broadcasting rights). Importantly, as women’s sport increases in popularity, so will the competitiveness to secure sponsorship deals and TV rights in those sports. [2] This will further push up the amount of funding going into women’s sport.  The Government invests in social projects it deems to be worthwhile. As we have seen, the media has a huge influence in forming public opinion as to what constitutes a worthwhile activity. Thus, increased media coverage will create more demand for increased government funding in women’s sport. This phenomenon was observed in the Government funding that went towards the British Olympic team. The increased popularity in the Olympics led to huge increases in funding for the Beijing and London Olympics. [1]  Increased Government funding is desirable because it leads to better facilities and coaching, increased public awareness, increased participation and, ultimately, in improved results on the sporting field (as was seen in both Beijing and London for team GB).  [1] UK Government, London 2012 Funding, accessed 7/9/2012.  [2] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.

The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.  It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.  [1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.

The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.  The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.  [1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.

Women’s sports do not provide the same economic incentives for media coverage as men’s.  Media coverage is dependent on one crucial factor: financial incentive. The journalism industry is hugely competitive and media companies constantly have to compete with rivals for viewers and numbers of papers and magazines sold, often just in order to survive. [1] This is important for two reasons. Firstly because more sales obviously means more revenue, and secondly because the volume of sales or viewers attracts more money from advertisers and sponsors who want to maximise the exposure of their adverts to the general public. Therefore, for media companies to prosper, they must cover subjects that are most popular and likely to receive most attention by the public.  Given the difference in popularity between women and men’s sport, media companies have to focus on men’s sporting events as that will largely enable them to compete with rivals and secure greater revenue.  [1] Creedon, Pamela J.: “Women, Sport, and Media Institutions: Issues in Sports Journalism and Marketing”, taken from Media Sport, Wenner, Lawrence A. (ed), Routledge, 1998.

Equalising media coverage will cause a drop in funding for sport in general  The proposition have acknowledged that media coverage is a crucial source of revenue for sport in the form of sponsorship deals and TV rights. However, forcing media companies to provide equal coverage of men’s and women’s sport, inevitably leads to a thoroughly imperfect and inefficient market within the sports media industry. Sponsors and advertisers would not be as inclined to spend money on media coverage since they would deem that their advertising would reach fewer people and so have less of an impact. Moreover, sports newspapers and magazines are likely to suffer since the vast majority of readers are men interested in men’s sports.  The consequences of an impaired sports media industry would have negative effects on both women’s and men’s sport because they will receive less funding. Let us examine how the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is funded, as a case study. The overwhelming majority of the ECB’s funds come from TV rights sales. In 2012 alone contracts were signed with Sky and ESPN worth a total of £385 million. [1] Forcing these media giants to show an equal amount of women’s cricket as men’s would be destructive simply because interest in women’s cricket is nowhere near as high. Consequently, the ECB would see its TV rights value slashed and its income severely lowered.  A similar story to this described above would ensue with many other team sports like football and rugby where the men’s sport has a huge fan base. The result would be hugely diminished funding for all facets of sport, most likely including women’s. Consequently, all the benefits the proposition are trying to achieve with this motion would not be achieved, and if anything one would observe a decline in participation and standards of facilities and coaching. This is because the development, facilities and grass roots programs funded by organisations like the ECB and the Football Association (FA) are all funded from the same pool of money, whether the income has come from men’s or women’s sport. Crucially, this explains the proposition’s identification of growing female participation in sport while media coverage remains low.  [1] Hoult, Nick: “England and Wales Cricket Board to step up security in wke of new £125m Asian TV rights deal”, The Telegraph, 17 May, 2012.

Men’s sports are more popular than women’s and so should receive more media coverage.  The role of the media is not to be a tool for the implementation of social policy. It is instead to inform the public and provide entertainment. However, it would be naïve and short-sighted to believe that the media should report and cover everything equally so as to perfectly inform the public. The nature of media coverage is such that there is a limited amount each media company can cover. There is a limit on air-time available to radio and TV stations and there is a limit to the number of pages newspapers can print. Media companies thus have to make a choice regarding what to report and to what extent. It makes sense for more coverage to be offered for stories and events that are deemed to be of greater importance by the general public (irrespective of its objective value). For example, news about local flooding in Queensland Australia may be hugely important for Australians, but considerably less so for people in Europe or the Americas. Similarly, a British victory at the World Schools Debating Championships would not be (by and large) seen as important as a British victory in the Football or Rugby World Cup. We would thus expect the media to cover each story according to its popularity. Given the considerably lower public interest in most women’s sport compared to men’s, it thus makes sense for men’s to receive more media coverage. That coverage is based on popularity rather than media bias is shown by more than two thirds of media reports not in any way enhancing stereotypes, the media are therefore not specifically discriminating against women in sport.[1]  [1] ‘Sports, Media and Stereotypes Women and Men in Sports and Media’, Centre for Gender Equality, 2006, p.19.

The lack of financial incentive to provide media coverage of women’s sporting event is not a reason to not go ahead with this motion. There is often no financial incentive to provide basic welfare needs or provide funding for the development of pharmaceuticals, but the government still pursues such endeavours. In such cases, extra financial incentives can be provided to private companies from the part of the government, or the government itself may be in charge of the scheme. In the case of sports media, state run media do not require a financial incentive to provide equal coverage, while private media companies could either be provided with benefits for covering women’s sport and/or disincentivised from not providing equal coverage by having sufficiently heavy fines in place.

The sole thing that one must remember when judging this problem is that individuals differ from one another. Even in the world of sports, although most of the athletes are hard-working, determined and ambitious people, they have different opinions, different personalities and different views over what success means. This is exactly why we cannot generalize the recipe for an ideal life. There is no “one size fits all”.  For some players, it’s all about the competition, that thrill and excitement that you feel when playing a match, while for others the whole sporting environment is just a way of providing for their families, them not enjoying the sport per se, but rather the benefits is brings. As a result, it is of crucial importance to let people decide by their own if they want to participate in international competition. The majority will want to represent their countries, but some don’t. What should be prioritized in this instance is the happiness of the individual, and as they know best in what makes them happy, we must let the athletes chose if they want to represent their countries on a national level or not. For example, Samuel Eto’o refused to play for Cameroon in a friendly match because the Cameroonian Football Association didn’t pay his fee for previous international matches. As a result, he prioritized his personal time over exhausting himself in matches that didn’t bring him any sort of advantages. (1) His decision should be respected.  (1) Gama, Karla Villegas, “Samuel Eto'o Refuses to Play for Cameroon National Team Again “, Bleacher Reports August 27, 2012

Beneficial for the player  Undoubtedly, one of the most important things for a professional sportsperson is to have a long, healthy and fulfilling career. No matter what a sportspersons motivation is, whether it is the pleasure from winning or the money a player always needs to be in top form. Playing on the international level helps athletes improve themselves.  First of all, no matter of sport, the level of the sport is much more intense when it is international, as obviously, the best players are taking part in it. Santos vs Boca Juniors have always been very thrilling football matches, but none of them compare with the matches between Brazil and Argentina. If you, as an athlete, are forced to play in a much more competitive environment, then you have to bring your A-game to the pitch on every single occasion as the stakes are high every single time. In time, this improves skills and develops capabilities, as you are challenged on regular basis.  Second of all, when it comes to team sports a lot of scouts are watching internationals in the hopes of spotting new potential talents for big teams. This can be a very good opportunity for players to get noticed and to receive the credit they deserve. For example Luis Suarez transferred to Liverpool for £22.8 million in January 2011 shortly after the 2010 world cup,(1) while Alex Furgeson noted on having bought Javier Hernández ”If we had waited until after the World Cup we would have had to pay maybe three times the price”(2). If they fail to seize the opportunity, players are much more likely to remain unnoticed and unknown outside their own country. It is in their interest to be in the spotlight for the greatest amount of time, and there is no bigger stage than international competitions.  (1) Metro, ‘Luis Suarez Liverpool transfer agreed after Ajax accept £22.8m offer, 28 January 2011,   (2) Field, Dominic, ‘Javier Hernández lifts Manchester United spirits after week of turmoil’, The Guardian, 25 October 2010,

It should not be dependent on one man or one woman to carry the weight of the nation upon their shoulders. Winning the world cup should not be about just whether an individual plays or not but about the team. Even in the Olympics one individual’s performance makes little difference in most cases to the whole of the team.  Good results may lift a nation but it is wrong to suggest that this should mean that everyone who is called on to represent their nation should have to answer that call. It is up to the coaches and managers to make the best use of the men and women they do have.  Moreover if a country is relying on one individual then they are almost certainly putting too much pressure on them. Instead the country needs to focus on broadening the base of the team by finding more talent so that no one individual is irreplaceable. It should be remembered that individuals are far more often unable to take part in international competition as a result of injury or other reasons rather than a refusal to represent their country.

A moral duty to play for your country  It is clear that any individual, no matter his chosen area of expertise needs the appropriate environment to achieve his maximum potential. The people involved in professional sports are no exception. They need coaches to guide them, stadiums in which to practice, sponsorship and funding to allow participation at some competitions. Any person who succeeded in making a career in sports partly owes it to the society he grew up in that provided these facilities and opportunities. Let us not forget that especially in poor areas, most of the sports trainings are done “pro bono” by good Samaritans who want to lend a hand.  Therefore, as other people invested in their development, every sportsman has the moral duty to pass on that help, and also lend a helping hand towards those who weren’t as privileged. Representing the nation is a part of this moral duty to repay that which the country has given. This improves the image of that country and allows it to get the recognition in deserves for bringing up such talented players. Cristiano Ronaldo is one of best paid soccer players in the world and mainly got to where he is due to his talent, determination and countless hours on the pitch. But he was also born in Portugal, where he took advantage of the entire football industry that exists there. If he had been born in Sri Lanka, his talent would have gone unnoticed.

There are no grounds on which to claim that these athletes have any sort of moral duty towards the society which raised him, as the society itself benefited from its investment and a moral duty should not arise from the accident of being born into a particular country.  The moral obligation, if it ever existed, is to the club and is fully fulfilled whether they stay at the club they were raised by or if they leave. If they stay, they will help the club win matches, championships and therefore money, which could in turn be used for the development for other young, talented players. If they leave, the club will receive a significant fee for the transfer, money which could again be used for the same purposes. Either way, they will bring significant advantages to the society that raised them, without having to play for the national team.

Benefits to the nation  It is not just the player or athlete who benefits from taking part in international competitions but the nation as well. Every nation wants to do well in international sporting completions and every national wants their nation to do well internationally. Every country wants all of their best sportspeople to take part so that they have as much success as possible. This is partially about prestige; Jamaica is perhaps best known worldwide at the moment as a result of the fame of Usain Bolt and other successful sprinters, if it was not known for this it might instead be known for its gang wars and murder which is not what a country wants people to think of when their country is mentioned. (1)  But it is also about the economy. Countries that do well in international competitions may get an economic boost as a result. Economists suggested that winning the World Cup could have a positive impact of between 0.25 and 0.5%, which if it is in the context of near zero growth can be a big impact. This is a result of the feel-good factor from the victory. And we must not forget that feel-good factor itself; wining international competitions, or even just individual events lifts the mood of the country.  And if a country is successful in a sport then that sport provides an opportunity to bring social benefits through social programs to reduce violence or campaigns such as that against racism.(2) Success is however something which is much more likely if a country is able to field its best athletes and players internationally.  (1) Observer Crime Reporter, ‘Murders soar’, Jamaica Observer, 24 September 2013,   (2) The Economist, ‘Crime in Mexico: Out of sight, not out of mind’, 19 October 2013,

The claim according to which players would willingly play badly in order to get thrown out from the team is not only false, but completely outrageous. There are several points which indicate this.  These are extremely popular and important competitions. In order to get to international level you need to have a very strong character, to value your team mates and cherish the fans. No such player would be willing to throw a match by playing badly. Doing so would hurt the team, fans and nation, and bring widespread criticism.  Throwing a game is also noticeable if there is a significant difference between domestic and international form. Being selected shows good form making it difficult to claim another reason for poor results. Moreover, if they are found out, they have a lot to lose, as their reputation would be destroyed. The Pakistani cricket team scandal involving corruption and match-fixing proves the risks players face when trying to get involved in backstage games and alter the result through poor performance. (1)This damages the athlete’s career, their reputation (even if it is not corrupt) and their financial situation. No one will want someone known for unprofessional behaviour.  (1) Greenwood, Chris, “Bowlers Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Aamer received a year and six months respectively ”, Daily Mail, 4 November 2011

It is true that freedom is one of the core principles of society, but it is neither an absolute value, nor one which isn’t legitimate to confine at some moments. This coercive measure isn’t very time or energy intensive. In general, international competitions are pretty scarce, once every two or four years, and they last only for a couple of weeks. Therefore, the athletes have total freedom over their career, as coming to a championship once in a while won’t affect it.  In addition, the sportsmen shouldn’t be looking at this decision judging solely by their interests. The decision-making process should take more factors into consideration. In a significant number of cases, there is reason to believe that the players think only about themselves and don’t think about the help they could give to their team and therefore to the nation. For example, the Cameroonian footballers refused to appear in a friendly against Algeria just because the Federation didn't pay the corresponding bonuses and appearance fees for two games (against Morocco and Sudan).(1) Such examples of selfish behaviour should be discouraged. They shouldn’t prioritize a small sum of money, which they would’ve eventually received, over the fans. Under this curtain of “freedom” we are allowing them to be selfish and always put their needs first. A society where players would give from their own time in order to help achieve a greater goal is a more desirable one.  (1) Gama, Karla Villegas, “Samuel Eto'o Refuses to Play for Cameroon National Team Again “, Bleacher Reports, 27 August 2012

There is no need for compulsion  There is an old saying ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. In order for this proposal to be taken into consideration, a problem regarding the world of sports must be identified.  Fortunately for sports, it works like a charm. In a great many sports revenues are going up, television rights are being sold for higher prices than ever before and more and more children are enrolling in sporting activities. Despite the global economic slowdown, sports revenues worldwide should grow by about 3.7 percent to $145.3 billion by 2015, according to a research report.(1) The current system works and there is no need to change it.  Moreover, if we were to introduce this coercive measure, there would be numerous disadvantages without significant benefits. It would make no sense to create purposeless tensions between individuals and sporting federations. It is even more absurd considering that competitions and sporting events wouldn't benefit at all. This is because almost all top sportspeople accept the request to represent their country, and indeed see it as an honour and privilege.  Therefore, it would create no advantages regarding the level of the game or increase the spectacle.  (1) Stutchbury, Greg, “Sports Industry Expected To Continue Steady Growth Despite Economic Woes: Report” , Huffington Post, 12 September 2011

No guarantee of success  A man who performs a certain task out voluntarily is guaranteed to solve it better, faster and more efficiently than someone who is forced to do it against his will. Even if these players would come and participate in the training and matches, there is no guarantee that they will give 100%.  Any sportsperson who did not want to appear at the competition is not going to be motivated no matter what it was that meant they did not want to attend. This will be even more the case if the reason was one of fitness, tiredness or form.  The second reason which will add to the lack of dedication from these players is the frustration that they are forced to play against their will. If they cannot change the system, or appeal, then it can only lead to more irritation and indignation. Not a good frame of mind for an international competition. Discord in a team can only lead to failure, as shown by France’s humiliating drop out of the 2010 world cup having not won a game despite having big international stars.(1)  When performance is affected by motivation then there is little coaches or managers can do except take them off the team. They will simply perform less well than more motivated athletes so that they don’t need to take part, so fulfilling their original intent.  (1) Associated Press, ‘Humiliation now complete for France at World Cup’, ESPN, 22 June 2010,

Liberty  Liberty is the foundation stone of society. Every individual must be free to do as they choose and one part of freedom is the freedom to walk away from work when you are asked. Forcing sportspeople to represent their nation in international competition is would be a kind of unfree labour very similar to involuntary servitude, or to take a more recent example conscription. They would be forced to work without their consent and for a considerably less good reason than defence of the nation. By requiring sportspeople to represent their nations we are forcing individuals to take part in actions, which, in their view, don't bring them any benefit. This is clearly the case as they rejected participating in them in the first place.  We are also ignoring that those who do not wish to take part may have legitimate reasons for rejecting a call up. This may be a fear of industry or protesting against the policies of their sport’s governing body. For example, Hilditch is one of three senior national team players who refused to participate in the Nations Cup, to protest Rugby Canada’s pay-to-play system for women in non-World Cup years.(1)  The thing that is certain is that there is no one size fits all policy which would be generally embraced by all the sportsmen. We must let them decide which course of action best suits their interest. As we have embraced the individual freedom as a core principle of our society, we must let these people shape their lives however they want.  (1) Toronto Star, ‘Canada players refuse “pay-to-play”’, Scrum Queens, July 2011,

How well the finances of sports are doing has little relevance to the international game. Indeed it creates the potential problem that as club, or domestic level competition grows more lucrative so sportspeople may feel that they have less need of taking part internationally.  Even if there are currently few who reject a call up this is something that will vary from nation to nation, sport to sport, and time to time. Any national sporting association that faces a crisis that threatens to disrupt their capability of meeting international competition should have the ability to make it compulsory for their best players to represent their country. Thus when Cameroon’s players engaged in strike action it was not just one player which the team could do without but the whole team who did so.(1)  Moreover, even if lower quality players can be substitutes the change would still influence the overall face of the competition and the team’s chances. Having the best possible players, even if some are there by compulsion increases competition to be selected. This puts more pressure on everyone to perform. Every player who will come to the national team can be a valuable asset for it, either if he plays or if he “warms up” the bench.  (1) Associated Press, ‘Cameroon squad go on strike in row over appearance bonuses’, theguardian.com, 15 November 2011,

The top sides field many overseas players because they think they are better than most home-grown ones. The fact that the England football team has done badly has much more to do with poor management and coaching than the large number of foreigners in the Premier League. It also is an indictment on the school programs in place and youth football as a whole. It has little to do with a lack of opportunity at club-level, for clubs will always look locally for cheap, ready-made talent. They are forced to look overseas because foreign-born players are proving to be better bets. Furthermore, these foreigners thereafter assist the few local-born players who have made the grade. Therefore, if you removed some of the best foreigners and replaced them with less good local players, it will actually weaken both club football and the national team.

It will improve the quality of the national team  Reducing the number of foreign players would be good for the national team. Current rules mean that only a few domestic players get a chance to compete at the highest level, and the national side suffers as a result. So while, for example, English clubs with the ability and clout to sign foreign players have done very well in the Champions League recently, the English national team has performed badly. English youth are consistently overlooked for places in the best sides in favour of more talented, more experienced foreigners who offer short-term success. Limiting the number of foreigners would force clubs to give more local players a chance to develop, and subsequently improve the quality of the national side.

Local loyalties went out of the game years ago – it isn’t just overseas players who change clubs often in search of higher wages. Everyone agrees that when teams were only full of local boys the standard of play was worse. And strong local loyalties aren’t always good – they used to spill over into hooliganism as the fans from rival clubs fought. More overseas players in football, many with different colour skins, have helped reduce nationalism and racism in society.

The sport’s governing body, FIFA, wishes to implement a ‘six plus five’ that would be enforced by each member association  The six-plus-five rule, first tabled by FIFA in 2008, would require all side to have six home-grown players in all starting elevens. As the sport’s governing body, if the proposal was voted in by member states all state football associations would be forced to hand out penalties, whether financial or points, to teams that did not meet the criteria of the new rule. The rule purports to increase both the protection and development of local players in local environments, whilst also permitting the transfers of high-profile foreigners that have been attributed with the rise in prestige and profile of many of the European leagues and clubs.

It is good for the development of home-grown players and therefore, the quality of domestic leagues  Limiting the number of overseas players will be good for home-grown sportsmen. At present only a tiny handful of the best native players will get a chance to play for top clubs due to their profit and success motives. This means that talented young players see no reason to work hard and develop their game, because it is so unlikely they will get a chance to play at the top level. And clubs don’t have a reason to seek out local youngsters and train them, as it is easier to buy a fully trained player from abroad. Limiting the number of foreign players would create incentives for both players and clubs to make the most of their talents. As a result, domestic crowds would rise as quality would improve proportionally with the development of local talent.

Limiting the number of foreign players will weaken the quality of domestic football. Seeing many of the best footballers from around the world competing against each other every week raises the standard of the whole game. Fans want to see their team playing exciting football and winning games – they don’t care whether the players are local boys or not. Youngsters are inspired by foreign heroes and work hard in order to follow in their footsteps, no matter where they were born.

Sporting organizations, of which FIFA is merely a more powerful example, cannot and will not be permitted to introduce a rule that denies otherwise-qualified persons from maximizing their income by moving overseas. Furthermore, and regarding the six-plus-five criteria specifically, the five foreigner-limit applies only to those which are not home-grown, encouraging the bigger clubs to look abroad for younger talent to bring into their academies. Once in the academy, they will gain home-grown status and therefore not count as one of the five foreigners. Therefore, FIFA’s proposal does not fix the problem but exacerbate the fears of exploitation.

The youngsters from poor nations who excel in Europe do so because of their move, not irrespective of it. It is a fallacy to suggest that all players develop in a vacuum, that their ability is irrespective of their development opportunities. For the best youngers in poor and under-developed nations, being poached by the rich European clubs is a way out, a means to realising their obvious talent. Taking away that source risks wasting not only a precocious young talent but also denying him the opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty. Furthermore, it can be expected that the poached youngsters will give back to their host countries, in the form of national team appearances and domestic league endorsements, later in their careers.

It will encourage fans to support their local clubs  A focus on domestic football and domestic footballers would encourage the public to get around their local sides. Therefore, this plan would be fruitful for club football and its relationship with the local community. Once the local team was a real source of local identity, with many home-grown players proud to wear the shirt of the club they grew up with. Now players have no local feeling and move often in search of higher wages or European experience. Loyalty is an undervalued trait in modern football. How can fans identify with a club full of overseas players who will be gone in a season or two, and who otherwise neglect to support local youth talent?

Restrictions would prevent the poaching of the best youngsters from poor nations  This plan would be good for world football. At present poorer nations (e.g. in Africa or South America), or those where football isn’t as well developed (e.g. Australia, the USA), lose all their best players at an early age to the rich European leagues. This weakens their own leagues and can lead to the public losing interest in football. Poor quality games and loss of public support for domestic clubs also means little money comes into the game from ticket sales, television or sponsorship, so nothing goes into grounds, training or youth systems. It is also hard to put a good national side together when the best players hardly ever spend any time in their own country.

There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.

The six-plus-five plan is not banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now. As the head of the Institute of European Affairs states: "The key aim of the six-plus-five rule in the view of the experts is the creation and assurance of sporting competition. The six-plus-five rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations" [1]  [1] Times Online. (2009, February 26). Fifa's six-plus-five rule is not illegal, claims report. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Times Online:

Restrictions are unnecessary  This plan is unnecessary – Manchester United is one of the most successful club sides and often fields more locally-born players than its rivals. Most big clubs are working hard to build strong football academies to bring talented youngsters through. The logic is simple, home-grown youngsters can be developed much more cheaply and easily than foreigners. In any case, money will still remain vital to success – this plan would mean that the richest clubs will simply pay silly sums of money to buy up all the best local players. Therefore, competition within domestic leagues would not even up, it would simply lead to a re-shuffling of the best home-grown talent. Really the FIFA proposal is just an attack on English football clubs as they have been so successful recently. The issue wasn’t raised previously when Italian and Spanish club sides dominated European competitions.

It doesn’t solve the problem of protecting countries outside of Europe from losing players  In practice this plan will do nothing for football in countries outside Europe. Already many overseas players have dual nationality (which is especially easy to obtain for South American players wanting to play in Spain or Portugal). Other players are from countries (e.g. South Africa, Caribbean states) with labour agreements with the EU and can work freely in European countries. Both groups would be able to claim that they didn’t count as overseas players under the FIFA plan, so little would change. One danger is that many good players will completely switch nationality in order to play overseas, and so not be qualified for their original country at all in future. And what FIFA plans to do about the many Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish footballers playing for English teams is very unclear. Would they be banned from playing in their own country?

It is illegal under European Union law.  FIFA’s plan is illegal under European Union rules: ‘The implementation by FIFA of this proposal in the European Union would violate EU law. The Commission is not considering any change to allow FIFA to push forward this idea. FIFA is aware of this fact.’ [1] . The rules say that you can’t discriminate against people from other EU countries on the grounds of their nationality - exactly what the six-plus-five plan would do. And the EU has agreements in place allowing people from non-EU European countries like Switzerland and Norway to work freely in EU states, plus a lot of countries in Africa and the Caribbean as well. This means most of the overseas players currently with European clubs would be able to take FIFA to court if it tried to put its plan into practice. And if six-plus-five won’t work in Europe, there is no point applying it elsewhere.  [1] BBC Sport. (2008, May 30). FIFA backs Blatter on quota plan. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from BBC Sport:

Competition would actually improve if foreign players were less common. At the moment the richest clubs can buy up all the best global players and so dominate domestic competitions – often no more than two or three teams have a real chance of winning the big European leagues. This makes tournaments predictable and boring, while clubs become the playthings of billionaire owners. Even international club competitions like the European Champions League are now dominated by just a few teams – in 2008 three of the four semi-finalists and both finalists were English. Forcing clubs to develop home-grown talent would level the playing field, make money less vital, and give more teams a chance to compete for top honours. This would inadvertently drive players to get better, because there would be fewer short-term fixes available to a team’s poor form.

On this level, we have two situations. On one hand, there are a lot of sports where women and men receive equal media coverage and monetary rewards starting from athletics, where at the world championships the gold medal winner is rewarded the same, no matter of sex(1) and ending with tennis, where for example at the US Open, one of the 4 biggest tennis tournaments of the year, both the male and female winners receive the same amount of money. On this level, we see that there is absolutely no discrimination whatsoever. (2)The fact that women play fewer sets is by no means a form of discrimination as we can see that, at the end of the day, they get the same amount of money and equal, if not more, publicity than the male tennis players.  On the other hand, there are sports, like soccer, basketball or cycling where women simply don’t have the necessary physical requirements for example to shoot a goal from 40m away, thus making a female soccer match less thrilling than one played by males. Women will never have the possibility to win these competitions, thus there will be no monetary or media coverage advantages for them of competing in the same league as men. It is better for them to be the best at a smaller tournament than to be the last at a bigger one. For example, Caster Semenya who won gold in the women's 800 metres at the 2009 World Championships with a time of 1:55.45 in the final would not have even qualified for the men’s final, in which the worst time was 1:47.80.(3)  (1) Jamaica Observer, August 07, 2013   (2) US Open Official Site 2013,   (3) Eric Vilain “Gender Testing for Athletes Remains a Tough Call”, New York Times, June 18, 2012

Preventing discrimination in sport  Assuming we would have two equally muscular and equally fast male and female athletes, the current system clearly discriminates the female athlete by not allowing her to compete in the male league. It is against the very nature of sports to treat differently two athletes who have the same strength, speed, agility, dexterity, mental focus, determination, ambition based purely on their type of chromosomes.  This is extremely important as most of the time the women’s competition gets less attention from the public and sponsors, as seen in the cases of Women’s National Basketball Association and National Women’s Football Association. So, by forcing them to stay in those leagues, you are denying potentially successful athletes fame, pride and money. The Giro Rosa, one of the biggest women cycling competition, offers a prize money of 460 Euros, which is a mere thousandth of the Tour de France's 450,000 Euro top prize.(1)  (1) Barth Sarah “Why can’t we have a women’s Tour de France?”, Road.cc ,July 14, 2013

First of all, sports are one of the most popular and promoted activities for young girls around the world, they receive advice to practice sports from a wide variety of sources: parents, friends, school teachers, etc. There isn’t a lack of motivation on their part on this level, especially as there are a lot of female sporting competitions that get a lot of media coverage: volleyball, handball, swimming, ice skating, etc.  This measure will actually discourage teenage girls from practicing sports on a professional level. Due to the huge gap in physical strength most of the female athletes will only get defeated in these competitions with men. Seeing these so called “role models” getting beaten at, for example, every single soccer match reduces the chances of girls wanting to enrol in this type of activity as they will see the competition being too powerful, diminishing the possibilities of ever winning a competition. You need to show them that it is possible for them to win, and that’s why you need Serena Williams to win so many Grand Slam Tournaments, that’s why you need Alexandra do Nascimento to be named Best Female Handball Player of the Year and that’s why you need to separate the sexes in sporting competitions.(1)  (1) Wikipedia, 2013

Athletes should decide for themselves.  In sports it is crucial that the best person wins no matter of his or her sex. We should let the women decide if they are prepared enough to participate in men’s events, and not take that decision for them by forcing them into set leagues. American skier Lindsey Vonn has won the women's World Cup four times. In November 2012, she asked to be allowed to compete in the men's event. The request was denied(1). If a female athlete can perform better than a male athlete in a certain discipline, she should be allowed to compete with, and beat, the male athlete. The examples of Danica Patrick, a “NASCAR driver who won the 2008 Indy Japan 300 and finished 3rd in the 2009 Indy 500” and Seena Hogan who holds multiple records in ultra cycling, which haven’t been beaten by any man or women to this day(2), show us how women can improve a competition in a significant way. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who wins, the very purpose of sports forces us to let them take the decision, as we cannot accurately suppose that women are worse than men at every single competition of every single sporting event as shown by the stated examples.  (1) The Associated Press, “Skier Lindsey Vonn can't race against men in WCup” November 3, 2012   (2) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011

First and foremost, it is very important to realize that the desire to take part in men’s sporting competitions must be backed up by physical capabilities of women to be able to win against men. Unfortunately, if we look at statistics we realize how big the gap between the two sexes is: “Michael Phelps is a full 26 seconds ahead of the women's world record holder in a 400m medley, the best female is more than 10% behind the best male - 12 minutes in a marathon (and 20 for most of the top women at the moment), more than 1 second in a 100m race, more than 1 meter in the long jump.” (1) Thus, the states purpose of sports, that of “let the best person win” is already being achieved, as, sadly, in a wide majority of cases men, due to their physical attributes, do perform better.  Promoting performance is not the only purpose of sports; another should be promoting gender equality. This measure, due to the wide physical gap between the two sexes, would simply perpetuate ideas that women are not equal. It doesn’t matter that there will be a few examples of women who managed to succeed, as these will be overshadowed by the significant majority of female athletes who won’t. A world in which gender equality is promoted, but where not every competition is being won by the best athlete is more desirable than one in which discrimination is perpetuated but you make sure that “the best one wins”.  (1) Sports Scientists, April 15, 2010

Encouraging future female athletes  One of the best ways to have a healthy life, avoid obesity and learn crucial values like respect, teamwork and fair play is by practicing a sport. In order to incentivize women from around the world to get involved you need to give them role models; women who receive a lot of media coverage to whom they can look up to. Unfortunately, women’s sports don’t receive as much media coverage as men’s sports because they are considered to be less spectacular and thrilling. By allowing certain women, who have the necessary skills to compete against men to get this coverage you will give young girls the necessary motivation to start practicing sports, thus bringing a massive social benefit to the society. This happens already to successful women who are lucky enough to compete with men, as shown by Danica Patrick, so why should we stop here?(1)  (1) White Rea, “Patrick inspiration to young females” MSN Sports, February 23, 2013

Firstly, passionate viewers of these violent sports are not watching them only for seeing blood and broken noses, but for the technical abilities and the strategic tactics in these sports. As a result, they tend to focus more on the speed and precision of one’s uppercut than rather on the effects it has on the opponent’s body, thus they will be able to ignore the violence towards women, as they currently do towards men.  Secondly, if indeed there is a part of the population who watches violent sports but is averse to watching if there is violence involving women, then they should feel nothing but excitement when a woman will win a boxing match for example against a man, overcoming this irrational stereotype.  This is because a lot of this hatred against violence against women even in a competitive situation is based on the idea that the woman is both powerless in front of the man and not willing to fight him; essentially a view that women should be subservient. Obviously, neither of these points stands when talking about professional sporting competitions.

If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation, we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society.  (1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011

There will be a negative effect on women’s leagues  Unfortunately, in the Status Quo there are a lot of women sporting leagues which are completely overshadowed by men’s, such as cycling, basketball or soccer. What is needed in order for them to grow is a lot of talented, gifted women athletes which will create the “thrill” needed to attract media coverage, which in turn attract sponsors. In time, as more and more young female athletes are drawn into these sports, slowly but surely they will grow and narrow the financial and coverage gap between them and men’s leagues. But if women are allowed to compete in men’s leagues the very best females in that sport, who are the bedrock for future development, will likely quit the women’s leagues for the men’s. Women already seem inclined to do this, American skier Lindsey Vonn has won the women's World Cup four times asked to be allowed to compete in the men's event.(1) As a result, the women’s leagues will be stripped of their best competitors. Left on its own the level of competition will rise and will surely catch up with the men’s leagues as far as money and media coverage is concerned. This is being proven by tennis, handball and athletics where there is as much money and fame for the female winners as there is for the male ones.  (1) The Associated Press, “Skier Lindsey Vonn can't race against men in WCup” November 3, 2012

This could simply swap inequalities around  Despite the fact that gender equality in sports often comes as an argument for applying this motion, it is rather the other way round. If indeed it is so important to let women compete in men’s leagues, on what ground do we ban men from competing in women’s leagues? If we look at it from the point of equality, it would be only normal that if women are equal to men, men are equal to women, and if females can move from one league to another, so should males. Either option we choose, there are negative consequences that follow.  On one hand, if men are not allowed to migrate from one league to another, this whole plan will have a boomerang effect as it won’t resolve gender discrimination, it will only switch the discriminated gender. There is no basis on which males should be denied this advantage.  On the other hand, if we do allow them to compete in women’s leagues, there won’t be male and female leagues, there will be two male leagues, as unfortunately, just as women won’t win many medals in the men’s leagues so men are much more likely to win in the women’s. As a result, female leagues would be destroyed if men are allowed to compete in them.  Therefore, due to the consequences brought by any of the options, this proposal is undoubtedly damaging for sports.

Destroying the pleasure of watching certain sports  In today’s society, we have reached a point where a significant majority of the population is extremely sensitive towards domestic violence of any form, but particularly coming from a man directed towards a woman. Unfortunately, a wide variety of extremely popular sports are to a certain degree very violent such as: boxing, kickboxing, rugby, MMA or American football. Certain matches between a male and a female, no matter the winner will, cause a huge amount of visual discontent among viewers as no one wants to see a man knocking unconscious a woman with an uppercut. This would send a terrible message about violence against women and would be extremely unpopular and subject to large numbers of complaints. Subjecting women to such violence in these sports, even if the women in question puts up a good fight, will as a result of the sensitivity of many towards this kind of violence decrease the popularity and thrill of these otherwise extremely exciting sports.

Crimination would increase  From the very beginning, it is important to understand that many sports are based on the physical attributes of the individuals. Whoever has the biggest muscles, whoever is fastest, whoever lifts a bigger weight, he is the one who will be declared champion. When we look at the statistics, they reveal the massive gap between the athletic capacities of the two sexes for example “The women's speed world records are all about 90 percent of the men's speed world records, in both short, middle and long distances.”(1). This only means, that although some women will win some sporting events, the vast majority of competition will still be won by men. As a result, more than ever, a message of female inferiority will be transmitted because in a direct competition between the sexes males will constantly win an element which was lacking in the past.  This is defining sport in men’s terms not women’s. It says sports are men’s sports and relegates women’s to a secondary status at the same time having men constantly winning against women will show that this definition needs to be challenged. This is extremely important and it will come in direct contradiction to our efforts as a society to promote gender equality and to diminish stereotypes. We shouldn’t try to turn sports into a “Competition of the sexes”.  (1) Meyer Robinson “We Thought Female Athletes Were Catching Up to Men, but They're Not”, The Atlantic, Aug 9 2012

On this level, it is obvious that letting men compete in women’s leagues is a dreadful thing to do. On the other hand, there is absolutely no discrimination towards men on this level so there is no reason to open up women’s leagues to men. The levels on which women are discriminated are the money they receive and the air time they get. Allowing them to migrate from one league to another is by no means an advantage in itself, but rather the means through which they can receive as many benefits as men do. Men already get those advantages so both sexes are treated equally on the point which is the root of discrimination.  There should still be this differentiation, as indeed a competition between men and women can be very biased in a lot of cases, but what is important is to let those women who can face men head-to-head to so.

On this point, it is relevant which of the two plans gives more incentive to young girls to enroll into sports thusly creating a wider pool of talent, which is necessary for women sport to grow. Firstly, as men’s leagues are more televised, women who compete in those will get more fame and attention so inspire girls from all around the world compared to playing into an ignored, untelevised, ill-funded league. Secondly, as there will be female winners even in the male leagues, this will act as a further incentive for teenage girls to start practicing sports as there would be much more media attention for Serena Williams for example if she won the men’s US Open than for winning the women’s tournament.  Moreover, by having talented women competing in competitions which get a lot of media attention you would actually incentivize people to start watching women’s leagues as well, as that is where those very talented female athletes came from. They will act as proof to the fact that women’s leagues can be thrilling, thus increasing interest and media coverage. In time, due to the increase in the league’s wealth and TV coverage, some females who started to compete in men’s leagues may even come back.

Everybody knows umpires make mistakes; it happens often enough that fans and players all recognize it is part of the game. Nobody expects umpires to be perfect, but everyone wants umpires to strive for perfection. It’s just like with players: everybody wants their favourite players to strive to play perfectly, but nobody actually expects them to be perfect. Thus, we can’t sacrifice other elements of the game (discussed elsewhere in this debate) on the altar of perfection.  It is disingenuous to liken instant replay to eyeglasses or to mere tools to “supplement” umpires’ skill. Instant replay becomes a substitute for—not a supplement to—umpires’ skill. There is no skill involved in watching a slow-motion replay and determining whether a player was tagged; millions of fans do that each night from the comfort of their living rooms. We do not want the fundamental character of baseball to be changed by removing umpires from the equation, which is what happens every time instant replay is used.

It’s not possible to get every call right, so instant replay is a necessary supplement to umpires’ skill  Umpires must make split-second judgments, often from bad angles and with many elements to watch simultaneously. Mistakes will happen. Even the official rules acknowledge this when it tells umpires, “You no doubt are going to make mistakes” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1] Some calls will have to be made from a significant distance away from where the umpire is located—a commonly cited justification of MLB’s adoption of instant replay on boundary calls. [2] Fans hold umpires to an exceptionally high standard; as former umpire Nestor Chylak put it, “They expect an umpire to be perfect on Opening Day and to improve as the season goes on.” [3] But it is impossible for a human to attain perfection on his own, so we should provide him with the tools that will enable him to meet the exacting standards set out for him.  It is folly to withhold technology that is already available. Even MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, generally an opponent of instant replay, acknowledged “that the extraordinary technology that we now have merits the use of instant replay on a very limited basis” when he announced its adoption on boundary calls. [4] Just as we would never countenance a rule prohibiting umpires from wearing eyeglasses to see calls better, we should also not tolerate a rule that essentially keeps umpires blind to a reality that everyone else—reporters, coaches, and fans—has access to. Well-respected Sports Illustrate columnist Joe Posnanski captured this point well: “Baseball ... should institute replay because it’s just not sustainable in today’s technological world to make bad calls on the field. Those days are over.... You can’t keep giving the fans at home better access to the truth than the home plate umpire.” [5] Instant replay is a necessary tool to help umpires “see” better.  [1] Ibid .  [2] Ed Price, “Baseball Brunch: Upon Further Review…,” AOL News, May 31, 2009,  .  [3] “Umpire Quotes,” Baseball Almanac,  .  [4] Jack Curry, “Baseball to Use Replay Reviews on Homers,” New York Times, Aug. 26, 2008,  .  [5] Joe Posnanski, “Meals and Squeals,” SI.com, July 27, 2011,  .

Both the arguments provided by the proposition are faulty.  First, the vast majority of umpires’ calls might be correct, but that’s because the vast majority of calls are completely uncontroversial. The question is what percentage of difficult calls do umpires get right. And it would appear that umpires do not stack up well. An ESPN study of close calls found that umpires get over 20 percent of them wrong. [1] More frequent use of instant replays might correct some of these calls, but it would do so at the expense of severely damaging umpires’ credibility, which would impair their ability to do all the other important aspects of their job.  Second, in crucial moments, it’s imperative for umpires to be especially attentive, and for them to make conclusive decisions. If umpires know that they don’t have to get the call right because the cameras can save them, then they’re more likely to get it wrong. And if umpires’ decisions are not final, then what should be the most exciting moments in baseball games will be supplanted by monotonous waiting for umpires to review the footage.  [1] T.J. Quinn and Willie Weinbaum, “Study shows 1 in 5 close calls wrong,” ESPN.com, Aug. 16, 2010,

With more accurate calls come more legitimate outcomes to games  There are times when umpires make incorrect calls that determine the outcomes of games or, worse, World Series championships (e.g., Don Denkinger and the 1985 World Series, mentioned above). These erroneous decisions lead to the team that deserved to win actually losing, and vice versa. In short, the results of the games are illegitimate. This is especially unfortunate when fans invest hours to watch a game (or hundreds of hours watching an entire season), only to see the wrong outcome—which could have been entirely avoidable if umpires were allowed to review their decision.

Accurate calls should be the top priority, and instant replay helps provide them  The main goal of an umpire is to make accurate calls. Umpires are meant to ensure that a player who is out is called out, for example, and that a foul ball is ruled a foul ball. When an umpire makes an incorrect call, he is falling short of fulfilling his primary responsibility. As the official rules of Major League Baseball instruct umpires, “The first requisite is to get decisions correctly.... Umpire dignity is important but never as important as ‘being right’” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1]  Without a doubt, instant replay helps to improve the accuracy of calls. When a play can be reviewed after the fact, in slow-motion, from multiple angles, it’s almost inevitable that the result will be a more accurate judgment. Instant replay serves as an additional tool for umpires, allowing closer examination of events. By providing umpires with an extra set of eyes, video cameras will better enable umps to fulfil their purpose.  [1] Major League Baseball, Official Baseball Rules,  .

Umpires have to balance several important considerations: ensuring impartiality (and the appearance of impartiality as well); avoiding unnecessary delays in the game; ensuring that all rules are followed; and to behave in a manner that compels respect from all parties. To argue that the umpire’s job comes down to accurate calls is to oversimplify a very complicated role. As the official rules of Major League Baseball instruct umpires: “When you enter a ball park your sole duty is to umpire a ball game as the representative of baseball.... Keep the game moving. A ball game is often helped by energetic and earnest work of the umpires” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1]  [1] Ibid .

This debate is clearly highlighting a difference in philosophy about the role of the umpire. Proposition first says that umpires should not be a central part of the game (see Argument Four). Now Proposition says that a game’s outcome is illegitimate if it was decided by a poor call by an umpire. This is the wrong way of looking at it. As long as the umpire tried his best to make an accurate judgment, then his call is “legitimate,” as is anything that flows from it. “Legitimacy” is not the same as “accuracy.” Indeed, the umpire’s call might be the sole source of legitimacy. Proposition previously quoted legendary umpire Bill Klem, but remember two of Klem’s other statements: “Gentlemen, he was out because I said he was out,” and “It ain’t nothin’ till I call it.” [1] There is no such thing as a “legitimate” outcome divorced from the context of an umpire’s call.  [1] “Bill Klem,” Baseball-Reference.com,  .

Baseball is not just about the players. It’s about managers, coaches, fans, and umpires too. It is a rather narrow view to argue that baseball umpires should remain invisible. Umpires play a central role in every game. They make signals that are meant to attract attention. When a crucial play occurs in the bottom of the ninth inning, all eyes are on the umpire to see what the outcome will be. Bruce Froemming, who broke Klem’s record for most MLB games umpired, had this rejoinder to Klem: “One of the really wrong theories about officiating is that a good official is one you never notice. The umpire who made that statement was probably a real poor official who tried to get his paycheck and hide behind his partners and stay out of trouble all his life. Control of the ballgame is the difference between umpires that show up for the players and the managers.” [1] Rather than denying umpires’ central role, we should acknowledge it.  Joyce’s blown call—and the sorrow he felt afterward—are as memorable, and as part of the culture of baseball, as any celebration of a perfect game. Joyce’s post-game press conference might not go in the record books, but it will remain as much a part of baseball history as Galarraga’s achievement would have. It is pure assertion to argue that that is not what baseball is about or what fans want to see.  [1] “Umpire Quotes,” Baseball Almanac,  .

Instant replay will actually enhance umpires’ stature  Instant replay will lead fans, managers, and players to hold umpires in higher regard. This will occur in two ways.  First, the vast majority of umpires’ calls are accurate. Statistical analyses have shown that well over 99 percent of calls are accurate, [1] but this is not always appreciated by spectators. Instant replay will often confirm umpires’ calls, which will call to the public’s attention just how often umpires get it right.  Second, in cases where umpires’ incorrect judgments could have very bad consequences—for example, in the case of Armando Galarraga’s ruined perfect game, or in deciding the outcome of a crucial game—instant replay will allow a reversal. This will spare the umpire much guilt and shame. Umpire Tim McClelland, who was involved in questionable calls during the 2009 playoffs, said as much about his experience and those of Jim Joyce, the umpire who blew Galarraga’s perfect game: “After watching what I went through in the playoffs last year and then what Jim's going through, I think more and more umpires are coming around to [increased use of replay].” [2]  Former umpire Don Denkinger expressed a similar sentiment. He blew a call in Game 6 of the 1985 World Series, and probably changed the outcome of the entire season. “I had 30 great years ... and I had one call that’s all anybody ever wants to talk about. It’s not right,” he said, adding that he now supports instant replay. [3]  [1] Gil Imber, “Stats Prove MLB Umpires Call 99.5 Percent of Plays Correctly,” Bleacher Report, Oct. 26, 2011,  .  [2] Paul White, “Expanding instant replay not an easy call to make for MLB,” USA Today, June 12, 2010,  .  [3] ESPN.com News Services, “Denkinger supports replay in baseball,” ESPN.com, June 3, 2010,

Instant replay will place the focus of the game where it belongs—on the players, not the umpires  Umpires are supposed to facilitate a smooth game. When they are the center of attention, it is usually because something has gone wrong. Legendary Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem accurately stated, “The best umpired game is the game in which the fans cannot recall the umpires who worked it.” [1] The game is supposed to be decided by the feats of the players on the field, not the fallibility of the men in blue. Instant replay will help make this happen.  With instant replay, we would not have had Jim Joyce, the umpire who blew Galarraga’s perfect game, holding a tearful press conference apologizing for his missed call. Instead, we would have had images of Galarraga celebrating his historical achievement with his teammates. The latter, not the former, is what baseball is supposed to be about, and what fans want to see. Instant replay will ensure that baseball revolves around the players, rather than the officials.  [1] “Bill Klem,” Baseball-Reference.com,  .

Baseball looks a lot like the game played 100 years ago. But it also looks very different in many crucial ways. Minorities can now play. The height of the mound has been changed. Night games are now played, with the help of lights. Technology—from the material of bats to the shape of gloves to the design of cleats—has evolved. Even the composition of baseballs is different. If all these things can change without eliciting much objection, then why would instant replay violate a tradition? And even if it did, it’s not clear that that tradition is a valuable one (as opposed to a neutral one or even a downright undesirable one). [1]  [1] ZombieMonta, “Why baseball purists are dead wrong about instant replay,” Inhistoric, Sept. 5, 2011,  .

Baseball is indeed a slow sport, but instant replay will simply replace—rather than add to—other aspects that contribute to its snail-like pace.  First, every time there is a controversial play where the umpire might have made a bad call, a player or the manager will come out and argue with the umpire. This arguing takes up about as much time as a video review would. But with a video review, there would be no arguing; everyone would know the umpires got it right.  Second, when an umpire is not certain about his call, he often will confer with the other umpires in a collective attempt for them to arrive at the correct decision. This, too, takes time, and this, too, can be replaced with instant replay, which has the added virtue of being more accurate.  Third, not very many plays will require instant replay, so even if there is a dilatory effect, it will be relatively small.  Finally, if baseball’s pace is such a concern, then MLB should first pursue a host of other steps to speed the game—time limits for pitchers, batters, arguments, seventh-inning stretches, between-inning warm-ups, etc.

Instant replay will take the human element out of baseball  Baseball, like all sports, “is the pursuit of transcending imperfection.” [1] It is not supposed to be executed with robotic perfection; it is supposed to involve human beings all trying their best to do the best they can.  Fallible umpire calls are part of the drama of baseball. Many people enjoy the excitement that comes with the fallibility of umpire's calls. This sub-plot in baseball in unique and should be preserved.  Indeed, fooling the ump is a time-honored part of the game. [2] It is not cheating; no rule is broken when one pretends to have been hit by a pitch to try to dupe the umpire. It is a colourful, even skilful way to work within the imperfect, very human parameters that the sport.  [1] Mark Coatney, “The Greatness and Perfection of Missing the Call,” Daily Beast, June 2, 2010,  .  [2] Tom Krasovic, “Dusty Baker Defends Umpires Amid Calls for Expanded Instant Replay,” AOL News, Oct. 9, 2010,  .

Instant replay might be deceptive or inconclusive  Not all video reviews will lead to an accurate ruling. Sometimes, camera angles could give a tricky, incorrect impression. Or they could shed little light on what actually happened. In these cases, instant replay will afford the appearance of certainty when the reality is much more complicated. In addition, all of the harms of inaccurate calls that Proposition is trying to solve will continue to exist.

Many plays don’t lend themselves to video review  There are two types of plays that defy instant replay. The first is one that would belong to a longer sequence of events, called “continuation plays.” Often, when an umpire makes a call, the ball is still in play, and more plays might follow. A commentator offers this scenario: “For example, if the umpire calls a ball foul and replay shows it was fair and the decision is overturned by replay, how do you handle the base runners?” [1] There’s just no easy way for video replay to be used in continuation plays.  [1] Don Hunsberger, “Let’s bring meaningful instant replay to baseball,” Daily Commercial, June 6, 2010,  .

Tradition demands that this instant replay not be used  One of the beautiful aspects of baseball is how little it has changed over the years. Just as it was a century ago, you have nine players on the field, batters swinging wooden bats, and umpires dressed in dark colors rendering the decisions. Maintaining tradition honors baseball’s long history. It also helps to promote comparability over time; the feats of today can be held side-by-side with those of 80 years ago. Moreover, it protects baseball against fads and other calls for change that might be popular at a particular moment, but could prove to be disastrous if implemented.

Even if instant replay will not result in 100% accuracy, it will improve the chance that any individual reviewed call will be made correctly. In the status quo, umpires make their calls as if they’re certain, so projecting false certainty really should not be a major concern for the Opposition. What video review will do is ensure that the umpire can be at least as confident about his call as the managers, coaches, and millions of viewers watching at home

Instant replay will take too long  We already see it with boundary calls: The umpires need to go to the review station, then they need to watch the footage of the play several times, then they need to weigh whether the footage is convincing enough to meet the requisite burden of proof, and then they need to return to the field and signal their decision. In the meantime, tens of thousands of fans are sitting in the stands waiting, millions of people are watching at home, the pitcher is becoming less limber, and any momentum to the game is completely lost. It’s often noted that baseball is a slow sport. “Baseball has no clock,” the saying goes. [1] Instant replay will slow down an already-slow game.  [1] William Deresiewicz, “Metaphors We Play By,” American Scholar, June 6, 2011,  .

If a play is part of a longer sequence of events, then don’t use video review for that play. Only permit it for when the ball is dead or play stops immediately upon the conclusion of the play. Continuation plays can easily be placed outside the scope of instant replay.  Also, there’s no such thing as “normative” calls on a play. If an umpire deems a “phantom tag” sufficient for an out, he is making an incorrect call. The rules do not allow for phantom tags. If instant replay puts an end to this practice, so much the better.

Proposition is not arguing for all calls to be made via instant replay. Balls and strikes, for example, are best left to umpires because they are regarded as more subjective, and because there is no video equipment that consistently renders results that are widely viewed as accurate.  Besides, the human element that really matters is that of the players. The umpires’ human element might be substituted for making sure that the players’ human element is what decides the game. The point of the baseball game is for players to win or lose the game, not for umpires to win or lose the game. A baseball game played by robots but umpired by people would have lost its “human element,” but the same certainly would not be said about a baseball game played by humans and officiated by robots (or even just human beings who occasionally consult video footage and interpret it in their human minds).

It would still require a large initial outlay of cash in order to equip all stadiums with the technology and train officials in using it. Also, the technology would need to be constantly re-designed and re-developed so that it could keep up with technological advances; this would be extremely expensive and endless, but necessary to keep technology up-to-date, relevant and fit for purpose. Some people suggest that the money would be better spent improving existing official options, such as improving refereeing academies.

Technology is available  GLT technology is readily available and could be quickly implemented. Hawkeye, used in tennis and cricket, would serve the GLT purpose very well. Though eventually dismissed, it was suggested that GPS technology could measure whether players are offside or not. Cameras are already set up for television with enough angles to make decisions; it would be simple to set up monitors pitch-side so that officials could watch replayed footage. Currently, viewers watching at home are able to make much more informed decisions than match officials.

Challenges in tennis and cricket are limited to three per side – here the number of challenges are potentially unlimited and GLT could be invoked whenever a team senses the possibility of gaining an advantage. Without limitations, the game could be endlessly stopped while officials turn to technology to confirm their decisions.  Football is a continuous game, with a natural ebb and flow, which the interruptions caused by GLT would disrupt.

The introduction of technology is inevitable  Football is moving into the twenty-first century, yet the refusal to embrace GLT is completely out-dated. Nowhere in FIFA policy does it state that referees cannot use the influence of technology. In FIFAs disciplinary code (2009), Article 72 states that: 1) "During matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee", and 2) "These decisions are final"1. The referee already "acts on the advice of the assistant referees regarding incidents that he has not seen" and can change decisions based on advice2. All referees also have an earpiece (introduced in 2006) linking the two assistant refs and the fourth official, which already demonstrates technology's successful impact in football. GLT is simply the next step.  1 FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 edition, FIFA, December 2008, p.41, (accessed 24/05/11)  2 Laws of the Game 2010/11, FIFA, p.22, (accessed 24/05/11)

Football has operated successfully for over 100 years without GLT. Two assistant referees were introduced in 1891, 28 years after the rules of association football were coined; a fourth official was introduced in 1991; and FIFA recently introduced two additional assistant referees in Europa League games. Football has demonstrated that it is willing and capable to adjust to the demands of wider exposure without having to resort to GLT.

Take, for example, Sunderland’s freak victory at Liverpool in October 2009, the so called ‘Beachball incident’ where a winning goal was deflected off a large red beach ball, it may well have gone in anyway but it undoubtedly distracted the keeper.1 GLT and instant replays would not have resolved the controversy, as the ambiguity was legal; the law did not have a clear position on the incident. GLT would have been useless here; it is only as useful as the laws and humans behind it.  In March 2010 FIFA president Sepp Blatter argued added: "No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?”2  Decisions would still be at the discretion of the person watching the video (a second referee, of sorts), who must interpret what he or she sees in a limited space of time.  1 ‘Freak goal was wrongly allowed’, BBC Sport, 18th October 2009, accessed 25/05/11  2 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11

GLT is used across a range of other sports  Technology has been proven to work across a wide range of sports from tennis, cricket and rugby. A survey of its implementation in the 2011 Australian Open demonstrates the impact that guaranteeing correct decisions had on several games.1 It has become a natural aid to sport. GLT would only be used on a goal decision, much like tennis uses challenges only once a rally has stopped. Football is no more fluid a sport than any of the others. If a debatable goal were scored, play would stop anyway while one team celebrates and the other protests to the officials. 1 Kelvin Goodchild, Hawk-eye: Big Impact at Crucial Moments, TennisLife Magazine, 29th January 2011, (accessed 25/05/11)

Technology is more reliable than human judgement  Goals are the ultimate measure of success in football; technology would reduce the risk of teams losing matches unfairly due to controversial decisions (see FIFA World Cup Quarter Final 2010 England v Germany). There is no reason to expose referees to criticism, threats and derision when we have the means to help them. GLT is a tool meant to assist referees in their decisions, not undermine them.  Howard Webb has added his voice to the pro-technology debate: "anything that makes my job easier, that makes me more credible, I've an open mind to. We are still using human opinion in those decisions and maybe on a matter of fact like the goal-line some technology might be the way forward. I personally prefer it when there is no debate about the referees. It's a difficult position, [to judge over the line]. It's at speed, and it ain't easy. Sometimes I feel in a less than privileged position by not having the opportunity [to use technology] but that's where we are. It's for other people to decide where that argument goes."1  Currently, referees are condemned for making honest mistakes when they have not done anything deliberately wrong. There will always be human error when subjective decisions must be made; this cannot be eradicated but we have a responsibility to minimise the risk. GLT may not change many games but its focus is about consistency and quality assurance. 1: Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)

Supporters love the game, not the soap opera. As Howard Webb articulated, "Controversy is not the reason why I watch football but we need to be careful not to change what draws millions to football. I still keep an open mind of the future. It's a tricky thing to do."1We must progress on terms of reason, not tradition.  1 Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)

GLT would not be used to assess any and every incident in a match; it would only be invoked to support a referee when a goal-line decision was particularly difficult to judge from a distance. The referees would exercise due diligence in referring to it, and it is likely that many games would pass without it being necessary.

The cost would not match FIFA's aim of opening football to the world  Only professional clubs and national federations have the resources to install the technology in stadiums. This would further increase the gap that is emerging between local clubs and high-revenue leagues such as the Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A.  Further, currently amateur teams playing on Sundays play the same game, with the same rules and ethos, as the professionals. With GLT, many argue that this would no longer be the case. In a press conference in March 2010, FIFA president Sepp Blatter wrote: "One of the main objectives of FIFA is to protect the universality of the game of association football... If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV."1  For example, the FA Cup has 4 or 5 qualifying rounds consisting of amateur and semi-professional knock-out phases because the Premier League teams with GLT capability are introduced. This could mean that games are run according to different rules at different stages of the same competition (and, indeed, possible even the same round if some clubs draw Premier League teams and others are small-club affairs).  1 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11

The cost of GLT is unjustified for a relatively rare scenario  In order for a goal to stand, the ball must completely cross the line; to have a situation where this is in doubt is very rare. Introducing GLT would be to completely change the nature of football for the least significant occurrence.  These incidents tend to balance out over the season. Teams do not win leagues or are not relegated because of one isolated incident in one game; they win because of skill, strength and tactics, over the course of 90 minutes for a game, and a whole season for a league.

Controversy and debate are a part of the game  Controversy will always be a part of the game; because laws must be interpreted by an individual, fouls will always be called on the basis of opinion, even if that is someone re-watching the incident on a monitor. If fans accepted mistakes as exactly that, they would cease to matter; the authority of the referee would be absolute and the game would move on without undue mention. GLT is unnecessary.  Sepp Blatter famously argued that "Fans love to debate any given incident in a game. It is part of the human nature of our sport"1. Supporters love to hate the referee; it provides them with a scapegoat for defeat. With GLT, the authority of referees would be irrevocably diminished. They would become merely cogs in a mechanic process of decision making. If we come to rely on cameras to govern the game, the passion is drained from it.  1 Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)

The dynamics of football as a game are very different from other sports which currently use technology  In other sports there is just one question: was the ball in or out? Was the player safe or out? In football, the issue would not be that simple. Not only would the GLT-operative have to consider whether the ball was wholly over the line or not, but they would also have to look at the build up to ensure that the goal was legitimate. Was there a foul? An offside? As in the notorious case of the 2010 World Cup Qualifier Play-off France v Ireland, was there a handball? This would not only be extremely time-consuming and thus detract from the spectacle of the game, but could also be potentially endless. In cricket or tennis this delay is more natural as matches are expected to take several hours; one of the hallmarks of football is it’s frenetic pace. Challenges could not be limited in an attempt to prevent this, because if a team were to run out and a blatant wrong decision were noticed they would be in the same position as they are now; GLT would have achieved nothing.

The frequency of use is not the point of GLT. It is a back-up system, a support infrastructure, whose purpose is to help minimise inconsistencies and serve justice when called upon. The cost is a small price to pay for the transformative effect it could have upon the one game where it matters. Early in the 2009/10 season Crystal Palace had a goal ruled out against Bristol City after it had actually gone in the net and bounced out.1 They lost two points because neither the referee nor the assistant referee saw the ball go in the net, and if Palace had not beaten Sheffield Wednesday on the final day of the season, they would have been relegated because of it. Given Palaces' dire financial situation, this would almost certainly have resulted in the club being liquidated. Just because it is rare, that does not mean it is not valuable.  1 Palace denied replay over ‘goal’, BBC Sport, 27th August 2009, accessed 25/05/11

it is a fallacy to say that if GLT cannot be applied to all levels of football it should not be applied at all. Nobody is suggesting that GLT be set up for all games down to grassroots level. Compromise is necessary in order to encourage reform within in a game whose stance on technology is anachronistic.  Also, other sports have only implemented technology in the professional sphere. They recognise that there is a massive amount of money and emotion invested in the professional game, and fairness is deserved as a reward.  If both teams know the rules, they can both play the game according to the same standard; GLT would not make teams play with different rules, it would just mean that some games are better equipped.

Under the BCS, every single game is important as losing the BCS is often catastrophic when it comes to qualification for any of the subsequent Bowls. As such, the playoffs mean that regular season games become less relevant as winning and losing only has an effect on seed and qualification becomes a lot easier. Further, BCS builds up the need for an undefeated season for certain teams to be able to qualify.  As such teams are more likely to give everything to every single match during the regular season under BCS, unlike in some leagues where a clear winner will emerge very early on and not have to play nearly at 100% capacity in order to win the conference overall. [1]  [1] Klosterman, Chuck. “No college football playoff, please.” ESPN. 01/02/2007

Playoffs Offer More Suspense  Within the playoff system every game during the playoffs is a knockout. As such, every single game in the playoffs carries the potential risk of excluding the losing team from the remainder of that season’s games. This works incredibly well to build up tension, because favourites have lost to teams that were believed to be a lot worse. With history supporting this idea all players and fans are likely to feel tension during the playoff games which directly contributes to the enjoyment of a game. Further, given the prevalence of late game comebacks in American football, due the ever present threat of an interception, it means that fans are still likely to enjoy games even when their team is likely to lose going into the later quarters.  Further, the playoff system still significantly incentivises good work during the regular season. The top ranked team would face the lowest ranked team in the first round and gain home field advantage for being the higher seed. It is beneficial for both sides because under BCS, the second team has no guarantee that it would even be included and the former team would not be guaranteed home field advantage. [1]  [1] “Wetzel’s playoff plan.” Yahoo Sports. 7/12/2009

The Bowl system results in a few incredibly important matches for players. As such, offensive coordinators for teams bring out every single trick that they have in the book to win them.  Every player involved in the Bowl system goes all out to win these events because they are the only televised matches that most players will ever see. Given that that is true, Bowls have a reputation for being some of the most exciting and spectacular matches of the year. The viewing audience for Bowls is disproportionately high because of this.  As such, the exposure for teams participating in Bowls is significantly higher and would be lowered if the resolution were to pass, the inevitable result of lower viewing figures for the individual matchups. [1]  [1] Klosterman, Chuck. “No college football playoff, please.” ESPN. 01/02/2007

Banning Playoffs Offer Greater Fairness  The BCS system unfairly discriminates against 45 of the 120 teams that participate in college football. Given that some of these teams participate in non-BCS leagues they can perform incredibly well and still not get into the BCS. Further, the BCS system is flawed beyond this given that both Boise State and Utah were deemed unsuitable for the competition despite the fact that they went undefeated in the seasons before their rejection. The winner of the BCS is meant to be the best collegiate football team in the country. However, if undefeated teams are unable to compete it makes the system incredibly unfair, and reduces the legitimacy of the BCS title itself, undermining the value of the competition overall.  Finally, as noted football analyst Michael Shull notes, due to flaws in the computer algorithms used to allocated BCS places, some teams that do well for a single season as an outlier or due to a positive change for the team do not get into the cup. This potentially means that the same teams consistently get into the cup and gain $17 million in revenue regardless of whether they win or lose. As such this system ensures that those who do get selected just get richer and better and thus become more likely to be picked by the computer system in the future. [1]  [1] Shull, Michael. “BCS No More: Football Needs Playoffs to eliminate the BS.” College Sports Fans.

The practice of having multiple “Bowls” creates a system where more teams “Win” at the end of the season. Whilst college football is serious, it is understood that college teams’ players participate in collegiate events in order to gain the skills and experience that will enable them to join NFL teams. As such, the participation of talented youngsters in college football is dependent on collegiate tournaments being seen as fair, impartial and meritocratic tests of players’ and teams’ skill. Confidence in the meritocratic nature of the system is not enough to guarantee the interest of the best players, however. Returns on the investment of time and effort and opportunity that players engage in must be high. The odds of gaining recognition as a good player within the collegiate system must outweigh the risk of losing out on the chance to participate in high profile games.  In a situation where playoffs are introduced, only one team stands victorious at the end, the others lose and are inevitably forgotten about. This is incredibly discouraging for those players who do lose, and might cause them to drop out of football in the future, which significantly harms the NFL’s pool later on, impacting significantly on the national pastime. Deterred by the risk of sinking into obscurity, junior players may avoid participating in college teams altogether.  Further, the concept of playoffs often results in weaker teams defeating ones who have had a much better regular season. Ultimately this is less fair, as the side which consistently performs well should be awarded more accolades than a side that gets lucky during a game which happens to have been assigned a greater weighting within the BCS’s algorithms. Again, when there is an upset, the harm to the losing team is often greater than the benefit to a winning team that is likely to lose in the next round of the contest. [1]  [1] Davis, Michael. Kane, Time. “Would a college football playoff be fair?” Real Clear Politics. 12/11/2009

Playoffs Lead To More Exposure  The issue with the BCS system, as mentioned above, is that teams selected by an often broken and biased BCS mechanism receive more money and exposure than more talented, harder working institutions, making them more likely to be selected by the same mechanism in the future. Standout teams that only perform that well for a season are able to get significantly more exposure under the proposition model.  Due to the very high profile nature of playoff games- as well as the fact that there would simply be more playoff games with palpably fair and meritocratic outcomes later in the playoffs- more people will watch college football. Specifically, including more teams in a playoff based competition will mean that more fans get their favourites in to the playoffs and as such more people watch. Secondly, the increased number of matches’ means that it is more likely that fans will be able to catch another match if they cannot watch one. Finally, should an upset happen, the amount of interest generated in the subsequent match is incredibly great and generates significantly more exposure for both teams participating. [1]  [1] Sanderson, Matthew. “The conservative case for college football reform.” The Hill. 06/01/2010

There is an impetus for playoffs among fans, with 63% saying that playoffs similar to those used in college basketball should be implemented.  Further, given that the games would have implications for the national championships they would not suffer a loss in attendance given that right now the “Bowl” games are viewed by most fans as being meaningless exercises. Given that most view these games as meaningless and simply go for the camaraderie and the pageantry they feel, it seems logical that in playoff games that have ramifications for a legitimate championship they are more likely to go. Fans already do this for college basketball which has sixty extra games and doesn’t even happen during a time when people are off from work for the Christmas and New Year break. [1]  [1] Starin, Harvey. “There is nothing wrong with college football playoffs.” Sun Sentinel. 01/07/2010

The existence of the Bowls is simply a way for the BCS businessmen to earn large amounts of money. Under the status quo, the BCS businessmen get a share of all revenues generated from each Bowl. Further, the money is also then divided further, with the television network that covers the game taking some of the revenue. Further, given the games aren’t played on home turf, instead on a stadium that is hired for that day’s play, money is lost on travel.  By comparison, under the proposition, if high seeded teams win consistently, they would play at home, not lose money to the BCS officials and thus gain significantly extra levels of revenue just by running business in-house. [1]  [1] “Wetzel’s playoff plan.” Yahoo Sports. 7/12/2009

Playoffs Result in More Injuries and Hurt Academics  The toll on the bodies of players in American football is much greater than that of other sports, primarily due to the high frequency of physical impacts in the sport. To be able to get through a season, players often need to play through more minor injuries and thus need fairly long rest periods between games. However, playoffs would all be run within a small window of time, meaning the accumulation of injuries would be greater and thus players would be more likely to risk much more serious injuries just to be in the championship game.  The quality of the championship game would suffer significantly because of this, but also players might riddle themselves with long term injuries that they could come to forget in the future.  Alternatively, players with an interest in their long-term careers would be likely to pull out of the bowl system altogether.  Further, football players often have to take a lot of time away from classes in order to play football games under the status quo. A lot of the time players catch this work back up in the holiday. However, this would be impossible under the new system as the entire Christmas holiday would be potentially lost to playoffs. [1]  [1] Scripps Howard News Service. “Florida president to push playoff plan at SEC meetings.” ESPN. 29/05/2007

Playoffs Would Not Benefit Fans  College football fans tend to have lower budgets than those of NFL fans. Specifically because there are many more colleges and owing to the lower number of fans per game, there usually aren’t deals on travel. As such travel between grounds is expensive. Given that playoffs result in more games being played it is apparent that supporters of the various teams will incur more cost. Further, if their team loses where they might have instead won a lesser competition, the supporters will likely be less happy than they are now. As well as this, when a team does win in the playoffs, the people watching that team face a very high burst of costs should they want to continue to support that team.  Further, if the fans do have to stay at home they will as a result be subjected to watching a game with a half filled stadium with no real atmosphere. [1]  [1] Purdy Mark. “College football playoff sounds great but is a bad idea.” Mercury news. 8/01/2010

Playoffs Would Earn Less money  BCS makes consistent money for the Universities and colleges that partake in the system. The issue is that, should a playoff system be implemented, it is likely that these institutions would seek to undermine it in order to simply revert back to the old system. Should they withdraw their teams, the overall skill ceiling of college football would lower significantly.  The fact that playoffs would occur during the Christmas period also means that owing to the cold weather at the time, the number of fans that would be drawn to the stadiums to pay money would be significantly lower than in regular season. The “Bowls” system makes sense because the only one near the Christmas period is the national championship which is considered high profile enough to draw a crowd. [1]  [1] Purdy Mark. “College football playoff sounds great but is a bad idea.” Mercury news. 8/01/2010

As at least 18 year olds, college football players know the risks of injury that college football might entail and should they choose to continue playing it is their right to do so. If they get injured they have consented and are not harming anyone else. Further, the teams that get through the playoffs are most likely to be the teams that have won the most games. Generally in football, the teams that do win the most games have suffered the fewest injuries on the dint of them being very strong at protecting their running backs and quarterbacks.  Academically, football players are mandated to attend a minimum number of classes and often are better at attending classes than many other students. As such, playoffs would be fine, especially considering they come during the holiday period where often students are home with their families and not working anyway. [1]  [1] Schad, Joe. “Auburn coach Tuberville calls for playoff system.” ESPN 05/10/2006

It is not a good in itself to make modern Olympics resemble the ancient events as much as possible. Ancient Games, for instance, only allowed men to compete, and many of the sports involved today did not exist then. Progress is generally considered a good thing, and the purpose and meaning of the Olympics has progressed since then. This does not mean that art and culture have no place, and indeed there are cultural festivities surrounding every Olympic event. But modern Olympics have an identity of their own, and the question of whether chess belongs to it is a different one.

Introducing chess would preserve the spirit of the ancient Olympic Games  When the IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau stated that “mind sports, by their nature, cannot be part of the program”6, she contradicted Olympic history. The Ancient Greek Panhellenic Games (forerunners of the modern Olympic Games) indeed emphasised musical, theatrical and painting competitions.7 Even the modern Olympic Games had non-physical competitions such as painting, design and poetry between 1912 and 1952.8 Through chess, the cultural and mental aspect now lost in the Olympic Games is protected. The limits of human capability can be investigated from a new, intellectual, angle. This would allow the Games to celebrate, as intended, human potential in its entirety.  [6] Haire, Meaghan. “Should Chess Be an Olympic Sport?” TIME, 5 August 2008.   [7] "Pythian Games." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013.   [8] Conway, Richard. “The Curious History of Olympic Art Competitions”, Huffington Post, 26 July 2012.

The benefits of chess should be promoted in their right context: a competition exclusively about chess can emphasise these aspects. The Olympics’ motto, on the other hand, is “Faster, higher, stronger”11: chess is very much in the periphery of its message. Such an event is incapable of emphasising all of chess’ merits without a serious and controversial transformation. It is even unlikely to gather more viewers for chess when it competes with other sports, closer to the Olympics’ purpose.  [11] “Opening Ceremony”, International Olympics Committee, 2002.

Chess ought to qualify as an Olympic sport  Chess is not a predominantly physical sport, yet neither are shooting and curling (which, in fact, has been nicknamed “chess on ice”5). The opposition may respond that the determining factor in these is still physical, such as speed and precision. However, chess too requires precise calculation in short periods of time. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between the human brain and other organs: both can be trained and strained, and doing so should be equally rewarded.  More importantly, taekwondo is a further example of what may be called a mind sport. As in chess, both participants have the same set of moves which can be combined in a near infinite number of ways: it thus becomes a battle of intellect and strategy rather than strength. The body merely becomes the vessel through which to compete, precisely as a chess board. Although the vessels are different, the fundamental activity is the same, and thus if taekwondo is valid as an Olympic sport, so should chess be.  [5] Tomlinson, Brett. “Chess on ice”, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 28 January 2009.

The fact that the body is the vessel in shooting, curling and taekwondo is more relevant than this argument suggests. It means that the final determining factors are physical ones, such as speed, control, and precision. In chess, although stamina is involved, it could never be sufficient to win a game. The determining factors are intellectual, such as the mind’s precision in calculating many moves into the future. The brain is an organ: but we do not call anything that tires our brain a sport.

Chess is not as appealing to an ignorant observer as other sports, by virtue of not being physical. Most people can relate to the impressive nature of Olympic gymnastics or a goal-scoring back-flip, even without knowing the rules or the complex strategies involved. This is not the case for chess: it requires a more patient and informed audience. Even if it is viewer friendly for its strong fan base, it is unlikely to gather more support in the Olympics, where many other more established sports are also at their most available.

Chess is proven to have great cognitive benefits: increasing its support is objectively good  The sports in the Olympics promote good values: they display attributes and disciplines that we want to encourage in society and children in particular. Chess is no different from this. Numerous studies have shown that chess has large cognitive benefits, strengthening a wide range of skills: problem-solving, decision-making, memory, mathematics, logic, and creative thinking.9, 10 These are skills we want to actively promote, and thus if including chess in the Olympics would increase its support, we should do so.  Making chess an Olympic sport would make it more accessible to people who would otherwise not watch it. It would also incentivise young enthusiasts to become more involved in the hope of participating in such a recognised competition. Bringing chess to a highly recognised event would doubtless increase support, and thus have an objectively positive impact on society.  [9] Dr Dauvergne, Peter. “The Case for Chess as a Tool to Develop Our Children’s Minds”, University of Sydney, July 2000.   [10] Dr Ferguson, Robert. “Chess in Education: Research Summary”, for the BMCC Chess in Education, “A Wise Move” Conference.

Chess is highly popular and should be represented  Chess is among the sports with the greatest number of federations and of active participants worldwide.12 Its large fan base, however, is completely unrepresented in the world’s largest sports competition.  Chess, furthermore, is highly viewer friendly, so its popularity would only flourish from its representation. It is possible to broadcast any game online, for all to watch at home. Games also often feature high commentary action explaining and analysing the players’ strategies, to make them approachable and exciting to the public. Furthermore, it could take the shape of a team sport in the Olympics, leaving greater space for tactics and discouraging draws, once again making it more appealing for a broad audience.  [12] “FIDE – World Chess Federation”, FIDE, 8 April 2009.

The Olympic does not hold precedence as a justification for including a given sport. They do not have fixed guidelines, and they include sports on a case by case basis. Therefore, it seems unlikely that this would force the IOC to accept other mind games. Bridge and poker, for instance, rely on an element of chance, which chess does not. This is a criterion that impacts their appropriateness for assessing human potential, and a ground on which other mind sports ought not to be included.  Furthermore, it may well be true that the Olympics cannot continue expanding due to lack of space, and the inability of most countries to host such large events. However, chess is one of the examples where the least space and infrastructure is required. This is an argument for not having infinite sports, but it provides no reason to exclude chess from a finite selection.

Attempts to separate chess from other sports merely misunderstand the discipline. There is much more than this to chess: it requires precision, speed, stamina, and commitment. Unlike many other games the element of chance does not exist. Furthermore, chess has an infinite number of variations, so it provides a timeless platform on which to measure human ability. It would cohere perfectly with Olympic goals and values.

Chess cannot ensure fair play  Even if we were to accept all other reasons for including chess in the Olympic Games, it is actually not implementable. The Olympics have strict regulations against any form of cheating in their sports14, and have thus required chess competitions to be subject to drug tests before they can be considered. However, cheating in chess goes far beyond doping. There have been abundant chess scandals where players used computer programmes to aid them throughout the game. As technology develops, it is likely that these will become even harder to detect.  Furthermore, another form of cheating that is impossible to prevent is collusion. Players can meet beforehand and agree to draw games for their mutual advantage15. Both of these kinds of cheating are impossible to regulate, and thus chess cannot compatible with the Olympics’ zero-tolerance regulations.  [14] “Factsheet: The fight against doping and promotion of athletes’ health”, International Olympic Committee. January 2013.   [15] Everding, Gerry. “Cheating in world chess championships is nothing new, study suggests”, Newsroom, Washington University in St. Louis, 9 October 2006.

Chess-specific competitions create a better event for chess players than the Olympics  It would not benefit chess to become a part of the Olympics. In the status quo, the World Chess Federation organises a Chess Olympiad every second year, clashing with the Olympic Games. If the motion passed, the Chess Olympiad and many other chess competitions would, if not disappear, at least lose much of their prestige and popularity.  This is harmful for the chess community. Although chess-specific tournaments are less renown internationally than the Olympics, they have a high status within its fan base. In the Olympics, chess would become meshed with other sports with which it shares nothing. Having to compete for viewers with other sports’ Olympic tradition, it would be unlikely to amass great support. Thus, chess would risk both losing its own successful competitive events, and failing to obtain an equally high status in the Olympics.

Opening up the Olympics for borderline sports is bad in itself  Opening up the Olympics for chess leads to a dangerous slippery slope. After this concession it becomes extremely difficult to draw the line for bridge, poker, or even videogames. This is problematic, because in the status quo there are many sports that are universally recognised as such (unlike those mentioned above), and yet have to be excluded from the Olympics due to lack of space. These include bandy, baseball, bowling, cricket, netball, rugby, softball and rugby. All of these already have massive support internationally and form a coherent category. As a result of this lack of space some sports are sometimes replaced, for example at the moment wrestling is not certain to take place at the 2020 Olympics with baseball and squash vying to take its place.16  Chess, bridge, and similar games, on the other hand, have a very different nature. It makes more sense for the future of both categories to draw a distinction between conventional sports on one hand, and mind games on the other. That way, as many players as possible can participate in a top level competition, with more space in the Olympics for physical sports, and competitions such as the World Mind Sports Games dedicated to mind games.17  [16] AP “Wrestling, baseball-softball, squash make 2020 Olympics short list”, CBS, 29 May 2013,   [17] “History”, International Mind Sports Association.

Chess lacks the necessary physical activity  Sports are about the perfection of our bodies, and therefore the competitive aspect of sport should relate directly to that perfection. In the Fundamental Principles of Olympism in the Olympic Charter the first is “combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind”.13 Although we value the mental battle between athletes, we find that kind of exertion secondary, and not the core of sport which is the physical aspect. Chess consists only of the mind and to a lesser extent the will. It does not matter how well you can move the pieces from one square to the other. Therefore, chess celebrates a different aspect of the human condition than the Olympics and sports as a whole do: it cannot be an Olympic sport.  [13] “Fundamental Principles of Olympism”, Olympic Charter, 8 July 2011,  p.10

All other Olympic sports have their own competitions. Even if the Olympiad was to fade out due to clashes, other prestigious competitions will doubtless remain as in any other sport.  Being recognised as an Olympic sport would be a great gain for the chess community. Exposure creates attention and support: for example, chess had its first boom in Norway after Magnus Carlsen became internationally recognised18. Being part of the Olympics will show people the benefits of chess and provide a higher platform towards which amateurs can strive.  [18] “Norway makes its international chess move”, News &amp; Events, Norway: The Official Site in the UK, 3 September 2010.

It has consistently proven impossible to prevent doping in any Olympic sport. Despite many scandals we still have cycling, for example, in the Olympics. It will too get harder to prevent this, as drugs develop at a similar rate to technology to be more easily concealed. This is therefore no reason to exclude chess: we should merely take steps towards stricter controls and sanctions in the discipline.

In its bid for hosting the World Cup, the Qatar chairman Sheikh Mohammed bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani Al-Thani said the stadiums would have "zero carbon cooling equipment utilising solar technology to ensure the temperature is no higher than 27 degrees Celsius, ensuring optimum playing conditions and a comfortable environment for fans. This same environmentally friendly, carbon-neutral technology will ensure training sites, fan fest and fan zones are also cool and comfortable."(1)  This type of technology will ensure that the fans are protected from the intense summer heat at all times. It is true that they won’t spend most of the time in stadiums, but where they will spend most of the time are fan zones. In those areas bars, restaurants and shops will be installed, thus creating an environment where fans will be encouraged to spend large quantities of time.  It would be only reasonable to assume that in that $200 billion that Qatar will invest a significant part of it will be apportioned to assuring the well-being of the supporters. Even if the Qataris won’t be able to build artificial cooling-spots for everyone, the fans themselves will want to search for spots which will protect them from the sun, like hotels, pools or cafes.  As a result, due to the capacities of the organizers and the inner disposition of humans to shelter themselves from harmful environments, there are no reasons to worry about the health of the fans.  (1)” Qatar 2022 World Cup Bid Reveals New Stadium Plans and Cooling Technologies”, World Football Insider, April 28, 2010

A sporting event in the heat of a desert summer will not be a pleasant experience for the fans  One of the most important parts of the game is the fans. They are the ones who watch the sport, they are the ones to which football owes its popularity. Not only are they the ones who pay for the sport they are also a vital part of any competition. Without the choreographies made by the supporters and the impressive cheering, football becomes nothing more than a silent, mediocre sport. As a result, we must take into consideration how well these hundreds of thousands of supporters from all over the world who will come to Qatar feel during the World Cup.  Let us not forget, that they will spend most of the time outside the stadia; on the streets, in the gruelling heat, or they will be forced indoors. Unfortunately, for many of them this experience will be overshadowed by the constant heat-caused discomfort when engaging in the kind of socialising and watching matches at outdoor screens that usually creates the atmosphere of the cup. It is even more worrying when you take into consideration the fact that supporters of all ages and health conditions come here, some of them will be exposing themselves to heat related risks. Heatstroke can potentially cause death. Taking this into consideration, UEFA’s 54 member associations have already backed a switch, while Europe's leading clubs have said they are "open" to the possibility of a winter World Cup in Qatar.(1)  The 2022 World Cup in Qatar must switch to winter, according to FIFA’s own medical chief. Michel D'Hooghe, the chairman of the FIFA’s medical committee, will advise that the risks posed to supporters by extreme heat are too great. "I am sure the Qataris have the technical skill to organise a tournament where teams could play and train in a stable, acceptable temperature, but it's about the fans. They will need to travel from venue to venue and I think it's not a good idea for them to do that in temperatures of 47C or more."(2)  (1) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013   (2) “2022 World Cup in Qatar must be played in winter”, BBC, 16 September 2013

It is clear that Qatar will get more recognition, fame and respect from the international community if it proves itself able to solve a range of problems which were considered to be too difficult for anyone to handle.  In the past, all the other countries that hosted the World Cup were engaged in all sorts of social campaigns designed to solve multiple problems, and the Qataris will be no exception. But if they want to set themselves apart from the others they must prove they are able to solve even more difficult problems, such as their ferocious heat. Once they manage to solve this by introducing state-of-the-yard technologies, they will differentiate themselves from previous hosts and receive more respect.  Another reason why Qataris will receive more respect is because they will open the road for organizing sporting events in places which were previously considered to be ineligible. They will be the ones who will spur the development of the technology necessary to ensure the optimal temperature for this event, a technology which could be used in the future. As a result, they won’t just be the first Arab country which organized the World Cup, but the nation which blazed a path to enable Arab countries to host major sporting events in the summer.

Heat will damage player's health  In order to fully understand the implications of this motion, one must see what participating in the FIFA World Cup means to a football player.  First of all, it means an intense and sustained physical effort for a significant amount of time. Do not forget that the Cup itself lasts for a couple of weeks, and there are plenty of weeks of training before it in order to get the players in the best shape possible. This means they are exposed to a lot of physical stress and have to play or train no matter of the weather conditions or temperature.  Secondly, with temperatures ranging from 35C to 40C during the summer it would be torture to force the players to train and play in those conditions. Former France, Fulham, Manchester United and Everton striker Louis Saha told BBC Sport he thought it was impossible for players to handle the Middle Eastern country's extremely high summer temperatures. (1) "I was in Qatar recently and it was 48C," he said. "Believe me, it is impossible to have a proper game down there." It is not only the players who get hurt, but also the game itself, as you cannot expect the same show from fatigued, light-headed and exhausted players.  Most of all, FIFA’s top priority should always be the protection of player’s health, as, at the end of the day, despite money, show or spectators, no one should risk their life or be obliged to work in unsafe conditions. Studies show the immense risks of heat-related illnesses and their potentially deadly outcome.(2) Being aware of these issues, FIFA’s vice-president Jim Boyce, from Northern Ireland, is prepared to back a decision in principle to move the World Cup to the winter.(1)  (1) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013   (2) Erik Brady “Heat-related illness still deadly problem for athletes”, USA Today, 8/15/2011

Qatar’s successful bid to host the World Cup marked a historic moment for the country and brought huge responsibilities to the organizing committee. Qatar will be the first Arab nation to host this event, this meaning that they are under a lot of pressure to prove to the world that they have the necessary skills and capabilities to do this job. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that they will not let anything derail this event, let alone something as easily to control as temperature. It promised revolutionary air-cooling technology to counter the summer heat in its bid; this has been reiterated in a statement that they are prepared to host the tournament at anytime.(1)  Moreover, the small country’s officials guaranteed that the system, which will harness the power of the sun's rays to provide a cool environment for players and fans by converting solar energy into electricity, will be able to reduce temperatures from 45 to 25 degrees Celsius. As a result, there should be no worries regarding this aspect, as the Qataris won’t risk anything to stain the image of this event in which they will invest about $200 billion(2).  Having analyzed the preparations which have been planned for this event, Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore is adamant the 2022 World Cup should go ahead in Qatar in the summer.(3)  (1) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013   (2) Nick Schwartz ” Qatar will spend $200 billion on the 2022 World Cup” , USA Today, July 9, 2011   (3)” Qatar World Cup: Richard Scudamore wants summer event” , BBC, 15 August 2013

Moving to the winter would benefit Qatar  There a lot of advantages for you as a country if you are selected to organize a World Cup, a European Cup or any kind of major sport event. They range from fame and international recognition to money and influence in the administrative bodies. Therefore, it is in Qatar’s interest that this event goes as smoothly as possible in order to prove its organizing capabilities and thus allowing them to increase its chance for hosting any kind of future sporting event. By hosting the event in summer, Qatar is exposing itself a lot of unnecessary risk – and probable bad publicity.  The most obvious is someone getting injured or even worse, dying during the World Cup. This would be extremely problematic especially if we are talking about a football player participating in the event. It would not only stain Qatar’s image because it happened during the World Cup organized there, but it would also destroy any credibility that it has as an organiser of events after so many assurances that the heat will not be a problem.  Moreover if the cup were to be held in winter, some of the billions that would be used to build such complex systems of air conditioning could be used to serve other purposes. The Qataris could invest it in better publicity, more social campaigns such as discouraging racism in sports or many other areas. In that way, not only they would receive the recognition for being the organizers of the World Cup, but they would get extra credit from the international community for being involved in the social benefits of sports for example.  In conclusion, the Qataris do have the administrative support for a change of schedule, as even Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s President has recognised “After many discussions, deliberations and critical review of the entire matter, I came to the conclusion that playing the World Cup in the heat of Qatar's summer was simply not a responsible thing to do” and they should take advantage of this situation.  (1) Owen Gibson” World Cup 2022: Sepp Blatter paves way for winter tournament in Qatar” The Guardian, 3 October 2013

The November and December 2022 slot favoured by Blatter and his secretary general, Jérôme Valcke, remains “the most likely option because it avoids a clash with the Winter Olympics and takes in two international breaks so would cause marginally less disruption.”(1) That time-frame is the most likely to be chosen as the alternate date for the World Cup, so there would be no clash with the Winter Olympics and the ICC.  As far as the national championships are concerned, there should be no worries there. If indeed the World Cup is played in November-December, then the national federations would just have to enter the winter break a bit earlier than it was scheduled. This would of course mean that the championships would last a bit longer in summer, but this shouldn’t be considered a problem. The summers in most of the countries around the globe are less harsh than Qatar’s, so the players wouldn’t have any problems with this. If we were to talk about countries from the Middle East and regions alike, they could play games more often during the year, start the whole championship earlier or a combination of the two. Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, the chairman of the European Club Association, which represents the top teams, clearly thinks it would not pose too much of a problem to his clubs having said “It is probably better to play it in winter.”(2)  In the end, there are a lot of possibilities to juggle around this sort of situations and have both a great World cup and successful national championship, while maintaining a spotless relationship with the ICC.  (1) Owen Gibson “ World Cup 2022: Sepp Blatter paves way for winter tournament in Qatar”, The Guardian, 3 October 2013   (2) “Qatar World Cup 2022: Top clubs 'open' to winter tournament”, BBC, 10 September 2013

It is sad that all these bidders invested millions of dollars from taxpayer’s money in trying to create the most appealing bid for hosting the World Cup and they weren’t selected, but that constituted no reason to make unjustified demands.  In was clear from the very beginning that the date of the event wasn’t pinned down and there existed a possibility of changing it. A FIFA spokeswoman said "As part of the bidding documents all bidders, including the FA Australia, accepted that the format and dates of the staging of the FIFA World Cup and FIFA Confederations Cup, though initially expected to be in June/July, remains subject to the final decision of the FIFA Organising Committee."(1) Because every single one of the bidding countries knew about this possibility, they were all exposed to the same risks and thus they were all subjected to the same criteria. As a result, the bidding race was an equal and fair competition which the Qataris rightfully won.  (1) Owen Gibson “ FIFA tells Australia to forget about £25m World Cup bid compensation” The Guardian, 17 September 2013

A winter cup would harm media revenue  At the beginning of each year, every media company, especially the big ones, try and make a plan to see which of the sporting events, they should cover in order to maximize their ratings. As the broadcasting rights of these types of events cost hundreds of millions of dollars, this is a very sensitive issue.  One of the most important factors when deciding which events to and not to broadcast is the date in which it takes place. Every media company wants to create a system in which it has continuity of sporting events in their grid, by televising competitions throughout the year, and not just in some periods. By doing this, the channel becomes known for its sports coverage resulting in increased ratings.  This proposal of changing the World Cup date is at least problematic, as the televising-rights have already been sold. American TV network Fox, which paid £265m for rights to 2018 and 2022(2) World Cup for North America, “is understood to be concerned over the commercial implications of any move that would see any clash with the NFL season, let alone the Super Bowl”.(1) James Murdoch, the son of 21st Century Fox Inc. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, and other network executives told FIFA that “moving the competition by several months from its usual June start to the winter would clash with National Football League games”.(3)  Unfortunately for FIFA, this could create a precedent for future events, as there will always be doubt whether the date of the events will be changed or not after the televising rights are sold. This lack of trust will translate into a lower price which media companies are willing to pay for broadcasting FIFA’s competitions. Because we are talking about huge amounts, it will have a harmful impact upon FIFA’s competitions beyond 2022.  Let us not forget that FIFA is involved in campaigns against racism, discrimination and many others which help raise awareness and ameliorate a wide variety of problems. Therefore, a drop in funds will translate not only into worse football competitions, but also damage these campaigns which would likely be the first place for the cuts axe to fall.  (1) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013   (2) Robin Scott-Elliot “World Cup Q&amp;A: How did the 2014 tournament in Qatar end up as a winter of discontent?”, Independent, 03 October 2013   (3) Tariq Panja “Fox Said to Oppose FIFA Plan to Shift 2022 Soccer World Cup”, Bloomberg, Sep 17 2013

It would Interfere with other competitions  One of the biggest downsides that this shift of dates would have is the creation of a clash if schedules all around the sports world, fuelling tensions and controversies. No matter in which month the Cup would be played, purposeless conflicts would emerge from this.  Among other potential conflicts if the organizers decide to move it in winter, this being the most endorsed proposal, then there could be a conflict with the Winter Olympics. The International Olympic Committee has warned FIFA against creating a clash with that year's Olympic Winter Games.(1) It would be only in FIFA’s advantage to maintain an open and respectful relation with the IOC. Such a move would create some tensions which could be detrimental for the world of sports.  If, however, the officials decide to move it in anytime during the year, this would create conflicts with the national championships. This could have a tremendous impact upon them, as the World Cup is a long competition. If you add the pre-preparations and the exhaustion that players feel at the end of it, you realize of its impact upon national championships.  This is very important as it will create purposeless conflicts between national federations and FIFA. This will happen due to the lose-lose situation that the federations will be put in. They either end the season abruptly for the world cup, resulting in an extended season (ironically) pushing some games into the summer heat or continue with it as it is. This would be also problematic, as top teams which have players who are also in national teams would be extremely disadvantaged by the sudden loss of their most valuable assets. As a result, conflicts will be created even between football clubs and national teams, as the clubs might refuse to let certain players go to play at the World Cup.  No matter the situation, the shift will bring a lot of disadvantages to FIFA and its partners. The best solution is to leave it in summer where it doesn’t interfere with any other sporting competitions.  (1) “FIFA confirm winter World Cup talks”, ESPN, September 23, 2013

Moving now would be unfair to the other bidders  Qatar beat bids from Australia, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan to win the right to stage the 2022 World Cup. Moving it to another date other than the one they all had to include in their bidding offers would be unfair towards the losers of that bidding process.  When submitting their bids to FIFA for hosting the World Cup, every nation has to consider a lot of factors in order to decide the budget, the venues, etc. One of the biggest and most important factors is of course the date of the World Cup. Each country had to take into consideration the events that happened in that respective time frame in their area, how long it would take to build the facilities, the organizing staff’s availability and many other factors. As a result others bidding offers would have been different if the event were to take place in winter, instead of summer. The FFA chairman, Frank Lowy broke cover to call on the world game's ruling body to promise that "just and fair compensation should be paid to those nations that invested many millions, and national prestige, in bidding for a summer event if the tournament is shifted to Qatar's winter".(1) As the race was extremely close, any change in the parameters that determined the winner could have a significant impact on the outcome of the race. Football League chairman Greg Clarke, who was part of England's 2018 bid delegation three years ago when Qatar won the vote for 2022, said “FIFA should run the vote again rather than switch the tournament to the winter”.(2)  Undoubtedly, it is fairness and equality that must be prioritized in deciding the winner of such a big event, which would bring a lot of social and economic benefits to the winner. As a result, there mustn’t be any room for error, but changing the date of the World Cup creates exactly such a problem and looks like favouritism.  (1) Owen Gibson “FIFA tells Australia to forget about £25m World Cup bid compensation” The Guardian, 17 September 2013   (2) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013

It is true that the change of dates might constitute a problem for media companies, but there are a few points due to which this change wouldn’t be unfair towards them.  First of all, it was clear from the beginning that the dates could change and that the final decision belonged to the FIFA Organising Committee. As a result, this risk should’ve been taken into consideration when deciding the offer.  Secondly, ratings are ratings. Media companies’ main concern is attracting more and more people to watch their program so that they can ask for higher prices for companies who want to advertise on their channel. As a result, it doesn’t matter that the World Cup takes place in winter or summer, as the broadcasters that are showing the world cup will have the same increase in ratings. They will still be drawing viewers from other channels so as far as they are concerned, the effects should be similar.  Finally, even if these highly unlikely harmful effects do exist, the normal response would be to renegotiate the broadcasting-rights with all the media channels and reorganize the auction. In that way, all the broadcasters could take into consideration the price they would pay for a winter World Cup and so they won’t be exposed to these downsides caused by the date change.

Teaching just evolution does not prevent teacher encouraging students to analyse how well evolution fits with the facts the students have learned. Similarly there can still be critical discourse in the classroom; analysing a fossil to decide what kind of animal it was and what its various parts of its anatomy were for would be just as rewarding for students. Moreover analysing on a smaller scale would mean having all the available evidence whereas students could never be expected to study all the evidence on creationism and evolution.

Teaching creationism as well as evolution gives students freedom to choose  This bill that opens the door to creationism is really about changing the way that teaching is done to make it more critical and analytical. This is an improvement in scientific education as it will help ensure that science is about critical, constructive discourse rather than just imbibing ‘facts’. [1] This bill aims to “inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens”. [2] How can students be critical and learn to analyse if there is only one theory available to them through which to look at and analyse those facts? That would not be education, it would be indoctrination. [3]  [1] Zimmer, Robin, ‘Critical Thinking, Analysis Foster Good Science’, The Tennessean, 11 March 2011,   [2] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee,   [3] ‘New Tennessee law: encouraging creationism or academic freedom’, Public Radio International, 23 April 2012,

In practice allowing room for other theories is a “permission slip for teachers to bring creationism, climate-change denial and other non-science into science classrooms”. The singling out of these subjects in the bill shows that it is not about impartiality and objectivity in science. [1] Instead it is promoting a kind of science denial allowing anyone with some quack theory to demand to be allowed to teach it regardless of the evidence.  [1] Thompson, Helen, ‘Tennessee ‘monkey bill’ becomes law’, nature, 11 April 2012,

Freedom of speech should apply to teachers as much as anyone else  Freedom of speech and expression are protected by the first amendment to the US constitution [1] and teachers are entitled to freedom of speech and their academic freedom as much as anyone else. If a science teacher does not believe that the evidence supports evolution then why should s/he have to teach evolution as fact rather than just as one of several competing theories? The Tennessee bill protects freedom of expression by freeing teachers to include whatever other angles on controversies such as evolution or climate change as they wish.  [1] Legal Information Institute, ‘First Amendment: An overview’, Cornell University Law School, 19 August 2010,

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Teachers are already free to express their own views during their own free time. When teaching in a school however they are limited by the demands of what is necessary to teach their pupils. Freedom of speech does not give teachers qualified in one subject the wherewithal to teach their class a different subject which is effectively what teaching creationism means. Creationism should remain in religion classes and evolution should remain in science classes. Teachers are employed by the state in order to teach children facts, not spread personal ideology. It is therefore best to seperate facts and ideas into seperate subjects.

The bill does not exclude evolution just allows room for other theories  What this bill allows is for the facts to be taught and then seen through the lens of various theories. The bill requires that the schools within the state remain within the state science curriculum. It “protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine”. [1] Evolution will therefore still have to be taught and won’t be replaced wholesale by any other theory. The result therefore is that this Tennessee law opens up academic enquiry and science rather than shutting it down as opponents claim.  [1] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee,

First the ‘don’t say gay’ bill has not been passed as it was dropped by its republican sponsor Joey Hensley. [1] That this bill is directed at only a few subjects does not mean that it is not about academic freedom and freedom of speech. The bill is simply targeting and highlighting areas where the assembly believes free speech is lacking and alternative views need to be presented.  [1] ‘Tennessee ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill To Get Axed’, Huffington Post, 1 May 2012,

It is never too early to teach students to question ideas and theories no matter how well grounded they may claim to be. Students are capable of realiseing that there is a difference between the theories that interpret the facts and the facts themselves so educating in the facts will not be more difficult. The result will be classes that are much more engaged in the subject because they have more input in the teaching, this can only be good for science education.

Children should have the freedom not to be misled  Part of freedom of speech is the freedom to get accurate information. The students in school have this right not to be misled by their teachers [1] so teachers should have to concentrate on providing facts and evidence and what has been scientifically proven. Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education argues “Telling students that evolution and climate change are scientifically controversial is miseducating them” because there is no controversy among scientists. [2] The law as it stands may attempt to sound balanced but preventing “discrimination for or against religion or non-religion” [3] opens the door to any theory seeking to explain the evidence no matter how flawed. This would be directly counter to the objective teaching the bill claims to promote. If there is to be objectivity schools must stick to the evidence and what it shows; evolution. The teachers may of course encourage the students to come up with their own interpretations of the evidence but should not be attempting to force their own views upon the students.  [1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012,   [2] Strauss, Valerie, ‘Tennessee back to the future with new anti-evolution law’, Post Local, 11 April 2012,   [3] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee,

As it is not science creationism should not even be covered by the Tennessee law  As creationism does not fit the definition of "science", it is not even addressed by the law cited in the introduction to this discussion. The act specifically allows to discuss "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories". It is a very false conclusion that because evolution is both scientific and a hypothesis, any other hypothesis must be scientific as well.  Creationism is lacking the key point of anything that could even remotely be called science, namely testability and falsifiability. Evolution posesses this property: There may one day be actual evidence that the theory is incorrect, such as a modern human fossil being found in a layer of soil that dates back aeons. Given enough such incidents, one could reasonably claim that evolution has been disproved and that there must be a better model to approximate reality. This is what commonly happens in the world of science. As a prominent example one may cite our views on atoms: They have been refined from "they are tiny multi-symmetrical grains" to the detailled analysis of sub-atomic particles we see today. This took innumerable steps, and yet we know for sure that our theories will never be accurate enough to describe reality.  However, such a process is impossible with creationism, as it is based on a belief. In theory, it could very well be true - God could have created C14 signatures in such a way that they would appear billions of years old to a modern researcher, and we could never know. This may be applied to each and every other aspect of research on the foundations of our universe. But excactly because we can never know, creationism can never be subjected to scientific analysis, and thus cannot qualify as scientific or science. It can only be subject to belief: You may well chose to believe that the creation happened excactly as described in the bible, as an omnipotent being would surely have the power to defy the laws of physics and just 'make things be'. Thus, in theory, any contradictory evidence such as the C14 signatures may be dismissed based on belief in an omnipotent being, whose non-existance may never be disproved either due to the laws of logic.  For this reason, creation may never be falsified, cannot be called a scientific theory and is not addressed by the law cited above. Hence, its discussion should not be supported by the state.

Tennessee is not seeking to protect freedom of speech  While supporters of this bill justify it based upon ‘academic freedom’ this is clearly not a motivating factor for the Tennessee legislature. At almost the same time a bill that prevents teachers discussing homosexuality was passed through the state’s education committee, if freedom of speech has been a concern this would never have even been brought up. [1] Moreover if the bill was about freedom of speech there would be no need to highlight particular controversies or particularly pick out science as an area requiring more discussion and dissent. Students could learn much more about competing interpretations of historical events, competing ideas in geography such as alternative theories about how oil is created, [2] even the English language is not totally settled as new meanings are created and new words added.  [1] Selwyn, Casey, ‘Teaching creationism in US schools’, Free Speech Debate, 2 May 2012,   [2] Glasby, Geoffrey P., ‘Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons: An Historical Overview’, Resource Geology, vol.56, no.1, 2006, pp.85-98,

Teachers should not have freedom to teach whatever they wish as fact  There is a difference between a demand for freedom to teach what you like and freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not apply in the classroom; students are not allowed to stand up and discuss whatever issues they want and neither should the teacher. Both have to stick to a syllabus that ensures that the children are taught the basics of each subject so that the student can move on to more advanced instruction.  Ultimately for students to be able to exercise their right to freedom of speech they need to have a well-rounded education that provides a grounding of knowledge and how to analyse that knowledge. The student is then perfectly free to challenge this teaching and exercise their freedom of expression and explore many more ideas and dismiss evolution if they wish.  Essentially this bill is encouraging criticism of science at too early a stage, in elementary or even secondary school teachers are still teaching what science is, what it is for and how it works and it does not help to ‘muddy the waters’. [1]  [1] ‘New Tennessee law: encouraging creationism or academic freedom’, Public Radio International, 23 April 2012,

We cannot yet fully test evolution either; we can't recreate evolution in the lab. Creationism provides a valid critique and so should be taught alongside.

It is unquestioningly taking the ‘consensus’ view on issues like evolution and climate change that is misleading children. Teaching only the one viewpoint misleads children into thinking that the issue is fact and settled so denying the ongoing controversies in each of these areas. [1]  [1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012,

It’s fairly predictable that in a country such as Pakistan where the overwhelming majority come from one religious tradition that there will be a higher percentage of those people to be offended and, conversely, that a majority of suspects are likely to come from other groups.

Inevitably protects entrenched interest groups (Church in Crucible, Muslims in Pakistan)  In the event of two different perceptions of what constitutes harm, there is a tendency for that of the larger group to be seen as normative and, therefore, correct. This is shown to be the case in the example given here but also in other instances from the Salem witch trials to the fatwa on Salman Rushdie [i] ; the fact that there was an authorising body – in the shape of an orthodox religious body – the allegation itself acquires the force of that orthodoxy.  It is rare for minority beliefs to have much success and almost unknown for secularists to do so. Several cases in North America brought in an effort to protect the religious rights of Wiccans, for example, yielded little as they lacked the force of religious orthodoxy [ii] .  In states where there is either great homogeneity of belief or there is a theological element in the courts or political system, this has tended to be even more the case. This is particularly true of states that identify themselves officially with one religion, and especially so in the case of Islamic states [iii] .  [i] The Guardian. Looking back at Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. 14 September 2012.  [ii] Religioustolerance.org. Wiccan education and anti-defamation groups.  [iii] Viewpoint. The Blasphemy syndrome. 12 October 2012.

The right to free speech is not a license to express any opinion regardless of the context. It’s equivalent of standing in a Museum and shouting, “Fire”. It is in these environments that caution is required.  Allowing free speech is one thing, allowing speech likely to cause harm is another is quite a different. There is a crucial difference between public and private space. Where offensive remarks are made in the public space then the blasphemer has knowingly put themselves and others in danger and - citing such principals as civic responsibility and the social contract, governments would have both a responsibility and a duty to use their legal powers.

Based on allegation rather than proof (cf. Sorcery, witchcraft, etc.)  Blasphemy, by its nature, is ‘all in the eye of the beholder’. It is impossible, in most cases, to determine whether there was intent on the part of the accused and as a result it is difficult to codify in legislation. Equally, unless the law takes a particular theological position, one person’s blasphemous slur is another’s sacred profession.  It relies on the predicate that the person alleging blasphemy was offended or felt their faith was under attack.  Of course these offences are very real and may at times be possible to codify but they cannot be applied universally because the perceptions they necessitate are not universal.  As a result, as in the case given above, allegation and proof must be deemed to be the same thing - to be accused is to be found guilty [i] . Acts of blasphemy cannot rest on intuited human norms – I do not wish to be harmed in this way therefore you do not wish it either – because those involved have a different understanding of the harm.  In the light of this there may be many remedies for blasphemy but legislation in general and criminal sanctions in particular cannot be appropriate.  [i] The Economic Times. Rajiv Jayaram. Blasphemy law represents coercive nature of Pakistan towards minorities. 27 August 2012.

It is perfectly possible in many circumstances to demonstrate intent before a blasphemous comment is made. Waving a banner making derogatory remarks about the founder of a religion or burning an emblem of the faith outside a place of worship could easily be said to demonstrate an intent to harm.  Moreover many cases come down to one person’s word against another’s.

People have a right to blaspheme  In the laws that come the closest in framework to blasphemy – libel, slander defamation and a range of incitement laws – there is a requirement to prove harm. This level of proof is not set at the level of being offended or believing that a problem may ensue, and certainly not at the level of just disagreeing with a statement. If there is no proof of harm then the principle of free speech stands, usually termed as a ‘justifiable comment’ in defamation defences. It is entirely possible to respect the rights of others to hold an opinion and, as in this case, disagree with that opinion [i] .  For anything other than that as the only logical basis for discussing blasphemy, it would be necessary to demonstrate a causal link to actual or probable harm – usually this proof requires either financial or physical harm to be involved [ii] .  In the case of blasphemy, such harm cannot be demonstrated. There is also an interesting point of whether God can be said to have been harmed and whether it is possible for a third party, other than the state, to act as a result of harm having been caused to another.  As a result, since harm cannot be proven and neither, in most cases, as we have seen in the previous argument, can intent be proven, it is difficult to see how blasphemy is anything other than free speech. It is far easier for other social groups – sexual and political minorities, people of disabilities and others – to prove both harm and intent of statements and actions but lack the legal protection given to religious organisations through blasphemy laws.  [i] See principle seven of the Free Speech Debate principles .  [ii] Wikipedia. Defamation.

This is the truly the argument of rogues. Where a mob seeks to gather to deliver their own brand of very immediate justice would be against the law and should be dealt with as such. For governments to argue such an approach is a complete abdication of responsibility. It is also incredibly naïve to suppose that the niceties of treaties would be observed in the Pashtun Valley or the Gaza strip.

If any state were to try and protect their citizens against all offence, it would have to ban everything. It is difficult to see how such a process could work – one that would allow Saudi men to be offended by the sight of a woman driver and, at the same time, those of a more liberal nature to be offended by them not driving. A test of legislation should be whether it can be universalised, where offence can be taken in both directions that is not, and cannot, be the case. As a result it is clear that legislation is an inappropriate tool to use in regards to blasphemy. The issue is not disagreeing with the particular piece of legislation but with the idea that legislation in this area should be introduced at all. Moreover the examples of limitations on the media used are not good parallel’s to blasphemy as blasphemy may be either unintentional or else be on the spur of the moment which is not the case with the media.

Blasphemy is comparable to legislation banning hate speech  Not only can remarks or images be labelled as inappropriate but, in extreme cases governments ban organisations, meeting and demonstrations. Where speech is deemed to be prejudiced or inflammatory the state intervenes to prevent either offence or possible violence. In all of the situations covered by blasphemy laws, the first of those would apply and, as has been seen on so many occasions, the latter is not uncommon. The experience of the “Anti-Islam video” prompted civil unrest around the world [i] costing nations money in terms of lost work and increased police time.  Both governments and individuals have the right to be protected against such outpourings of outrage. It seems only sensible for governments to prevent such difficulties where they can. In this light a legislative code that bans blasphemy is useful in the maintenance of social order and cohesion in many countries. It is a given in most countries that the government has a duty to protect citizens against statements or actions that they have a reasonable basis for believing are likely to cause social unrest. Blasphemy is just another example on that list.  [i] Al Jazeera. Timeline: Protests over anti-Islam video. 21 September 2012.

If the courts did not handle these issues, the mob likely would.  Where a grave offence is caused to many people and the state proves to be impotent in addressing it, it is not uncommon for vigilantes to take matters into their own hands.  Surely it is preferable to have such situations handled by the courts and under the rule of law. Proposition gave the example of the Salman Rushdie affair, where Ayatollah Khomeni issued a global fatwah on the author following the publication of the Satanic Verses. How much more preferable would it have been for that process to have been handled by means of diplomacy [i] , extradition and trial than a decade’s worth of civil and international discourse. The Arab league and others have called for an international treaty to this effect, as the issue of blasphemy committed in one nation causing offence in another comes increasingly to the fore in an internet age, it seems an effective approach.  In an increasingly Global world with the possibility for inflammatory remarks to travel the world in a matter of seconds, leaving only their context behind, it is time for governments to have a serious conversation about an international framework - to make sure that justice stays in the courts rather than the streets.  [i] Globalpost. Daniel DeFraia. Muslim nations push for international blasphemy law. 25 September 2012.

Blasphemy causes offence to groups and individuals  Not agreeing with a law does not provide carte blanche to ignore it. The reality is that large numbers of people in many countries and religious traditions find blasphemy offensive and upsetting. If, as prop argues this crime causes no harm, then they presumably accept that it can have no physical benefit to the blasphemer. So why do it? We place limitations on violence, sex and expletives in movies, on TVs and in publications, not because they cause a provable harm but because some find them offensive [i] . These actions, along with blasphemy, are collectively classed as criminal libels as they require the state to act rather than an injured party. We further create public order offences in relation to racial abuse, which, like blasphemy, may not be premeditated [ii] . Those in breach of such limits face a punishment.  If we are happy to impose widely held norms of behaviour in public fora such as entertainment – or in regard to public behaviour - then why not acknowledge similar issues in the case of spiritual beliefs. If, for example, the overwhelming majority of the population find attacks on the prophet Mohammed offensive then why not legislate on that basis?  [i] The News Manual. Chapter 71: Blasphemy, obscenity and sedition.  [ii] Brian Farmer. The Independent. Comic Frankie Boyle sues Daily Mirror for libel. 15 October 2012.

There are clear differences between racist, sexist or homophobic language and blasphemy. Hate speech legislation exists to protect minorities against being abused. A blasphemy ban, by contrast, simply perpetuates the influence of already powerful interest groups. Equally, to develop ops theory of sudden vigilante groups springing up to seek out the blasphemer – hate speech legislation seeks to protect the likely victim of a violent crime, according to Opposition, blasphemy legislation would seek to support the perpetrators.

Corporations represent the collective labour, goals, capital and ideas of a vast number of people. Far from representing a “person” who is accorded undue influence and significance by politicians, corporations are crucial in allowing major contributors to national economies to have a say in the affairs of the states that govern their activities.  It has already been established that corporations- even profit-led corporations- are capable of operating under complex regimes of objectives and goals. Not all corporations bow to the profit motive solely and exclusively. Suppose- following the Bradly Smith article quoted above- that a corporation faced the prospect of downsizing unless it could access a lucrative government subsidy. Loss of jobs would anger the company’s workers union. The corporation would have every incentive to use its influence to affect the decisions of the politicians responsible for distributing the subsidy. Moreover, in expressing an opinion on the matter, the corporation would be reflecting the views not only of its shareholders, but also of its workers and their union, it suppliers, its creditors.  Corporations can have an insight into the economic processes driving particular states that politicians may lack. Corporations concentrate very specific skills, skills that may not be reflected in a civil service, and are often based placed to provide opinions on- for example- trade relations with foreign states or the educational and research projects that a government should invest in. Individual students and scientists are unlikely to be able to muster this much influence.  Corporate entities represent a number of objectives, each supported by a large number of natural individuals. Even if a business corporation is sometimes at odds with its workers, those workers would still agree that they have an interest in the success of that corporation. Politicians do not court the support of corporations because they are wealthy or powerful as “individuals”, but because they contain significant numbers of voters with comparable views, concerns and aspirations.

Corporate influence distracts politicians from the needs of their constituents.  The content of public speech is informed as much by the ideas and convictions of individuals engaged in free expression as it is by the concurrent acts of expression engaged in by other individuals. Free speech is a product of society and the processes driving the development and growth of society.  The environment in which free speech is currently exercised is characterised by pervasive acts of expression – television commercials, billboards, spam email and advertisements on social media sites. Each of these forms of media is aimed at influencing opinions and behaviours. Active engagement with a book or a movie is often a prerequisite if an individual is to be influenced by its content.. The audience for the content contained in an advert does not necessarily choose to engage with its message.  As a result of this, adverts are uniquely placed to bring issues and perspectives to the attention of individuals who might otherwise have been unaware of them. Advertising is a powerful political tool. For this reason the manner in which political causes can be advertised and the amount of funding spent on those adverts is, almost without exception, strictly regulated in most liberal democracies. Commercial content carried by for-profit organisations such as newspapers and television channels is expensive. The prominence of a message is affected by the amount of money that can be spent on increasing its length, rebroadcasting it and showing it to new audiences. When it comes to political speech, spending money is the best way to increase the efficacy and persuasiveness of a message.  Irrespective of the qualities of a particular campaign, the qualifications of its candidates or the evidence underlying its policy proposals, its effectiveness will still be measured in the amount of money that it is able to spend on advertising. Legal restrictions on political spending are intended to prevent political speech from becoming a battle of budget rather than ideas – campaign finance laws are designed to protect the integrity, quality and efficacy of speech.  In the USA the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act achieved this goal by preventing corporations from funding “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a caucus or 60 days of a general election. “Electioneering communications” were defined by the acts as publications that named a federal candidate (a candidate for a presidential election, for example). The Act prevented interest groups indirectly affiliated with particular candidates from spending money to support a candidates’ message. Although there are limits on the income that a politician can directly receive from donors, different rules apply to organisations that are not directly affiliated with that politician. And although a politician may receive criticism for receiving corporate money, corporations can contribute to causes indirectly, by providing funds of issue groups.

Corporates that attempt to address social issues damage political discourse.  Corporate personhood is a challenging concept for liberal democracies. On the one hand, the legal fiction that underlies personhood enables groups of citizens to quickly and efficiently join forces to make collective grievances heard and to use weight of numbers to match the influence of wealthier individuals. However, corporations, particularly in the business context, can also be large and unaccountable organisations.  This proposition must address two issues. First, whether acts of free expression engaged in by corporations generally should benefit from the same protection as acts of expression engaged in by individuals. Second, whether there should be more scrutiny of the membership and objectives of corporations – or whether corporations should receive rights conditional on their activities.  If we follow the reasoning in the Citizens United case, which radically changed the interpretation of corporate speech rights in American law, it is clear that acts of corporate speech should benefit from a high standard of protection. Corporations can take the form of churches, trades unions or political campaigning groups [1] . The fiction of personhood allows these organisations to operate more freely, ignoring many of the bureaucratic burdens associated with partnership organisations. It also allows citizens to found non-profit making groups, such as PACs, without the risk of being made liable for the debts that those groups generate.  Profit-led corporations may be used to publish examples of free expression, without necessarily wishing to influence or misuse the ideas expressed. The publishers of political science textbooks, of annotated editions of Kapital and of Capitalism and Freedom are still profit-led businesses. In short, free speech in liberal democracies cannot be exercised effectively without the ability to disseminate speech among a large audience, and without the ability to co-operate with others in order to do so. For this reason, where a corporation is permitted to engage in free expression, the contents of its acts of expression should not be subject to restrictions that differ radically from those applied to individual acts of expression.  But what about the second issue? Natural persons are allowed- as a general rule- a broad right to free expression. This right is subject to certain caveats, but there is always a presumption that expression should be free and subject to as few limitations as possible. Should corporations benefit from the same presumption? No. The proposition side suggests that corporations’ access to constitutional free speech rights should depend on their goals, objectives and membership.  Corporations, unlike natural persons, are inflexible in their motives and influences. Free speech is preferable to conflict because it acts as a conduit for compromise, but before compromise can take place it must be possible for the participants and audience in a discussion or an exchange of views to be influenced by their opponents’ arguments. Profit-led corporations owe a very specific duty to their shareholders- the individual who support and constitute the corporation. Under the corporate-laws of almost all liberal democracies, business corporations must act in their interests, and this invariably means generating profit and increasing the value of the equity that each shareholder has in the business [2] . Because this duty is a legal one, and failure to uphold it can be cause to remove corporate decision makers (directors and executives) from their jobs and even to bring them to trial.  This behavioural imperative is absolute. Were a business corporation to announce that it would no longer operate with profit as its core priority, it would collapse [3] . Even if this process might not be inevitable in the real world, it still informs corporate culture to a significant degree. Natural persons are flexible and pragmatic; at the very least they have the potential to be so. Profit-led corporations are not. Free speech rights exercised by a profit-led corporation will always be exercised in the service of the profit motive.  [1] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US  [2] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004  [3] “Kay needs to replace ‘shareholder value’ with ‘corporate value’.” Professor Simon Deakin. Financial times, 20 March 2012.

The proposition side have resurrected an old legal mechanism that was of limited use in order to defend an inaccurate and polarising interpretation of corporate rights.  The proposition argues that the actions and behaviour of profit making business corporations will always be guided by the profit motive and that, for this reason, corporations will never be able to contribute to the accommodations and compromises that free speech is used to foster. In plainer terms, side proposition see corporations as being inherently deceptive and untrustworthy.  The proposition side have failed to consider that it is possible for corporations to function within free markets, and to participate fully in capitalist democracies, without being bound to a single minded pursuit of profit.  Corporations have now recognised that the growth and maintenance of profits in the long term can often best be served by under-emphasising profit in the short term. Corporations have become increasingly conscious of the effects that their activities have on the societies that they operate in. Ostensibly profitable actions that undermine the cohesiveness of communities, make enemies of politicians or, ultimately, create less stable market conditions will not contribute to the long-term health of the corporation. Indeed, long term planning and long term impact is more important to corporations as they exist in perpetuity. Unlike natural persons, corporations will never die.  The profit motive is no longer the primary driving force behind corporate activity. There is little need for the state to take drastic steps to curtail corporations’ freedoms , because the behavioural imperative that the proposition side objects to is no longer the central priority of businesses operating in liberal democracies.  Another way to address this problem is to adopt the perspective of NPR columnist Bradley Smith. Smith correctly observes that states, including the USA, may grant rights to individuals and that those rights may be exercised under certain circumstances that the state prescribes. An individual can, for example, exercise a right to receive income support, or can obtain a right to drive a car by passing a driving test. Similarly, corporate persons have been granted a certain body of rights by the state [1] . The individuals that band together as a corporation have the right to limit their liability for the corporations losses; to have the corporation treated as a single person and to benefit (in the US at least) from similar rights to due process and freedom from discrimination.  Simply because a corporation is granted certain rights by the state that improve the efficiency of its operations and the financial position of its members, this does not mean that it should lose its right to speak freely.  In a liberal democracy, rights are not traded, hedged and swapped by states and citizens. Nor do constitutional rights exist in a hierarchy. Rights are incommensurate, because they can be applied in a wide variety of ways to defend a wide variety of causes. The right to speech are persuasion must always remain flexible because different audiences and different groups respond to different arguments. There is nothing dishonest in a company choosing the most persuasive manner of speech that it can find in order to defend its own interests.  [1] “Corporations are people, too”. National Public Radio online, 10 September 2009.

The value placed upon the right to free expression reflects its ability to enable the articulation of new, compelling and beneficial ideas, alongside damaging forms of speech. In liberal democratic societies, the potential inherent in free speech has always preserved it against limitation by legislation and- to a great extent- by social norms. A natural (as opposed to legal) person who makes statements that are openly offensive, or are inaccurate or misleading may also be able to articulate profound and useful ideas and observations. This is also true for certain groups formed by association – such as political parties.  However, corporations as they are popularly understood- as business entities- are constrained by law only to act in a certain way. In the United States, the individuals responsible for deciding on the actions of a corporation do so on the explicit understanding that they owe a particular duty to the individuals who make up that corporation. This legal duty takes the form of an obligation to run the business to maximise the value of the shares [1] in the business that each of its constituent investors holds. This duty has done a lot to promote investment in new businesses and to keep the reputation of established firms intact. It ensures that confidence in corporations is not undermined by speculation that they might be pursuing the wrong goals and it allows incompetent directors to be removed from their positions before they can harm investors' interests. However, this law also makes it necessary to limit the other rights that corporate persons might have access to.  The Unitarian commentator Tom Stites puts the situation bluntly. “Corporations express the collective investment goals of shareholders... Fiduciary responsibility confines all but closely held corporations to this singular goal. By shutting off other values to focus solely on pursuit of profit... corporations are by their nature immoral...” [2] In other words, the boards of directors of large corporations, in most circumstances will only be able to pursue a profit motive.  The type of personhood that money-making corporations utilise under American law is a personhood that comes complete with a very specific personality and set of goals. A corporate person that is formed by a collective of shareholders, each of whom have invested in the assets held by this individual, will be bound to engage profit motivated behaviour when it acts [3] . Executives and employees of the corporation, will find their jobs at risk if they choose to forgo profit-led behaviour in favour of directing a corporation to take actions informed by different social and economic principles.  An individual's right to free speech cannot not be abrogated in a broad fashion by a liberal government, in part because he is, to borrow an archaic phrase, “the captain of his own soul” – an individual with free will, able to be influenced by argument and to develop new ideas and perspectives upon the subject of his speech. A profit making corporation, however, is obliged to follow a single set of behavioural imperatives. If it is not attempting to maximise its profits, it will seek to protect the value of its interests and the efficiency of its operations. Where it is able to speak freely, a corporation will always use its right to expression for predictable ends. It is easy to envision scenarios in which corporate bodies will use the right to free speech to spread false or inaccurate information or to distort open debate if there was profit to be gained or protected.  Human behaviour is diverse and the ideas that we express can be altered by reason and the influence of argument. Through legal measures that were intended to protect shareholders investment in profit-making corporations, corporate behaviour has become limited, closed minded and immune to persuasive debate.  [1] Mills v Mills (1938) CLR 150  [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004

Limiting the rights of corporate persons would harm a wide range of organisations and limit the freedom of natural persons.  Public speech and exchanges of ideas lie at the root of political and social decision making in liberal democracies. Without a guarantee that expression will remain free and protected from government interference, the other rights discussed in the first amendment to the United States constitution would become impossible to exercise. The discussion and pursuit of religious ideas would be obstructed. The ability to challenge the actions and decisions of an incumbent government would be put at risk too [1] . Even the reporting of verifiably true information about the affairs of the state and its citizens- freedom of the press- would become hazardous without the toleration for inaccuracies and the concept of public interest that principled freedom of speech gives rise to.  In order for a right to be meaningful, however, it must be possible to exercise that right effectively. A right to free movement would be meaningless if the government that guaranteed it was unable to keep its citizens safe within their communities. Similarly, free speech in liberal democracies cannot be exercised effectively without the ability to disseminate speech among a large audience, and without the ability to co-operate with others in order to do so. Isolated oratory and passing on news by word-of-mouth are not effective ways of handling information.  Corporate entities have emerged as the most effective method of pooling individual resources in order to take full advantage of the benefits and freedoms of free speech and dialogue [2] . As the columnist George Will observes, in the USA “newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations- and most religious institutions- are corporate entities.” [3] The proposition side advocates depriving these bodies of many of their rights, simply because they benefit from a legal fiction that- itself- is designed to make co-operation and resources sharing among like-minded individuals- natural persons- more effective.  The difficulties presented by corporate campaigning would allow the state to restrain the publication of almost any coherent, publicly distributed form of speech that was critical of politicians or their parties. The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has noted that Jim McGovern's People's Rights Amendment, which most closely resembles the proposition's mechanism, would give legislators fiat to restrict the content of newspapers by defining it as “corporate” speech that did not benefit from the same set of rights as the expressed opinions of natural persons. This is a wider application of the rule that brought Citizens United and the BCRA before the supreme court [4] . As set out in the introductory case study, the BCRA allowed the Federal Election Commission to claim that a movie (produced by a right-wing PAC) critical of democratic presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton represented a misuse of private funds that could potentially give an unfair advantage to Clinton's opponents.  Under the sections of the BCRA that were struck down in 2012, and under the new laws that proposition wish to create, it would be possible for legislative bodies and the judiciary to target any and all forms of political communication produced by corporate entities without having to consider the objectives of those communications. In plainer terms, the state's power to ban and censor free speech would not be limited to statements made to lobby an electorate or to campaign in favour of a particular politician or policy.  Citizens who wished to avoid being caught up in this law would be obliged to share resources via archaic legal structures such as partnerships and co-operative agreements. Assemblies of citizens could be exposed to a great deal of financial risk in such a situation. Each member of a partnership would be forced to bear the debts and legal liabilities of the entire partnership. In addition, agreements concluded by the partnership would require the consent of every partner. This is a minor inconvenience when a partnership consists of two or three people, but it would be an impossible demand to fulfil for an organisation such as the communications giant ComCast, which has a share volume of 10.5 million (as of May 2012).  [1] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [2] “Infant and corporate rights”. The Economist, 07 May 2012.   [3] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [4] “The ‘People’s Rights Amendment’ and the media”. Volokh, E. The Volokh Conspiracy, 26 April 2012.

Uses of free speech motivated by personal gain should still be protected.  The primary objection of the supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to the decision taken in the Citizens United case seems to be that the objective of some corporations is usually the maximisation of the profits that their shareholders’ or owners receive [1] . Other considerations, we are told, take second place in the hierarchy of needs that corporations create for themselves [2] . Opponents of the Act and critics of the supreme court decision on Citizens United have attempt to claim that, because corporations’ behaviour is profit-led, corporate entities will use an unrestricted right to free speech to lie, cheat and manipulate the public [3] with the intention of boosting their returns. In other words, corporations will not use a right to free speech with the responsible aim of advocating for social change, but to enhance their own position as businesses or membership organisations.  In the sections of the amendments to the United States constitution that deal with the free speech rights of groups of individuals, no distinction is made between businesses, political parties, unions, or any other sort of gathering of citizens with similar interests and aims. As far as the core principles of the legal and governmental culture of the US are concerned [4] , all of these organisations are “corporate”.  The first amendment to the US constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therefore; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to government for redress of grievances.” [5]  The right to peaceably assemble draws no distinction between peaceful assembly for political purposes and peaceful assembly for other reasons. Discrimination of this type would only have served to undermine the wide range of freedoms that the Bill of Rights guaranteed. After all, people obtain power through acting collectively. Any limit on the forms that collective action can take is also a limit on the ability of groups within society to respond to powerful actors by leveraging strength of numbers. “Corporation”- despite its contemporary connotations- remains a very broad and generic term. Even a large corporation is still directed by the approval and consent of its members. Restrictions on corporate speech represent of violation of the individual’s right to free speech  Irrespective of the content of what an individual has to say, of the statements that he makes in both the public and the private spheres, liberal democratic constitutions (not just the US constitution) impose very few restrictions on that individual’s right to speak. An individual that makes baseless statements that harm the social standing and reputation of an individual may be subject to civil proceedings, but is extremely rare for individuals to be censored or criminalised merely for expressing ideas or opinions. Even if the individual is lying, advocating extreme political ideologies or acting in his own interests while claiming to serve those of others, legal responses to his behaviour will be relatively limited and costly to deploy.  Corporations, as noted above, are often driven by acquisitive and self-interested objectives. Individuals are just as capable of being motivated by monetary gain, and are just as capable of concealing this motive as corporations. However objectionable the use of free speech by natural persons has been in the past, states have always encountered significant protest and dissent when they have attempted to control the content of individual expression. As discussed in a previous debatepedia article [6] , the possibility that an individual, natural or legal, might abuse free speech, or might be driven solely by profit, does not cancel out that individual's free speech rights.  [1] “Town by town, Vermont tackles corporate personhood”. The Guardian, 05 March 2012.   [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] “Peculiar people”. The Economist, 24 March 2011.   [4] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [5] The Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.   [6] “Constitutional Rights of the Corporate Person”. Yale Law Journal. (1982) 91 Yale LJ 1641

The People’s Rights Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States constitution that attempts to address corporations’ increased freedom to engage in political campaigning. Referring to the First Amendment, section 2 of the PRA states “The word people, person or citizen as used in this constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State the United States or any foreign state.” [1]  The US Supreme Court justified striking down the BCRA by stating that “if the first amendment has any force, it prohibits congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” [2] However, the BCRA was never intended to limit US citizens' right to engage in effective and public political speech. The First Amendment to the constitution was not overridden by the BCRA. Newspapers remain effectively exempt from the powers granted to the FEC by the BCRA for this very reason, and, paraphrasing Justice Stevens’ opinion in Citizens United, it remains possible for the Supreme Court to challenge any attempt to legislate against freedom of the press – but such action has not yet been taken [3] .  Although ordinary citizens rely on corporate structures and company law to make the process of gathering and publishing publicly relevant information easier, corporate structures are also used to fulfil goals that are not related to the interests of the general public. Information released “in the public interest” is intended to be engaged with in a critical fashion. Voters receive information- even if it is biased- on the understanding that it represents an earnest commentary on the strengths and weaknesses and candidates' policies. Voters receive information during elections on the understanding that it relates directly to their interests and their welfare – to how they should vote.  The communications targeted by the BCRA, and by the proposition mechanism are those that seek to serve the interests of profit-led businesses by distorting political debate. The large raw materials business Pacific Lumber engaged in an abuse of direct democracy proceedings in Humboldt county, California, when it attempted to use a ballot initiative to remove the county's district attorney from office [4] . The attorney had brought a public suit [5] against Pacific Lumber after incompetent tree felling practices had caused flooding in the area. In plainer language, the corporation tried to use Humboldt County's electoral system to extricate itself from a court case brought by a state official. Such a bold and blatant move should not have been available to Pacific Lumber in the first place.  Balloting against Humboldt County's incumbent sheriff was conducted in a manner intended to mislead the public. The purpose underlying Pacific Lumber's actions was kept concealed from the citizens approached by the business's poll operatives. This runs contrary to the ideological objectives of ordinary political campaigning. Even inflexible ideologues that choose to hit the campaign trail will be acting to try and convince their audience that the normative content of their message has value and relevance for society as a whole. A campaign co-ordinated by a profit-led corporation will be geared only to serve the interests of that corporation.  Electioneering communications sponsored by corporations damage free speech by failing to contain any normative reasoning or content. They do not represent an honestly expressed view of the direction that society should take, of the policies that should be deployed to address flaws in society.  Far from limiting ordinary citizens’ access to the free speech protections that are a feature of liberal democracies, the proposition side are simply attempting to address an aspect of the on-going debate over the how best to protect the quality and vibrancy of free speech. It has always been necessary to ensure that free expression does not become a licence to exploit the credulous, but it is also important for democratic states to allow heterodox and unpopular ideas to be discussed as freely as those that receive widespread social approval. In this instance, legislation that was intended to achieve this objective in the USA has been exploited by corporations to use free expression to forward their own- very narrow- interests, usually under the guise of protecting others' essential freedoms and economic interests.  In cases such as this, where the marketplace of ideas has undergone a market failure, where legislation is being applied to scenarios that fall outside of the range of problems it was originally created to address, it is appropriate to reconsider the limits and purpose of freedom of expression. New legislation- including any proposed replacement for the BCRA- must take a case-specific approach to free speech issues due to the wide range of organisations that choose to define themselves as corporations. As discussed in the proposition side's substantive argument, the law must accord speech rights to corporations based on their stated goals, priorities and the groups whose interests they serve.  [1] “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations…” Joint resolution, United States House of Representatives.   [2] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [3] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [4] “Humboldt DA fights to keep job”. San Francisco Chronicle, 28 February 2004.   [5] “Humboldt County D.A. sues logging firm, alleging fraudulent practices”. Los Angeles Times, 26 February 2003.

Mehanna clearly expressed sympathy with enemies of the US. His actions since his return from Yemen put the lie to the idea that he wished to pursue legal training and suggest a rather more explicitly jihadi purpose. He has published documentation that explicitly encourages Jihad in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen where, as he knew, the US and her troops would be the target of that holy war. As proposition has pointed out, we live in an age where the musings of an individual can be broadcast a great deal further than an eighteenth century pamphlet. His publications gave not only practical suggestions for the participation of others but also a moral justification and all from inside ‘the Great Satan’ – the actions of fifth columnists and traitors through the ages.

Innocent until proven Muslim  Judging people by their actions rather than what they may or may not have been thinking is a fairly fundamental tenet of liberty and seems to have been thrown aside with casual disregard in this case [i] . There needs to have been a goal in place for this to meaningfully be described as a conspiracy, there was not; and demonstrably not a goal of murdering Americans overseas, which he didn’t even mention.  Instead the court has conflated expressing an opinion about national policy – an entirely legitimate activity according to both the first amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”) [ii] and both statute and case law. As Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, declared: “It’s official. There is a Muslim exception to the First Amendment.” [iii]  A huge amount of the commentary on this verdict, and the subsequent sentence, has focused on the belief that Mehanna was found guilty because of his religion [iv] [v] [vi] . Whatever the case serious concern has been expressed by jurors, Islamic groups and civil liberties organisations.  Tarek Mehanna did not justify, take part in, orchestrate, fund, supply, encourage or plan an attack on US personnel. There is no case to answer.  [i] This has not just been the case in the US. Attempts to mark online comment as seditious is a global phenomenon. Here’s an example from India .  [ii] ‘Amendment I’, Cornell University Law School,   [iii] Vennochi, Joan, ‘Tarek Mehanna case puts First Amendment on trial’, The Boston Globe, 19 April 2012,   [iv] Truth Dig. Chris Hedges. First They Came For The Muslims. 16 April 2012.  [v] Information Clearing House. Roqayah Chamseddin. And Then They Came For The Muslims. April 15 2012.  [vi] The Huffington Post. Rachel Levinson-Waldman. The Narrowing of Tarek Mehanna’s Liberties has Consequences for Us All. 15 May 2012.

None of those mentioned have travelled to Yemen in pursuit of training, presumably to be followed by participation in, the Jihad. They have not posted online 37 ways to be involved in one. They haven’t identified themselves as being more supportive of Muslims, regardless of their nationality, than of their fellow countrymen in general, and those in uniform in particular. The cases are quite different.

One man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.  Nobody is suggesting that Mehanna planted a bomb – or even attempted to. His crime, if it deserves such a word is to hold an opinion and to have expressed it. That opinion was that current American military policy in the Muslim world is wrong and to suggest that those living there should be opposition to the major powers of the age attempting to impose their will, through force of arms, on a people in a different country.  Such an opinion is not only shared by many – if not a majority – of commentators in the West but could easily have been voiced by Washington, Jefferson or Adams [i] . There are two fundamental differences between Mehanna and the Founding Fathers: firstly they went further and called for violent opposition, secondly they were wealthy and white. It may be tempting to argue, “But wait, they were also Americans” – no they weren’t they were subjects of the British Crown. One might be tempted to argue that they were born in North America, fine but Mehanna is a faithful son of Islam – like Washington, simply defending his birth right.  Rather than recognising the similarities [ii] a court, sitting not that far from Concorde, site of the first battle of the American Revolutionary War, decided to tear up the Declaration of Independence, or at least its spirit and imprison a young man for the ideas in his head. Although the analogy with America’s fight for independence from Britain may seem far-fetched, it provided the core of Mehanna’s speech [iii] at his sentencing hearing although, apparently, too little affect.  [i] To take one example, here’s a review of American Insurgents, American Patriots. Found here .  [ii] Daily Mail (AP). Al Qaeda Terrorist from Wealthy Boston suburb given standing ovation by family as he starts 18-year prison sentence. 13 April 2012.  [iii] Mehanna, Tarek, ‘Tarek’s powerful sentencing statement’, 12 April 2012,

Prop’s argument is an intellectual sleight of hand. Ignoring the fact that the Founding Fathers and Islamic extremists are fighting for diametrically opposed goals (a reactionary theocracy versus a revolutionary democracy) they are doing so in a different world. A world where information and perception are tools of war and where the structure of the nation-state has changed so dramatically that the expectations of citizens of a particular nation are wholly different from those of the late seventeen-hundreds [i] . The simple reality is that Mehanna sided with people who would, quite happily, murder his neighbors – regardless of their views on US foreign policy.  [i] Fox News Website. Mark Dubowitz. The Real Terror War is on the Internet. 16 March 2010.

This is no different than political comment, etc.  Scholars, commentators and satirists [i] have pointed out the hypocrisy of current US strategy in the Islamic world. They have also pointed out that the only rational response to overwhelming American military superiority in terms of hardware is the kind of warfare being undertaken by insurgents from Bagdad to Kabul. None of them are in prison.  Mainstream politicians have called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops and the claims emanating from the right of the Republican Party that doing so ‘gives succour to America’s enemies’ now sounds as shrill as they do bizarre. Yet none of them are in prison.  Ministers of God, political activists and intellectuals have raised the issue of the loss of life among civilians in the Muslim world and the questionable justification of those losses on the grounds of national security. And yet they remain at liberty.  America’s allies around the world have questioned the continued presence of US troops in the region and, in many cases, withdrawn their own - and–if removing troops from the fight is not aiding the enemy, it would be difficult to imagine what might be. Despite this, leaders of these nations are honoured guests when they visit the Whitehouse.  There may well be those on the American Right who would happily imprison all of these groups but the reality is that they remain at large. For the sake of consistency, if nothing else, Tarek Mehanna should join them [ii] .  [i] The Christian Science Monitor. Sahar Aziz. Punishing Muslims for free speech only helps Al Qaeda. 19 April 2012.  [ii] The Guardian. Ross Caoputi. Tarek Mehanna: Punished for speaking truth to power. 16 April 2012.

It is an interesting argument to suggest that the suppression of Mehanna’s rights is okay because it has not been as sweeping as the generalised internment of Japanese Americans or the insanity of the McCarthy trials. Op is basically arguing, “Look, it could have been far more brutal, so count yourselves lucky.” One cannot help but suspect that comes as very small consolation to Mehanna in his prison cell. We should remember that the United States is not at war as was the case in World War II, congress has not declared war since 1945, nor even is the United States in a struggle with a peer competitor as during World War II rather it is at most fighting a disparate band of terrorists, hardly a thread that justifies such large violations of rights. [i]  [i] Bailey, Ronald, ‘How Scared of Terrorism Should You Be?’, reason.com, 6 September 2011,

Warfare hasn’t changed because it is now a battle between creeds – that has often been the case in the past. The asymmetric warfare to which op refers is a direct result of the military hegemony of the US. To confuse criticism of taking a military approach – that bombs are not the answer in a battle of ideas – with material support for the other side hands them a victory. It’s worth remembering that the US won the battle of ideas with the Soviet Union by demonstrating its virtues, as the body count increases in the foray with Islam, attitudes are hardening on both sides as we see the worst of both.  To take the one example given by Op, 39 ways to participate in Jihad – and this was at the heart of the prosecution. Google the term and you’ll come up with 590,000 returns, including full English translations and comment from respected scholars and journalists [i] .  It is impossible to protect the principles of liberty and democracy by locking people up for expressing their opinions. As the UK’s former Lord Chief Justice Woolf, pointed out, it is inconceivable that terrorist acts could pose a danger to nation states comparable to WWII and yet the response of many governments has been to go further in the removal of basic rights than was the case during that conflict.  [i] The New York Review of Books. David Cole. 39 ways to Limit Freedom of Speech. 19 April 2012.

‘Providing support’ must be considered to relate to implied moral support and justification  There is far more to aiding an enemy of the state than supplying them with armaments or funding. Propagandists and other saboteurs of the mind [i] have always been seen as a very real threat to national security, especially in times of war. To present the actions of Tarek Mehanna as anything other than endorsing and giving encouragement to those seeking to harm US personnel overseas takes an unusually determined form of niaivity.  He may have stopped short of posting instructions for bomb making online but he expressly stated that Muslims should resist the invasion of their lands by non-Muslim invaders. Proposition has been strangely silent on how, exactly, that could be done without the use of an AK47 or an IED.  Mehanna’s remarks are clearly a call to take up arms against US troops, presumably with the intention of killing them. That is, by definition, to be part of a conspiracy, along with his readers, to kill US citizens overseas – the crime with which he was charged and convicted.  [i] Lawfare. Benjamin Wittes. Peter Margulies Responds to David Cole. 21 April 2012.

Views of free speech in time of war (Japanese internment, American Communist party, etc.)  Nations act to defend themselves in times of war. Frequently those actions do not represent the highest ideals against which that nation may wish to be judged but they are an unpleasant reality of survival. It is demonstrably true that there have been Jihadi cells in western nations and that Western troops are at risk from their allies and enemies in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Stopping them before they act seems vastly preferable to the deaths of dozens or hundreds of civilians and military personnel.  America’s actions against Japanese civilians in WWII or Communist sympathizers during the Cold War may fall short of the ideals one might hope for but they ensured the survival of those ideals against the threats posed firstly by Nazism and then by Communism. In the face of Islamofascism, the response of governments in the West has been comparatively restrained when set alongside those earlier periods.  However, where there is a demonstrable threat to a nations civilian or military personnel, it would be a dereliction of duty not to take action. Mehanna’s conviction and imprisonment was a relatively modest act considering the threat – and far more humane than what has been meted out in return by those he supported against US and other citizens overseas – without the niceties of due process or the outrage of the liberal press.

Differing nature of war (not essays against king or country but about creeds)  In an unusual show of unity, most analysts are agreed that the wars of the 21st century will be markedly different from those that went before [i] . Clashes will be between civilisations and global perspectives fought with comparatively scant regard to national boundaries. Within this framework, the groups identified, broadly, as ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’ [ii] seem to be lining up as the two main players – although this seems to be by default in the case of the West. In this regard, at least, Bush jr. was absolutely spot on with his ‘with us or against us’ assessment of the nature of modern conflict.  Tarek Mehanna’s publications aren’t idle musings on political philosophy, they are practical suggestions about how his readers can involve themselves in a war against the US and its allies – advice given in his translation of 39 Ways to Participate in Jihad - a war between a sexist, reactionary, mediaeval theocratic mindset and those peoples who seek to defend the liberal and democratic principles of the Enlightenment. One of the reasons highlighted by the prosecution was that Mehanna and others like him don’t need to recruit a regiment or resource a battalion. The Terrorist atrocities that have shaken the world in recent years, 9.11, 7.7, Madrid and the rest, have involved in total a few dozen people. One inspirational individual, as the judge in this case noted, is quite capable of creating bloodshed and murder with a very small following.  Mehanna was and remains in no doubt about what side he is on. Prop’s only argument seems to be that he wasn’t a very effective agent. In response to which; firstly, thank God and, secondly, it would be an odd way to fight a war to wait until a massacre was committed before doing anything about it.  [i] Neumayer, Eric and Plümper, Thomas (2009) International terrorism and the clash of  civilizations. British journal of political science, 39 (4). pp. 711-734.  [ii] Although politicians have been at pains to stress that the battle with Islam per se many scholars have used the terms. This view was codified in Samuel P. Huntington’s book Clash of Civilisation in 1993. An article that preceded its publication (Foreign Affairs. Samuel Huntington. Clash of Civilizations? Summer 1993) can be found here .

Tarek Mehanna was engaged in promoting a political viewpoint that may not be shared by many but is certainly shared by some. Among them other American citizens [i] . When did promoting a viewpoint in the land of free speech become a crime? While we may not like that a U.S. citizen sympathises with the objective of removing US soldiers from Afghanistan and believes this enough that he considers that military resistance may be necessary to get the Americans out it is not the case that this moral support provides physical support for such attacks, and it is unlikely that he would even have provided inspiration. Mehanna was lynched, he was a scapegoat created out of the paranoia created partly by events and partly by the actions of a US administration with a point to prove.  [i] Guardian. Ibid.

Quite different claims are made about the origin of the authority of the other thinkers prop mentions. Their authority derives from the contents of their works whereas that of the prophets derives from a supreme being. To question their words is, therefore, to question the power and judgement of the supreme being to establish that authority in the first place. As a result, it is not ‘special pleading’ but an entirely different premise underpinning the ideas that are being profaned. Any attack on that authority starts to undermine the whole religion and its beliefs which is different from secular authors where their works are simply the starting point of a discourse.  It should also not surprise us that politicians act when a religious group is attacked but not as a result misrepresentation of scientific data; religions are large interest groups who may effect a future election. It is the politician’s job to decide whether he needs to take action to placate that group.

Special pleading  Why are religious creeds given special license to block others freedom of expression? We live in a world of laws, supported by evidence on the basis of what can be perceived in the world around us. This applies in the fields of politics, law, science and others. Only when it comes to religion (and, possibly national identity) do we tolerate arguments made on the basis of unproven belief. There is of course a role for fantasy in life but protests as a result of people pointing out that it is fantasy seems to be taking things a little far.  Nobody appears to be suggesting that the film Innocence of Muslims was anything more than a badly made, ill-conceived, puerile bit of adolescent vitriol. By any reasonable scale it pales into insignificance compared with, for example, blowing up embassies or issuing death threats against foreign nationals [i] .  Were politicians to take action to urge the blocking of free speech on the rather more significant reasons for offence of misrepresentation of scientific data, libel, corruption of legal evidence or the, absolutely routine, misrepresentation of a political position, as President Obama did when calling Google, [ii] they would be written off as a lunatic. However, dress the idea up in a cassock and everyone seems to think that there is a meaningful issue to be discussed. There is no definable difference between saying something inaccurate or (in this case) impolitic about Nero, Plato, Sejong, Al’Khwarizmi or any other historical figure than about Christ, Mohammed or Moses other than the fact that the followers of the last three are more likely to resort to violence. Since when did that become a moral argument?  [i] Bermuda Sun. Obama on Religion. 28 September 2012.  [ii] Greenwald, Glenn, ‘Conservatives, Democrats and the convenience of denouncing free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 16 September 2012,

The fact that religious thought tends to be subverted to defend the status quo is hardly a compelling argument as the same can be said for almost all forms of thought. There is a natural backlash from vested interests against any innovation and religion should not be blamed for having this same tendency. We should however not rule out the need to take a moral approach to some things for example; using stem cells might have huge medical benefits but it still needs to be considered whether it is morally right.

A one way street  Religion is at the heart of people’s identities and is based upon belief rather than reason so it is not surprising that religious groups sometimes take offence both quickly and easily. While political ideologies, or in certain scientific theories, may be believed as feverently religion by some with these beliefs come an acceptance that there are contrary opinions and a need to reason to persuade. This leaves open the possibility that they can be persuaded through reason that they are wrong. The stakes involved are very different, an eternity in Hell versus losing the next election. A political believer can afford to be malleable in a way a religious believer cant.  Increasingly religious groups offense seems to lead to threats of, or actual, violence [i] , the concerted apologies of elected representatives around the world and a total loss of any sense of proportion. If something is offensive to Christians or Muslims then, apparently, other considerations have to take a back seat. Whether it’s Christian homophobia in the Deep South or Islamic Xenophobia in the Middle East, offensiveness is a line that cannot be crossed.  Or, at least, it cannot be crossed in one direction.  For a group of creeds that are so quick to take offence, those religious groups that are the first to call foul seem happy enough to dole it out in the other direction. Even the basic tenets of the major faiths, say the eternal reality of Hell for non-believers [ii] , could be seen as offensive by those judged worth of being tortured for all eternity simply for getting on with their lives.  The very predicate of extreme faith – that everybody else lacks a moral compass and is going to suffer tortures for eternity as a result – is fairly offensive – and palpably untrue [iii] - by any standard. Once the discussion moves on to specifics, the insults become more pointed; perverts, fornicators, sinners and murderers (homosexuals, unmarried couples, divorcees and anyone involved with abortion, respectively). Their wrath isn’t limited to individuals, entire nations can be written off as corrupt and evil and damned to an eternity of suffering in the blink of an eye and for little apparent reason. In fact no reason, per se, at all.  If offensive statements are to be prohibited, then surely it should be a general rule. Many secularists find it offensive that theists of all stripes assume that there can be no morality without divine instruction, so that could be the first set of offensive comments to go, closely followed by religious opinions on what people should do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and the doctrines of salvation by faith.  Any other position would be too inconsistent to be worth much consideration.  [i] Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide. Vexen Crabtree. 31 August 2009.  [ii] Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Paragraphs 1033 – 1037.  [iii] The Daily Telegraph. Atheists ‘just as ethical as churchgoers’. 9 February 2010.

It is a massive over-generalisation to suggest a link between those who take offence from blasphemous or sacrilegious statements and violence [i] . Furthermore within the predicates of religious thought an offence against god has to be of a magnitude different from one against a temporal power – to question that basic fact is to question religions being religious; it’s nonsensical. Most religions claim a total, but self-supporting, basis for their concept of truth. It is all true or none of it is; it’s nonsensical to believe in an omniscient being who is only one view among many.  However, contrasting those traditions with the European Enlightenment tradition – and, apparently, criticising them for not sharing its values is not only contrary but hypocritical – the basis of the offence is the conflict between the two traditions.  [i] Greenboro News and Record. Anti-abortion violence negate pro-life goals. 11 October 1998.

Stifling progress and the right of others  The particular subjects areas often chosen by theists to find offensive make for an interesting list;  Freedom of expression,  The rule of law,  Scientific progress,  Medical progress,  Artistic expression  To name but a few. There are remarkably few areas of human progress and development – intellectual or societal – that have not caused ‘offence’ in some religious community somewhere. The best known is of course the Catholic Church’s forcing Galileo to recant his research in the 17th century. There is no need to seek out obscure fanatics for this purpose, mainstream religious figures seem to genuinely believe that the equality of women is still a difficult issue. To take just one example, in 2012 the supposedly moderate and progressive Anglican Communion is still unsure as to whether the ability to be a senior manager should be determined on the basis of somebody’s gender [i] . With the exception of a handful that are in thrall to religious dominance, every nation state, company, charity, university and scholarly discipline has resolved this question and found itself better as a result. Most religions haven’t even started the process. Now that’s offensive.  [i] BBC Website. Trevor Timpson. Women bishops: Anglicans still unsure over new wording. 17 September 2012.

It certainly doesn’t prove the point, it does however highlight one. As a result of religious teaching the majority of people have, at different points in history, been certain that;  The Earth was flat,  The Earth, or even a particular point on the earth, was the centre of the universe,  The Earth is less than six thousand years old,  Certain races were not human [i]  Women were created inferior to men  If ever evidence were needed that the majority are frequently and alarmingly wrong, then religion provides it in abundance.  [i] For example the Christian concept of Polygenism – the notion that the white races were descended from Adam and others not – has had several outings during history. Among other things it has been used to justify slavery, apartheid and imperialism.

Who is to judge when an expression has a ‘point’? In the cases cited by Opposition, the ‘point’, however inexpertly made, seems to have been to demonstrate the many flaws and contradictions within the Koran. To suggest that demonstrating that one of the world’s major religions – with one and a half billion followers and several states framing their legal system on the basis of its dictates – is riddled with contradictions and that its modern manifestation bears little resemblance to the original protestations of the prophet hardly seems pointless. Indeed much of the offence that was taken seems to have been caused by the very fact that the film did have a point.

Realpolitik  Freedom of expression should be exercised with care. Everyone who exercises this right has to remember that there are consequences of their actions. The Innocence of Muslims is a good example of this. Dropping explosive comments or artworks into situations [i] that are already fraught with historical tension – sectarian divisions in Europe, religious tensions in the Middle East, the interwoven politico-religious stresses of the United States – should not be done without very good cause. Those who chose to exercise their freedom of expression in this case are at least partially responsible for the protests, and any injuries, that resulted.  It should be recognised that there need to be curbs on the offensive use of freedom of expression in order to prevent the consequences that may result from such expression. National interests dictate that states should take into account religious sensitivities in order to avoid unnecessary conflict.  [i] The Guardian Film Blog. Peter Bradshaw. Innocence of Muslims: a dark demonstration of the power of film. 17 September 2012.

The interests of the majority  Although it may not prove the issue, it is certainly worth being aware of the fact that when referring to “theists”, proposition is talking about the overwhelming majority of the world’s population and then attempting to portray a small, fundamentalist minority as typical. Even talking mostly secular China into account – where determining religious affiliation is fantastically complicated – fewer than one seventh of the population of the planet profess no religious faith. A probable, although unproven, majority take their religion for granted but see it as no obstacle to free speech.  There is no need to indulge in majoritarian assumptions to accept the basic principal that the opinions of the overwhelming majority are at least worth treating with some respect. After all, with odds of 7:1 against, even the most hardened, fire-breathing of secularists would have to concede that they might have a point. For the rest of humanity, simple experience suggests that avoiding religious groups offending each other is a sensible way of avoiding wars [i] . So whether it’s an odds game for secularists or just altruistic self-interest for others not causing offence would seem to be the more sensible option.  [i] Wikpedia. Religious wars.

Why cause offence to no purpose?  The important issue here is the outcome. In most imaginable instances the person or group causing the offence has nothing to gain. If people of faith find things offensive in a way that a comparable devotee of Marx or Adam Smith does not, why cause that offence? We don’t wander around pointing out that people are ugly or fat – not because it isn’t true but because there is no reason to cause offence except in extreme circumstances [i] .  The Innocence of Muslims film is a perfect example; what was its point? As a conversion tool it seems utterly useless. It is hardly setting out detailed theological arguments, it doesn’t seem to be trying to make a point. It’s only apparent function seems to be to cause hurt and offence [ii] .  The idea that causing offence to some purpose may be an unavoidable bi-product of life would be one thing but in many cases there appears to be an intention to offend and if this is the case then it should be stopped.  Even where there is another purpose in mind, why not avoid causing offence wherever possible. In no other area of life would we comment of act in a way that may cause offence unless there was great need. If the creators of Innocence of Muslims wanted to point out failings in Islam then they could have had a reasoned documentary considering and weighing up evidence like Thomas Holland’s book ‘In the Shadow of the Sword’. [iii] Freedom of expression is not there to allow anyone to offend whoever they please.  Religious sensibilities should have a block on free expression in the same way other sensibilities do – in the usual course of events, they’re taken into account. Without great cause nobody would criticize troops at a veteran’s event or deliver a broadside against young people at a gathering of students. In the same way, should religious sensibilities, in and of themselves, be a block to freedom of speech? Yes. All other things being equal, should religious sensibilities be respected? Yes, of course.  [i] BBC material hosted on Youtube. Conversation between Jonathan Miller and Daniel Dennett. The Atheist Tapes.  [ii] Omid Safi. Religion News. What would Mohammed do? 12 September 2012.  [iii] Holland, Tom, In the Shadow of the Sword, Little Brown, 2012,

Realpolitik is not a reason to compromise our ideals. Comments and artworks about “explosive situations” are a fundamental part of free expression. Opposition seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that free-expression is okay, so long as nobody minds. If nobody objects to it, there’s no need to have a right to do it. In short we wither accept freedom of expression or not; if there is freedom of expression then we must be consistent and defend the freedom for everyone.

The Opposition is perfectly happy to be attacked for making life easier for people with disabilities by taking down barriers that separate them from the wider population. There a parts of any community that prefer to do things in a certain way, however governments rarely commit to guaranteeing all preferences, instead they guarantee a basic level of service provision and then offer choice where possible and affordable. This is true in education and welfare right through to national defense – militaries, except the US, tend to specialise and rely on allies for other operations.

Braille should be offered the same protection as minority languages.  The issue of the protection of minority languages is a difficult one for most governments as it is usually argued that most speakers of such languages also make use of the dominant language and, where they don’t, they should learn for their own good. For example French speakers in Canada must also learn English. [i] However, there are senses and experiences that are uniquely held within a community and expressed within those languages. In many ways Braille functions in similar ways, a shared experience between those who read it, a bond between users and, for the most part, denied to outsiders. By its nature, it is tactile and speaks in a way that is not true of audiobooks prepared for a wider market. In purely practical terms there is relatively little difference between reading speeds in Braille and listening to audiobooks (about 130 against 150 wpm). [ii] Learning Braille also has immense practical benefits, not least of which is being employable, 90% of those who are braille literate are employed compared to 33% of blind people who are braille illiterate. [iii]  It seems simply strange to insist that those who have already lost one form of access to the wider world – indeed the method most widely used in that world – should be denied another simply because it is deemed to be cheaper, easier or ‘better for them’. Indeed such an action is deeply redolent of the debate over minority languages. Although not all of the blind community prefers to use Braille, many of them do and that would seem sufficient reason to respect it as an important way in which they interact with the world, and receive and impart ideas – the twin pillars of free speech [iv] .  [i] Burnaby, Barbara J., ‘Language Policy’, The Canadian Encyclopedia, 1996,   [ii] Reading Braille. RIDB Crenwick Centre.  [iii] Ouellette, Matthew David, ‘Low Cost, Compact Braille Printing Head For Use in Handheld Braille Transcribing Device’, Mechanical Engineering Master's Theses. Paper 41. p.2   [iv] Guidelines on the use of minority languages in the broadcast media. Minority Rights Group International.

It is not a case of insisting that there are other or better options; there are other or better options. Equally, there is no need to ‘predict’ the death of the physical book; it is dying. Increasingly specialist publishers, such as Dorchester Publishing which focuses on paperbacks, [i] will only produce e-books as it cuts out the actual cost of printing and, therefore, the opportunity cost of remaindered copies.  [i] Trachtenberg, Jeffrey A., Mass Paperback Publisher Goes All Digital’, The Wall Street Journal, 6 August 2010,

Free speech is as much about being able to receive the ideas of others as it is about expressing one’s own.  We know from the work of educational psychologists that different people acquire knowledge in different ways. For example, some sighted language learners learn more effectively visually, other aurally. The evidence mentioned in the introduction suggests that this is no less true for blind students with those without access to Braille scoring less well in exams than those with it.  This becomes an issue of free speech when by compelling people to acquire information in a certain way means that they either have less access to that information or less chance of effectively digesting it. For those for whom are proficient Braille is their preferred medium, [i] despite there being alternatives for communication [ii] , it is their only medium for text, and is useful for using computers which may use a braille display. [iii]  However, even if this were just a matter of preference, it would be odd not to treat this as a free speech issue; allowing people access to information in a way that is not only possible but comfortable and convenient is at the heart of most forms of information distribution. A majority of people receive their news online but newspapers still exist because some people prefer them. It would be possible for readers to access information via microfiche but would be so inconvenient that it is rarely used.  It surely makes sense to see new delivery systems for information as an opportunity to expand, not reduce, the methods available for both imparting and receiving information.  [i] ‘Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking and Technology Did You Know?’, University of Washington, 2000,   [ii] Deafblinduk.org.uk. Types of Communication.  [iii] Singh, Reeta, ‘Blind Handicapped Vs. Technology: How do Blind People use Computers?’, International Journal of Scientific &amp; Engineering Research, Vol. 3, Issue 4, April 2012,

Free speech may well be about the ability to receive ideas as well as express them but in neither case is it about how those ideas are expressed or received. To suggest that a state that refuses to provide a movie studio to any of its citizens who requests one is somehow suppressing their right of free expression would clearly be ridiculous. The state has a duty to guarantee the right, not the methodology.

The attacks on Braille are part of a wider move against the physical book.  The death of the book has been predicted with virtually every technological innovation and yet, it remains one of the most widespread and recognised means of communication in the world, with physical book sales representing about 80% of total book sales [i] . There are many reasons for this, its communicability, its physicality, it history and associations. Whatever the reasons for its enduring success, it remains one of the great design achievements of humanity as a species, comfortably alongside the wheel, the screw and cash.  Whatever the reason for this enduring success, it has it and the latest set of doomsayers may well go the way of the rest. Perhaps the greatest reason for its enduring success is that the book is silent. The reader gives voice to characters and charts their own way through fiction or selects their own phrases for emphasis in non-fiction.  There is nobody – actor or director – between the reader and the author.  If that applies to the printed word it applies equally or more to Braille. It is notable that the decline in braille literacy has led to a decline in poetry and literature output by the blind community. [ii] In turn, it is surely part of the author’s right to speak freely that they speak directly to their reader.  [i] Ebooks Popularity is Rewriting Sales History. Carol Memmet. 5 September 2011. USA Today.  [ii] Ouellette, Matthew David, ‘Low Cost, Compact Braille Printing Head For Use in Handheld Braille Transcribing Device’, Mechanical Engineering Master's Theses. Paper 41. p.2

All of that may well be true, however it does not make the two approaches mutually exclusive. Demonstrating that digital is good does not make analogue bad. Attacks on libraries have been driven more by austerity cuts, that are forcing 20% of the staff at Library and Archives Canada to go, [i] and the situation is similar in other countries such as the UK, [ii] than by the diminishing popularity of the book in particular or libraries in general. Indeed, the book has never been more popular as the ranks of those who like digital formats have been swelled by the digital natives of the Internet age.  [i] CBC News, ‘Federal libraries, archives shutting down’, CBC, 2 May 2012,   [ii] Hall, James, ‘Scale of library cut-backs revealed’, The Telegraph, 16 March 2012,

The suggestion that seven million dollars is an excessive expenditure on a resource for 836,000 is extortionate is simply nonsense. That’s a little over eight dollars a head, hardly likely to break the bank. To say that a government is not discouraging the use of something by making it harder to access is simply untrue. Of course if a resource is harder or more expensive to access, people will be discouraged from using it.

If the information is accessible in another format, it is wrong to claim that this is an issue of free speech.  To argue that this is a matter of the infringement of the right to free speech is not only wrong but offensive to those who have had that right genuinely curtailed. A stifling of free speech is about cutting off people’s access to ideas, denying them the right to take those ideas and present them to others. The slow, natural death of Braille does not do that. Fewer than one in ten blind children now learn Braille [i] . Those who wish to continue to use Braille can do so just as those who prefer to write a letter rather than send an email can do so. Both groups however, accept that it is likely to become more expensive and exclude them from the rest of society as others adapt and new technologies become the norm.  The information and ideas are there, they are available in a format that is available, even if it is not the format of absolute preference. The technology is available, many prefer it, those who don’t are free not to use it.  [i] “The Death of Braille” – Appropriate or Ominous? Neatorama.com. 26 February 2010.

Readers of all kinds are adapting to books being produced in new formats, publishers need to respond to this decline.  The current shift in publishing is unlike any other that has gone before, e-books are not like the TV, the Record player or the radio as all of these could only reproduce books in heavily edited form. The change is shown by ebook sales having outperformed printed book sales on amazon in the UK for the first time. [i] Against braille it is audio formats that are the biggest threat, the tape machine, the Walkman, the CD, Mp3, Mp4 and so on. All of these can reproduce books, unedited, in a format that allows the listener to proceed at their own pace, jump back and forwards and so on – just as a book does.  Earlier technologies had problems with quality, and each in turn was initially expensive. As they became more commonplace, quality improved and the price fell. Both of these have now coincided to create technologies that allow the listener the ultimate convenience.  Returning to the example given in the introduction, the CNIB library. Canada is a big country and Braille books are cumbersome. How much easier to email someone an MPEG, which they can have within seconds.  The digital age offers huge benefits to all but none more so than to those with sensory impairments. Its possibilities really are only bounded by our imagination.  [i] Malik, Shiv, ‘Kindle ebooksales have overtaken Amazon print sales, says book seller’, The Guardian, 6 August 2012,

It is not a case of insisting that there are other or better options; there are other or better options. Equally, there is no need to ‘predict’ the death of the physical book; it is dying. Increasingly specialist publishers, such as Dorchester Publishing  The introduction makes reference to the seventy-two volume ‘pocket’ dictionary. It’s an excellent example. [i] With printed text, many previously cumbersome physical books – the Complete OED, the Encyclopaedia Britannica and others – are now only available in digital format. [ii]  Nobody is suggesting banning Braille or even discouraging it, simply following the possibilities offered by technology for easier, cheaper and more portable formats. [iii]  If there were a huge market for Braille it would survive but clearly enough people are happy with other formats for it to require subsidy and support. This means, inevitably, that the taxpayer will end up footing the bill despite there being cheaper alternatives that are increasingly popular.  As with any technological change – or any major societal change for that matter – there are those who will find that change easy and others who will find it more difficult. For those who find it impossible – such as deaf and blind students – clearly other alternatives need to be provided but it seems sensible to look to the technologies of the future to fulfil those needs rather than those of the past.  [i] Engelhart, Katie, ‘The importance of Braille literacy’, Free Speech Debate, 6 July 2012,   [ii] Britannica Editors, ‘Britannica’s Digital Milestones’, Encyclopaedia Britannica Blog, 13 March 2012,   [iii] Listening To Braille. Rachel Aviv. New York Times. 30 December 2009

This is a little reminiscent of Anatole France’s comment that “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” [i] Those who feel uncomfortable with a method of delivery are less likely to use it and are therefore excluded, in part at least, from information delivered in that format. To further exclude a group who are already denied some graphical representations of information another form of delivery does exclude them and limit their ability to speak freely as they are denied the information that is its root.  Additionally, oppositions argument only works were there is real action to take up new technologies rather than letting Braille die off without investing in replacement technologies, which has been seen in several jurisdictions including India [ii] .  [i] McBride, Nicholas J., ‘The Importance of Law’, in Letters to a Law Student, 2010,   [ii] Government turns blind eye to Braille Press. Rohit, P.S. The Times of India. 4 May 2012.

It all boils down to personal action. People who act embarrassingly in parties should not be surprised that they can be filmed. Likewise, the ‘Star Wars kid’ left the copy of a video in his high school’s film studio where it was found by other teenagers. Even people who become victims of revenge porn at the very beginning were not acting according with good judgement because they themselves organised sexual acts to be filmed or photographed and then given to other people, whom they could have not even known well. Expressing bad judgement does not incur responsibilities on other people and companies to provide you with rights, when other people are doing nothing illegal by re-posting your public material or your public actions.  Moreover, in cases of potential violation of laws, legislation can still be enacted without any kind of Right to be forgotten - California has passed a law combatting revenge porn [9]. It might not be perfect but that is because the issue is pretty novel and in time we’ll learn to deal with it better.

People need protection against harmful information posted by others  People cannot control information that others post about them, for instance embarrassing photos from parties. Even if the original source came from people themselves, they cannot delete this information if it has been shared by other people on their social media channels. For example, Ghyslain Raza’s video of himself goofing around with a golf stick pretending to be in Star Wars, was uploaded by his classmates without his consent [6]. While the video went viral without Ghyslain being able to delete all of its appearances at different sites, he himself suffered merciless bullying online and in real life [7].  There even are people who exploit people’s inability to delete embarrassing content relating to them online. ‘Revenge porn’, which is uploading private material of sexual nature of ex-partners online in an effort to humiliate them, is especially hard to delete and prosecute [8]. Since embarrassing information can end up online without a person’s consent and is very difficult to delete using current policy measures, the right to be forgotten is the only way to help these people.

It is not true that people cannot manage consequences from their action online. It might only seem so but that is because the issues around personal data have emerged relatively recently, so we are still learning to deal with them. Individuals are learning how to manage their personal data online responsibly to make sure such humiliating situations do not occur. There are resources and programmes on how to talk to children about using the internet and other digital devices, including sexting, responsibly [11]. The same way, there are and should be calls for the society to be considerate towards victims of personal data abuse and be less abusive online.

It is unfair for people to suffer for silly past mistakes  People make silly mistakes, especially when they are young. The age from which you can join Facebook is 13 and pretty much anyone can post videos to Youtube, run a blog or post comments. It is then no surprise that people can leave unflattering information about themselves that at that moment they considered to be worth posting. However, this is just a one-sided representation of a person, because many good things cannot be well represented online, e.g. nobody posts a video of oneself working hard.  Nevertheless, this one-sided representation can have very damaging consequences to a person. For instance, a well-known case is of Stacy Snyder who was refused a teaching certificate by her university because of a picture of her as a drunken pirate on myspace.com, and not because she was a bad student [4]. More importantly, current measures to delete information might not be enough, as digital information stays in internet archives, social media archives (such as profileengine.com), or can just be reposted by people on other sites and their own social media pages. Given this and the fact that these are not who people truly are, it is unfair to deny them the right to erase things that damage their reputation.

People put up all those unflattering things about themselves online without being forced to. Those are true, even if not full, representations of them. But that one-sided representation is exactly how the person wanted to be seen. They always have an option of showcasing a better image of themselves (through photos, videos, blogs, etc.) online, but nobody owes them the right to undo something they themselves freely shared. It might be a mistake they realise later on, but mistakes do not create a right to erase everything about that mistake. Nothing in real worlds works like that – you might have made a mistake by getting to drunk at a company Christmas party, but you can't insist on co-workers pretending that never happened and not telling anyone.  Moreover, there is plenty of information about how to act on the internet [5]. So we should not grant such a right to someone who did not learn how to act on the internet - they'll have to learn the hard way.

People suffer disproportional consequences on the internet  The internet magnifies the problem of embarrassing personal data and makes it very hard for people to manage the consequences. In real life, though we suffer consequences for our embarrassing behaviour (or behaviour others think is embarrassing), we can manage it easier, e.g. by talking to the people involved or as a final resort moving. The internet means the humiliating material is rapidly exposed to millions of people around the world, meaning that people can face humiliation anywhere without an ability to manage it.  There are even cases of young people taking their lives after bullying and cyber-bullying that followed information about them being posted online. The most famous case is that of teenager Amanda Todd, who committed suicide after half-nude photos were posted online – she could not escape ridicule even after she moved schools, because photos remained online [10]. Because real life actions are not enough to manage consequences of humiliating personal data, new ways suitable for the digital sphere have to be created, and that way is the right to be forgotten.

People’s digital footprint, though it might be indicative of who a person is, is not a perfect representation of them or of their entire character. People act differently on the internet behind a screen, and sometimes some anonymity, than in real life because they feel free of social norms. But in real life social norms exist and people adhere to them, meaning that their internet activity cannot be directly linked to their real life actions. Finally, we cannot expect people to constantly leave personal data on the internet, which means we cannot get a consistent view of a person’s character or their personal development. E.g. someone’s leaving a racist comment 10 years ago does not mean they are still racist now. All this is not just useless for the judicial process; it can actually harm justice by giving false representations of people, which will lead to unfair convictions (or unfair acquittals). For instance, the defence in the famous Trayvon Martin case used digital photos of Trayvon smoking weed or posing as a gangster to present him as a thug and a threat, even though these photos were typical of how young people present themselves, and had no connection to the actual crime [12].

The internet is different from reality since the magnitude of consequences you might suffer is much greater. While there might be a school laughing at you over something in real life, on the internet it might be the whole world. We accept ridicule and embarrassment in real life not just because it happens, but also because the effect is not so overwhelming in the majority of cases. People get bored of the news and stop talking, while in the digital era new people can always find you and laugh at you – memories fade, photos and videos online do not. So internet is different from the real life and requires new rules.  Moreover, the right to be forgotten is not applicable to the real life not because of a principle, but because we cannot enforce it. We can’t delete people’s memories. But we can delete information online.

This right relieves people of the need to act responsibility online  Having a right to be forgotten means that people can be less responsible about what they share and how they act on the internet. Knowing that they can always remove all trace of what they did relieves people of the necessity to consider the consequences of what they are doing online. This is especially true for young adults: they often post unflattering information, such as pictures of them drunk or half-nude, or write offensive comments for the pay-out of immediate popularity in their peer group. However, what also prevents them from doing this is thinking about how that might affect them in the future. When they know that after some time they can delete their digital trace completely there is nothing preventing them from acting irresponsibly in hope of popularity. Such irresponsible behaviour then puts a burden on the state to fix the mess by applying and overseeing the right to be forgotten.

What seems like irrelevant information now might serve justice in the future  People’s digital footprint, though of no public interest at the moment, might be useful in the future. It is a common practice in courts to investigate a person’s character or motives to check for their probability of committing a crime. Photos, videos, comments and blogs can shed light on these issues should the person be investigated under law. For instance, racist or sexist youtube comments might be of use in a trial where a defendant denies his/her actions were a result of racial or gender hatred; blogs, photos and videos a person posts and shares, and their internet searches can serve to assess what the person is like. Digital footprints can be used not only to sentence people, but also to prove their innocence. Given that discerning people’s motives and a character is a vital part of the legal process that is also very elusive, having access to their online behaviour is very useful. Digital information thus can be a useful tool to bring about justice and the right to be forgotten would forgo this opportunity as people could just delete everything about themselves.

The internet does not need additional rights to those in the real world  The right to be forgotten is premised on the idea that internet requires additional rights beyond those in the real world. Offline there is no right to demand that people do not to talk about or show photos of your embarrassing moments. Provided that there is no privacy breach, once something is out in public, you cannot take it back. There is no rule enabling you to be forgotten in real life, even if things you have done harm you. Why then do rules have to be different for the internet?  In 21st century the internet has become an integral part of our lives and of human communication that it is in fact just another reality for us. We do the same things there as we do in real life – socialise, engage in our hobbies etc. The only difference is that the internet provides us with greater opportunities, such as reaching more people, but that does not change the principle that human interaction online is pretty much the same as offline. If there is no right to be forgotten in real life, there should not be one in the digital one.

We expect people to want to use the right to be forgotten mostly when the information on the web is actually hurting them. That means that, in the most common scenario, people would face negative consequences before they can use the right, otherwise why bother one-self with engaging the legal system? However a lack of responsibility is not a charge that can be levied at everyone, often they just could not foresee the consequences. Being responsible is premised on the idea that you know the results of your actions. When you do not and cannot know them – because maybe that photo will be a problem in 10 years – no amount of thinking about an issue is going to make it better.

What exactly is the public interest? It is difficult to define in law as Britain is finding in its enquiry into phone hacking, [1] and individuals disagree. [2] Journalists in particular are likely to be much happier about the idea than the rest of the public because it defends their interest to have a broad interpretation. It should not have been up to either Kamm or Haaretz to define what the public interest is. There are some things that have to be left to the state.  [1] Sabbagh, Dan, ‘Clarification of the ‘public interest’ defence is badly needed’, guardian.co.uk, 8 April 2012.  [2] Elliott, Chris, ‘What do you think ‘public interest’ means?’, guardian.co.uk, 15 May 2012.

The public have a right to know what is committed in their name  “There were aspects of IDF operations which I thought should be brought to the attention of the public.” [1] Kamm is correct; in any state, but especially in a democracy like Israel, the military is there to protect the state and its people. It is paid for by the people through their taxes. The military is composed of the people through conscription. And as a result what it does is in the name of the people. The accountability of the instruments of the state, including the military, is at the core of what it means to be a democracy. It is therefore essential that the people know what it is doing in their name. Many democracies have laws giving a “right to know” for example the United State’s Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment right of access. [2]  It is therefore in the public interest to expose activities that may be detrimental to the state. In this case the military was exposed doing something it has been specifically ordered not to do by the courts so exposing a military that was disobeying civilian authority.  [1] Collins, Liat, ‘My Word: Questions and secrets’, Jerusalem Post, 5 November 2011.  [2] Papandrea, Mary-Rose, ‘Under Attack: The Public’s Right to Know and the War on Terror’, Boston College Third World Law Journal, Vol.25, Issue 1, pp.35-80.

Yes the military has to be accountable but this does not mean that it is directly accountable to the people. Instead the military is accountable to the civilian leadership of the country who is then in turn accountable to the people. The people designate their politicians; their head of state and government as well as minister of defence to control the most senior members of the military. [1] This means that while the military must be transparent it is only necessary for it to be transparent to the civilian government which is at the top of the chain of command not to the people as a whole.  [1] Feaver, Peter D., Armed Servants Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations, Harvard University Press, 2005, p.5.

It is right that illegal acts by the state be exposed  Anat Kamm was correct when she said “I kept thinking that history tends to forgive people who expose war crimes.” [1]  Maj.-Gen. Yair Naveh was documented as saying “This is an arrest operation… But in case [the soldiers] identify one of the senior leaders of the Islamic Jihad, Walid Obeid, Ziad Malaisha, Adham Yunis, they have permission to open fire in accordance with their appraisal of the situation during the operation.” [2] As attorney Michael Sfard states "In other words, the use of words referring to arrest when in fact there is no real intention of carrying out an arrest, but the reference is to assassination." [3] This was despite a supreme court ruling in 2006 that militants must be detained. [4] Kamm may be incorrect when considering this action a war crime as Israel was not at war at the time however assassination is clearly illegal under international law. [5]  The press has four roles in a democracy; holding power to account, highlighting issues that need attention, educating citizens, and connecting people to create civil society. [6] In this particular case all of the first three roles were clearly being performed.  [1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.  [2] Izenberg, Dan, ‘Stamp of approval from attorney-general’, Jerusalem Post, 13 April 2010.  [3] Blau, Uri, ‘License to kill’, Haaretz, 27 November 2008.  [4] Guarnieri, Mya, ‘The killing of Zuhair al-Qaissi exposes Israel’s attitude to its supreme court’, guardian.co.uk, 14 March 2012.  [5] Wachtel, Howard A., ‘Targeting Osama Bin Ladin: Examining the Legality of Assassination as a tool of U.S. Foreign Policy’, Duke Law Journal, Vol.55, No.677, 2005, p.677.  [6] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005.

While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion." [1]  [1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.

The military can only be held to account if there is transparency  States have militaries to protect themselves creating a paradox that “The very institution created to protect the polity is given sufficient power to become a threat to the polity.” [1] The Military is a powerful institution even in a stable democracy like Israel, it needs to be held to account because it is the institution within a state that has most capability to use force if it wishes. An unaccountable military is a military that is much more likely to engage in coups and other anti-democratic actions. Israel is an unusual case in the west in that it has allowed the boundaries separating government, military and society to become blurred leading to worries of military influence on policy. [2] None the less most of the time we can trust the government to hold the military to account however the only sure guarantee is for everyone to have access to all information that have a very low risk of resulting in lives lost; designs of weapon systems, current deployments or planning for current and future missions.  This transparency should of course be from the top down with the military giving out this information freely as the military is in a position to know what information is still current and may result in lives being lost. However if the military refuses to be transparent on crimes committed then there is a need for individuals to provide that transparency themselves. Cases like Anat Kamm’s which punish attempts by soldiers to call their superiors to account are therefore damaging as it shows that the officers will not be brought to justice but the leaker will be punished. [3] This actively encourages the military to believe it is above the law and is not accountable to the people.  [1] Peter Feaver quoted in Norton, Augustus Richard, and Alfoneh, Ali, ‘The Study of Civil-Military Relations and Civil-Society in the Middle East and North Africa’, in Carsten Jensen (ed.), Developments in Civil-Military relations in the Middle East, pp.7-28, p.7  [2] Weinraub, Alan, ‘The evolution of istaeli civil-military relations: domestic enablers and the quest for security’, Naval Postgraduate College, December 2009.  [3] Reider, Dimi, ‘In Israel, Press Freedom is under attack’, The New York Times, 31 October 2011.

If individuals are never allowed to take action themselves then we are leaving everything up to the state and the military; two institutions that in cases like this have every reason to attempt to suppress the truth. When the state will not take responsibility for its actions then it is right that others should force it to account for its actions and the only way this can be done is through revealing the wrongs the state has done.

This might be a valid argument if the leaked military secrets really were putting lives in danger, but this is not the case in this particular instance. In Israel there is a military censor which newspapers submit articles that might affect national security to and that censor takes out anything it believes to be harmful to state security. [1] All the materials that were published by Haaretz went first through Haaretz’s editors and then this military censor [2] so if there really were any military secrets published that could have put lives in danger the censors were negligent in their job.  [1] Sobelman, Batsheva, ‘Q&amp;A Censorship in Israel: ‘A unique model’’, Los Angeles Times, 3 May 2010.  [2] Reider, Dimi, ‘In Israel, Press Freedom is under attack’, The New York Times, 31 October 2011.

National security should come before freedom of information  The Security of the Nation comes before other considerations such as the freedom of information. This is especially true in a nation such as Israel which is surrounded by enemies who will take advantage of any information that they can use to damage Israel. Israel’s security situation is aptly described by Yitzhak Rabin as one of “dormant war” that every few years becomes an active conflict. [1] When the state’s survival is potentially at stake as is the case in Israel then individual rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of information have to be subordinated to the greater collective rights of the nation.  [1] Dahan, Michael, ‘National Security and Democracy on the Internet in Israel’, C. Ess and F. Sudweeks (eds). Proceedings Cultural Attitudes Towards Communication and Technology ’98. University of Sydney Australia, 189-192.

Individuals do not have the right to decide what information should be publicly available.  No individual is empowered to decide for themselves what information should be publicly available and certainly not a 23 year old student. A conscript like Kamm will have little idea of the context, whether operations have taken place, or even often what the information they are leaking means. Without all the facts of each case they are in no position to judge if a particular document is in the public interest. They therefore won’t know the consequences of the information they are leaking which in a military situation could mean lives being lost. This is why militaries have systems for declassifying information; so that when it is done it does not cause any harm.  As Sarah Honig writing in the Jerusalem Post argues “We could kiss our entire national defense good-bye if each and every soldier would do likewise with no guideline but his/her own youthful hubris.” [1]  [1] Honig, Sarah, ‘Another Tack: Loose lips sink ships’, JPost.com, 23 April 2010.

Leaking military secrets puts lives in danger  The right to life is the most fundamental right of all. No one should have the right to leak information that might result in someone losing their life. As the documents that Kamm collected included details of IDF deployments and plans for military operations [1] the leaking of this information could clearly have provided terrorists such as Hezbollah or Hamas the opportunity to kill Israeli soldiers. Moreover while the information she gave to Haaretz reporter Uri Blau may not have all been published Kamm herself admitted that she had lost one of the CD’s she copied. [2]  [1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.  [2] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.

Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state. [1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies.  [1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.

It is difficult to see how discourse and free inquiry are a basic right when it comes to history. This is not an area which is going to affect people’s lives and liberty if they cannot read about every possible opinion on the subject exactly because what is in the past is in the past and does not impact on people’s day to day lives. Very few people are interested in speaking out against their own history that they grew up learning even if it does not tell the whole truth.

Prohibition of a subject damages discourse and free enquiry  History is not something that it is worth sacrificing freedom of speech and expression for. Every individual should be free to voice their own views and this includes on areas that are important to the state such as its formation and national heros. In these areas there can be no compelling reason for keeping secrets or discouraging open inquiry and scholarship, there are no national security interests at stake, for most countries the individuals involved are dead. Therefore the only thing being affected are individuals posthumous reputations and the state should not be protecting individuals reputations. Someone’s reputation should stand on all of their deeds and acts based upon fact not just a cherry picked and idealised image set forth by the state.  The foundation of Islam is potentially an example of this. Some scholars such as Tom Holland have attempted to show that the Arab Empire gave birth to Islam rather than the other way around as it is traditionally understood. [1] Possible revisions of the early history of Islam are extremely controversial but in light of the conflicts in the Middle East and what is sometimes described as a Clash of Civilizations between the West and Islam it is important that the period be studied. [2] Holland suggests that the Prophet may have been much more influenced by Christianity and Judaism than is recognised by Islam; [3] if there were such links might unearthing them not help to heal divides today?  [1] Holland, Tom, In the Shadow of the Sword, Little Brown, 2012, p.40 (ftnote 53)   [2] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations, The Free Press 2002, pp.209-218  [3] Holland, p.49 (ftnote74)

This is equally an argument for treating national heroes and history with the respect it deserves. Attacking these ideas is attacking the very foundation of the nation state. Of course the national identity is not going to disappear from undermining Atatürk as the national community is built on more than just Atatürk but each attack helps undermine the whole structure and must therefore be stopped.

Countries must be willing to accept the darker sides to their past  No country is whiter than white, and often the creation of a country is a bloody event that involves mistakes, tragedy’s and outright massacres. While it is wrong to cover up and not apologise when mistakes are made or horrifying acts are committed the results of this action are likely to have consequences. These events may well be a sour point with neighbouring countries or even just those who feel that the country is not being honest about its past.  Turkey is an excellent example of this. Almost everyone would agree that Atatürk was a great leader and most would not consider that his habits make any difference to this. Nor are they likely to judge Turkey on the basis of the foibles of a long dead leader. However during the period just before Atatürk became president the Armenian Genocide occurred (1915-23) which stains Turkey’s foreign relations to this day, France has supported a law criminalising its denial, [1] the US congress has several times had bills proposed highlighting the genocide [2] and so damaging Turkey’s relations with the U.S. [3] and of course helping to freeze relations with Armenia itself. [4]  [1] Montjoye, Clementine de, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free Speech Debate, 29 June 2012,   [2] United States Senate, S.Res.399 - Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution, OpenCongress for the 112th United States Congress, 19th March 2012,   [3] Kinzer, Stephen, ‘Genocide vote harms US-Turkey ties’, guardian.co.uk, 5 March 2010,   [4] SAĞIR, CELİL, ‘Hopes dim for normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations’, Today’s Zaman, 7 May 2012,

A great many states see no need to particularly acknowledge the darker side of their past and founding; the United States still lionises the manifest destiny and the conquest of the west despite the genocide of the Native Americans who still live there. And there is no reason why they should. Some other nations may disagree with the past portrayed by that state and they can present their own competing version if they wish.

The purpose of history as a subject in Schools and in Universities is very different. The role of history in School is simply to teach about where we come from, to learn about the origins of the nation and why it is organised the way it is organised. History needs to be taught as it binds the nation together by creating a shared sense of identity. [1]  [1] Dilek, Dursun, ‘History in the Turkish elementary school: perceptions and pedagogy’, University of Warwick, January 1999, p.79,

History shapes attitudes  History is important because of the way it shapes attitudes and identities. Nationalism scholar Benedict Anderson has dubbed nations ‘imagined communities’ because “members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” This is the case with all large scale communities. “the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship” a fraternity for which members are willing to kill and die. [1] This very willingness makes nationalism potentially dangerous and so it is much better to take a much more measured approach seeing the bad as well as the good.  Yet because the nation is an imagined community so it is possible for that imagining to be altered as is needed. Turkey will not cease being the Turkish nation simply because views of Atatürk change as a result of some believing him to be a ‘drunken debaucher’. Other countries have come to accept negative parts of their history with little consequence for their conception of the nation such as the UK’s acceptance that imperialism was in large part negative it simply creates a more nuanced view of the past.  [1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, Verso, London 2006, pp.6-7

Makes history more useful, more human, and more interesting  While the state may like to whitewash history to produce its own ‘national history’ that sticks to one grand narrative that is about the state this is not history as it really is. While a national history full of patriotism may be good for instilling a love of the nation it is not much use at teaching anything else. In particular it is damaging to any attempt to teach analysis and the use of sources through history. History is for the most part not useful in and of itself, [1] there are for example very few jobs directly working with history. Rather teaching of history emphasises ‘transferrable skills’ such as Critical Analysis, Reasoning and Argument [2] all of which are suppressed if focused on one officially approved narrative.  Moreover having the darker side of a nation’s past both makes history more interesting and more believable and so making it more likely that those being taught it will relate to it. Making the past look whiter than white simply makes it seem out of touch with reality. It makes for a poor teacher as history needs to ‘teach by example’ and if that example is not a complex character that can be related to it has little relation to every day experience. [3]  [1] Stearns, Peter N., ‘Why Study History?’, American Historical Association, 1998,   [2] ‘What skills will a History degree from Cambridge give me?’, University of Cambridge,   [3] Stearns, Peter N., ‘Why Study History?’, American Historical Association, 1998,

While a country is entitled to promote its own national story, its own interpretation of events and create its own national heroes however it is not entitled to suppress historical events and so blot things out of history by preventing any competing ideas about that history. Most people learn their history through the state education system rather than through scholar’s history books so having competing narratives is not a threat to the state’s interpretation.  Role models are not undermined by having some minor faults.

Simple ‘disrespect’ is not sufficient reason to limit freedom of speech and freedom of academic enquiry. Those who find it disrespectful need not watch or read that which is written that they find disrespectful but more importantly they should be open minded enough to be able to reconsider their previous views. No matter the subject if it has strongly held views about it then holding up a different prism to that subject is going to be considered disrespectful as it is challenging those deeply held beliefs. Yet if we can’t challenge and test those beliefs then there is no opportunity for change and progress. Ultimately then preventing inquiry due to ‘disrespect’ holds back societies development.

Damages the country’s reputation  Rightly or wrongly countries are judged in part based upon the past; In Europe Germany is regularly judged on the basis of the Nazi’s [1] and in Asia Japan on the basis of its atrocities in World War II. [2] Any nation would be sensible to want to avoid such vilification on the basis of actions taken by one’s ancestors and the further back the less sense such vilification makes sense. Digging up past wrongs for the sake of digging is wrong simply because of the souring effect it can have on the present. If there are dark areas of the past that have been forgotten then it is best to leave them forgotten than rather than risk creating new enmities between nations. Although not an exact parallel rather similar would be the creation of the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. The Belgian colonial powers divided the population into several distinct groups where no divide had previously existed. The population was then divided through a census and identity card system introduced in 1933-4 which set individuals ethnicity. This was the root of one of the worst genocides of the twentieth century; [3] essentially through creating an enmity where none previously existed, something that could equally be done by digging up the past rather than inventing a past.  [1] Lowen, Mark, ‘Debt-laden Greeks give vent to anti-German feelings’, BBC News, 27 February 2012,   [2] Komine, Ayako, and Hosokawa, Naoko, ‘The Japanese New History Textbook controversy’, Free Speech Debate, 13 July 2012,   [3] Magnarella, Paul J., ‘Explaining Rwanda’s 1994 Genocide’, Human Rights &amp; Human Welfare, Vol.2, No.1, Winter 2002,

Countries are entitled to make what they will of their past.  Past leaders are dead and if they have become heroes it has already been accepted that accounts of that figure may not be entirely accurate as with any myths and legends – and indeed many country’s heroes are myths such as King Arthur. Where they are not as in the case of Atatürk the man is mythologised in order to help show the unity of the nation and provide an example, an ideal if you will, for those who follow.  Insulting this hero by deliberately publicising their dark side is therefore damaging not just for the state but for those who believe in the in the role model that the hero provides. In a country like Turkey where the focus of history teaching is on political citizenship education based upon national history everyone in Turkey learns about Atatürk. The aim is to educate pupils “As future citizens who respect the principles and reforms of Atatürk and democracy; who care for their families, country and the nation; who are aware of their responsibilities towards the Republic of Turkey; who work for promoting their families, country and the nation.” [1] So any attack will be damaging one of the role models for Turks young and old. [2]  [1] Dilek, Dursun, ‘History in the Turkish elementary school: perceptions and pedagogy’, University of Warwick, January 1999, p.79,   [2] Doğan, Yonca Poyraz, ‘Heated debates demystify myths surrounding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’, Today’s Zaman, 16 November 2008,

Disrespectful  Few nations go so far as to deify their national heroes or the formation of the state but none the less it is disrespectful to attack these ideas and many people are likely to be offended. This is indeed the case with the film Mustafa about Atatürk one doctor referring to the poster advertising the film asks "Why is he shown like that, in front of a steppe? His head is down as if he is apologizing for something... I find it disrespectful". Professors Orhan Kural and Ahmet Ercan argue “The content of the film and its interpretation of its topics damage the republic and Atatürk. Damaging such values can lead to the breakup of Turkey and to the loss of national pride.” [1] This is because any attack on Atatürk is equally an attack on the values of the republic he created, some of which such as secularism are already under attack. It is both wrong to offend so many people and unwise, as is the case with the attack on Atatürk, to attack the foundations of the ideology that helps to prevent intolerance. [2]  [1] Doğan, Yonca Poyraz, ‘Heated debates demystify myths surrounding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’, Today’s Zaman, 16 November 2008,   [2] Malashenko, Alexey, and Shlykov, Pavel, ‘”Anti-Kemalist” Revolution: Where is Turkey Going?’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 22 September 2011,

This gives all the more reason to act pre-emptively by allowing free and open scholarship and critical analysis of the past. If a nation will not take a long hard look at its own past eventually someone else will and they are just as likely to uncover any skeletons in the closet as a national historian is. If however the government is open to new ideas then they can quickly say sorry, possibly pay some form of reparation and prevent any creation of enmity that will occur through denials. Japan is an excellent example of this; China and Korea are still calling for the Japanese emperor to apologise for atrocities during imperialism. [1]  [1] Kyodo, ‘Japanese Emperor must apologize for colonial rule: S. Korean president’, The Japan Times, 15 August 2012,

It seems unlikely that there would be a rush to offer corrections where it was to the advantage of an individual or organisation, so let us not pretend this is the noble pursuit of truth at any cost. Where a major mistake is made by a news outlet, its competitors are usually only too happy to point the fact out, vastly magnifying the redress compared to the original mistake, as shown by the example cited by the proposition with the BBC attacking inaccuracies in a Daily Telegraph article [i] . Where it is a minor error, it’s questionable as to whether a right to reply actually helps or simply fuels speculation on the basis that the aggrieved party seems to be squabbling over the details. Alternatively, where a mistake is genuinely defamatory then it is a criminal matter and should be settled in the courts rather than in a grubby fix-up between the parties.  [i] The examiner.com. Ryan Witt. Fox News makes three large factual, graphical errors over the last week (Video). 15 December 2011.

There is a sense of natural justice that corrections should come in this form rather than a tiny note.  In many countries corrections or clarifications in newspapers are buried away in the depths of the middle pages and are unlikely to be spotted by anyone other than the most ardent reader. Not only does this defy natural justice but having the correction prominent hits a newspaper for making mistakes as it loses space for a story that would attract both readers and advertisers.  It’s not unreasonable to expect journalists to get the information right first time – that is, after all, their job. Building an entire case on the basis of a misunderstanding, as the Daily Telegraph did recently on the basis of misinterpreting data for fish stocks, [i] can be incredibly misleading and when the correction to it is impossible to find, that misunderstanding remains in the mind of the readers. Once that is multiplied by blog entries comments to others and so on, the retraction would need to be a sizable news story in its own right to correct the misunderstanding.  Where mistakes are made and repeated from wire services or promoted as gospel in local – often poorly resourced – newspapers, the impact on someone’s reputation can be considerable. It’s only fair that their megaphone correcting it should be just as large as that used in the first place.  [i] BBC Website (commenting on a Daily Telegraph article). Hannah Barnes and Richard Knight. North Sea Cod: Is it true there are only 100 left? 30 September 2012.

The issue of credibility is an important one. If a story that was broadly true can be picked to death by the PR and Legal departments of companies, then it places a real burden on the future of investigative and campaigning journalism. One minor mistake, plastered across the front page, will inevitably encourage readers to question the story more generally as it appears to suggest that both points of view have equal merit. A broadly true story of an industrial giant polluting the environment or a bank indulging in corruption is not negated by getting a single fact wrong. The company, of course, will use any detail to challenge the whole story, risking the reputation of the publication in the process. This may ultimately mean that journalists are simply much more cautious and so will not publish any stories that will likely bring about a response in the form of a reply from the target of the article.

It is only fair where something inaccurate has been said to allow for a correction.  [i] The right of reply goes a long way in balancing the playing field – especially for private citizens who may not be able to afford recourse to the law. It is also simpler and quicker than protracted arguments in court. Finally it respects the readership as a group accepting that they are capable of making a decision over whose version of events is more likely to be accurate – the journalist or the respondent.  It’s a grownup approach to publishing, it acknowledges that newspapers don’t get everything right and embraces the idea that the goal is to convey accurate information – admittedly belatedly.  It’s inevitable that mistakes will be made in a world where newspapers are endlessly running up against deadlines and it is only possible to check so much as a result.  Instead of entering into protracted disputes or ignoring the rights of the injured party this allows for the readership to make the final decision [ii] . This can be true of either private individuals or public figures [iii] where, all too often, the issue is not the legal minutiae or exact phraseology of the article but the more general verdict of the court of public opinion.  [i] There is also a legally enforced right of reply in Korea, the Philippines, Finland and Brazil among others. By way of example, the full text of the Brazilian law (translated into English) is given here .  [ii] Journalism.co.uk. Matthew Gooding. Newspapers should print an obligatory right of reply says Max Mosley. 22 January 2010.  [iii] A good example of a case that became so complicated the original offence was lost in the haze would be this one . It is far from atypical.

Prop correctly identifies conveying information as a key role of the media – there are others; informed and impartial comment and, critically, a relevant news agenda. It is hard to see how chasing a story off the front page to make room for the right of reply fulfills these other requirements. Equally, where there is dispute, surely the courts are best placed to resolve it – driving the middle path between two inaccuracies is a pretty poor route to truth.

In an age of declining journalistic standards, forcing editors to get their facts right is a good start.  In response to an ever faster news agenda, produced by ever more pressured journalists, sloppiness may be seen as inevitable [i] . As a result, anything that is unlikely to result in legal action may be given a bye. In most situations, that sets the bar way too high. The mere mention of a private citizen in a negative light in a local paper may not be the stuff of national press attention and is unlikely to get far in the courts but can affect that persons standing in their community and with their neighbours in a profound way.  Anything that pushes reporters and editors to go that extra step to check their facts before they go to print seems like a sensible preventative measure [ii] . This could help prevent newspapers citing ‘experts’ who are not actually expert, a Forbes columnist found that he could portray himself as expert on all sorts of things and get his comments in articles for even very reputable media organisations such as the New York Times without even the most basic of background checks. [iii] The knowledge that they may lose both space and credibility in the next edition would seem to be a rather neat way of achieving that goal.  [i] The Huffington Post. Jeff Sorensen. 24 Hour News Killed Journalism 20 August 2012.  [ii] Article 19. Right of Reply.  [iii] Forbes. David Their. How this guy lied his way into MSNBC, ABC News, the New York Times and more. 18 July 2012.

The notion that the print media has lost its power since the emergence of the Internet is simply untrue. Not only are they still a major source of news for many – they are particularly a source of news for other news-makers. Blogs and other exclusively online sites rarely ‘break’ stories – with the exception of those that act in the same way as regular print editions such as the Huffington Post. Identifying those news outlets that are large enough to be registered companies is really not beyond the wit on humankind equally, imposing the regulations on those already covered by libel legislation would seem fairly obvious.

The on-going agglomeration of news and opinion is a wider and deeper issue than tackling factual inaccuracies and one that needs to be resolved in other ways. Frequently, that’s the very point to be addressed by the courts – whether a statement is legitimate comment or is being masqueraded as fact [i] . The right of reply is not presented as a cure all for the media as a whole but it is a useful way of getting the basics right before addressing the higher-level concerns that often stem from these fundamental errors.  [i] The ‘fact or opinion’ distinction is crucial to cases of defamation it basics are set out here .

This undermines actual parity by creating a false sense of the right to reply.  A right to reply would be no more of a fig leaf than voluntary self-regulation that has so bedevilled the media in so many countries. Responsible journalists and publications are already involved in the process where it is useful and others would use it as an excuse to avoid real regulation.  It is comparatively rare for the damage to be done at the level of factual data but signing up to making those corrections (indeed the requirement to give equal parity would allow papers to make a great song and dance about the fact) would mask the real story that opinions and comment are what really trash reputations – along with the half-facts and insinuations mentioned in the previous argument.  Different countries tackle press regulation in different ways. In some the threat to freedom of speech comes from over-regulation, in others from an over-mighty press drowning out dissent. The right of reply seems to answer neither concern – the paper will always have the last word as it can respond to the response or simply press its case more subtly. A right of reply hides that fact and creates a false sense of parity between the two.

This solution – if it is one - is now out of date.  We are happy to concede that in the glacial world of academic journals, the right of reply mostly works. Two experts clarifying exactly what was said by whom and being appraised by an equally expert readership can make sense of this process through article, response, and counter response. That’s why it already happens.  In the world of political, economic and scientific monthlies and weeklies, the idea would make sense some of the time. This is why it already happens some of the time.  In the cut and thrust of daily newspapers with rolling news on their websites and newsblogs from most of their contributors and journalists it ceases to make any sense whatsoever. So it is not surprising they don’t do it. In the developed world, the days of people reading the same paper in the same way every day are mostly gone [i] , news comes from a variety of stories with readers often following one story through different outlets rather than digesting many stories from one. Where should a correction be posted? Just on the first site to mention it or on all the ones that subsequently pick it up. Does this cover blogs or just outlets that also have a printed edition – and if not, why not? This is an answer to a question nobody is asking.  [i] The Canadian Journalism Project. Belinda Alzner. A quick look at news mediums (sic) and international development. 24 August 2012.

What is a fact – there are few circumstances where this would be of significance.  The line between factual inaccuracy and opinion is pretty slim. What about “Far right politician” statement or comment? The difficulty is that most publications work on the basis that there is a narrative that is already understood in order to function. It’s simply impossible to give the full backstory to everything that goes into print [i] .  The only way to avoid newspapers being constantly full of replies to irrelevant data would be to give a far broader right of reply to the opinions presented or the conclusions draw – the actions where journalism really has its power. Many newspapers already do this out of professional courteousy and respect for the truth, for example the guardian has a ‘Response’ column in its Comment is free section. [ii] The scandal sheets which offer no such facility seem to have only the most tangential reliance on evidence at the best of times so it is unclear how such a law would affect them as they would be likely to resort to assertion even more than they currently do.  The idea of a right of reply is fine in theory but, in reality, it is difficult to see how it would have any real impact on the day to day working of the press. This concern comes before any consideration of how it would work in relation to the more pervasive media of broadcast and online news outlets – or is this punishment to be reserved as the last nail in the coffin of the printed press?  [i] Article III. Jun Bautista. A Right of Reply” Law Violates Press Freedom. 9 February 2009.  [ii] The Guardian, Response

Opposition seem to be arguing, ‘This is difficult, let’s do nothing’ – the rallying call of apathy down the ages. There may well be grounds for a wider right of reply – indeed as most news outlets increasingly favour their online presence many of their practical arguments of the past fall away. The disadvantage of regulation is that it empowers government in relation to the press, litigation favours the wealthy. A right of reply favours the readers as the final arbiter.

The head of no large corporation has complete control of their operations. The head of the BBC almost certainly does not know all the policies and everything that is happening in the BBC’s Persian language division. While the head of the company is ultimately responsible it is unrealistic to believe that they will have such day to day control as everyone seems to believe Murdoch had. Murdoch himself explains “the News of the  World is less than 1% of our company. I employ 53,000 people around the world” and points out that in such a big organisation he has to rely on senior managers. [1] This very lack of control is itself a good thing; it ensures that there is decentralisation with most control at the local level with the individual editors of newspapers and programmes.  [1] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.64

Lack of control  Rupert Murdoch has an immense empire and if we believe his testimony obviously did not have as much control over his publications, or take as much responsibility for them, as he should have done. Murdoch himself has claimed “someone took charge of a cover-up we were victim to and I regret that." This was a cover up within the News of the World and News International that kept Murdoch out of the loop and misinformed on phone hacking, showing that he was unable to keep control over his businesses when he was the one with ultimate responsibility for the actions of that company. [1] The commons culture committee concluded that Murdoch was essentially negligent "at all relevant times Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications." [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Leveson Inquiry: Murdoch admits missing hacking ‘cover-up’, 26 April 2012.  [2] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.70

News organisations cannot be completely transparent if they are to do their job properly and News International is no exception. Such organisations cannot for example reveal their sources as this may sometimes put their sources at risk and would mean that others would not come forward. As part of this news companies need to keep secret how they obtained information. While an attempt by a newspaper to cover up crimes is regrettable this one newspapers actions should not tar the whole company and its other papers.

Murdoch is morally unfit to run a powerful media company.  Those running media corporations should be morally upright people who control their media companies in the public interest as these are organisations that potentially have a lot of influence through their control of information. This is however not at all how Rupert Murdoch ran News Corp or his newspapers.  Murdoch has been running his empire in pursuit of power and to advance a right wing agenda. [1] His influence was such that even naturally left wing parties such as New Labour under Tony Blair stuck to right wing or wing orthodoxies in order to keep the support of the Murdoch press. [2] Murdoch was therefore pushing narrow interests rather than the public interest. Murdoch’s News Corporation has shown their lack of moral scruples not just by engaging in industrial scale hacking but also by its determination to use its contacts to close down investigations by parliament or the police as well as being willing to destroy evidence and lie when giving evidence. Tom Watson MP has gone so far as to accuse Murdoch of being “the first mafia boss in history who didn’t know he was running a criminal enterprise”. [3]  The attitude of the person at the top towards how their company and its staff should conduct themselves informs how they do conduct themselves and engage in their business. It is the owners and the management that create the corporate culture which in Murdoch tabloids meant profits at all costs and doing anything to get a story. [4]  [1] Puttnam, David, ‘News Corporation has sought to undermine elected governments’, guardian.co.uk, 28 April 2012.  [2] Holehouse, Matthew, ‘The Blairs and the Murdochs: a special relationship’, The Telegraph, 22 February 2012.  [3] The Economist, ‘Stringfellows: A British MP’s long-awaited account of investigating the Murdoch empire’, 28 April 2012.  [4] Grayson, David, ‘Phone hacking: what corporate responsibility could have done to stop it’, Guardian Professional, 25 July 2011.

It is unfair to blame the culture in a newspaper, only one among many in Murdoch’s empire, on Rupert Murdoch. With hundreds of publications to control Murdoch would never be able to set corporate culture for every paper. Nor is it correct to accuse Murdoch of running his papers in pursuit of power rather than profit; Murdoch has been unusual in succeeding in recent years in still making profits from selling news. Murdoch is clearly willing to sometimes make losses, as at the Times which loses £42million a year, but this is not because it maximises his power but because it has international prestige as tabloids don’t. [1]  [1] Northedge, Richard, ‘Will Murdoch quit Britain?’ Prospect, 20 July 2011.

There was a lack of transparency in News Corp  The Media’s role is to increase transparency and bring others to account. Murdoch himself in his testimony to Leveson said "If we're a transparent society, a transparent democracy, let's have it out there" yet he has been exactly the opposite in terms of accountability and transparency. [1] The House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has published a report in which it concludes that the culture of the publication, News of the World, was “throughout, until it was too late, was to cover up rather than seek out wrongdoing and discipline the perpetrators, as they also professed they would do after the criminal convictions.” [2] The strategy was to blame individuals and when such a containment strategy failed to shut down the News of the World so as to protect top bosses. [3] News International was clearly not living up to high standards of transparency.  [1] Porter, Henry, ‘We are rid of Murdoch and that is worth celebrating’, guardian.co.uk, 28 April 2012.  [2] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.84  [3] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.67

We should not take Rupert Murdoch’s word for it that he does not seek to influence politicians and does not influence the editorial line of his newspapers. Andrew Neil, a former editor of the Sunday times argues Murdoch "had a quiet, remorseless, sometimes threatening way of laying down the parameters within which you were expected to operate ... stray too far too often from his general outlook and you will be looking for a new job." [1] This may not be complete control of the editorial line but it is certainly influencing it.  [1] B arr, Robert, ‘Praise, scepticism for Murdoch in UK newspapers’, Associated Press, 26 April 2012.

The Sun and the News of the World sold newspapers through sensationalism and sex, not content that was in the public interest. As such Murdoch’s success at selling newspapers should not have any bearing on whether he is a fit person to be in charge of a media corporation.

Having powerful media companies shields them from interference by governments.  An independent media is vital for democracy as it is a necessary check on over powerful politicians and government. The ‘fourth estate’ has a vital oversight function over government ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oath of office and really represent those who elected them. [1] In order for the press to be able to remain independent and able to carry out this function it needs to have powerful backers itself. Murdoch is one such backer. Multinational companies with large holdings spread across numerous countries can much easier resist government pressure than national or local newspapers without such backing as they can continue attacking a government regardless of the pressure an individual government puts upon it as the owners. Murdoch by making politicians dance to his tune was doing exactly what the press is supposed to do; preventing governments from being too powerful by appearing to have some power to bring the government down if necessary. If this translated into too much influence this was the fault of politicians not Mr Murdoch. [2]  [1] Center for Democracy and Governance Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research, ‘The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach’, U.S. Agency for International Development, June 1999, p.3  [2] Wolff, Michael, ‘Rupert Murdoch before the Leveson inquiry’, guardian.co.uk, 23 April 2012.

Murdoch does not seek to influence politics.  It is a myth that Rupert Murdoch influences politics or seeks to get his way with powerful politicians. As Murdoch himself said in the Leverson Inquiry "I've never asked a prime minister for anything.” Instead it is politicians who go out of their way to impress people in the press. Even when it comes to the editorial lines of his newspapers Murdoch did not always influence them, he controlled the Sun but not the stance of the Times. [1]  [1] Holton, Kate and Prodhan, Georgina, ‘Murdoch denies playing puppet master to British elite’, Reuters, 25 April 2012,

Murdoch is effective at selling news  The first criteria for fitness to control a media company should be the ability to bring people the kind of content that they want to consume at a price they are willing to pay. Murdoch is undoubtedly good at this. When he took over the Sun in 1969 the sun was selling just over a million copies a day but by 1976 circulation was up to 3.7 million. [1] Murdoch has been very successful at selling newspapers, a declining industry, and has been supportive of both down market tabloids and quality broadsheets. That the News of the World up to its closure and The Sun have remained Britain’s most popular newspapers shows Murdoch is an effective media proprietor and fit to bring news to the people. If he was not customers would vote with their money.  [1] ‘The newspaper industry’, Monopolies and Mergers Commission, 1985, p.5

Just as with any method of control there need to be checks and balances on the media itself in order to ensure that the media remains honest. As Lord Justice Leveson put it in his opening remarks “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?” [1] Murdoch has presided over a media company and newspapers that have not remained honest and have been too close to the politicians they are meant to be holding in check.  [1] ‘Background’, The Leveson Inquiry.

It is certainly true that restrictions on religious freedoms create internal conflict. It is however much more tenuous to argue this translates onto the international stage in such a way that countries need to tailor their foreign policy to respond to it.  If we go through the list of countries mentioned as states of concern in 1999 how many of their conflicts are the result of religious intolerance? Disagreements with China are over trade and general human rights and the same with Burma. With North Korea the conflict is a civil war that is a remnant of the cold war not a religious divide within Korea. The US did not invade Iraq because the Shiite or Christians were being persecuted but because of WMD officially or other reasons such as oil and democracy. In Iran similarly nuclear weapons are at the heat of the conflict and religious intolerance only enters into worries that these weapons may be used to destroy Israel. In Sudan the state was as brutal to Muslims in Darfur [1] as the Christians in the South and it was the former conflict that generated most attention from the west. In the Kosovo conflict there was certainly a religious element as that was part of the reason for Serbia attacking the Kosovars but it was more general human rights concerns that prompted NATO intervention – if Serbia had only been denying the right to practice Islam there would have been no intervention.  This leaves the Taliban and Saudi Arabia with the conflict as a result of 9/11 where religious intolerance can be said to be the primary cause. Should general policy hinge on religious tolerance based upon one conflict?  [1] See our debate on Darfur: Berman, Daniel, ‘This House believes that the US should have done more for Darfur’, Debatabase, 2011

Restrictions on religious freedom creates conflict  While there are often worries about allowing too much religious freedom in pluralistic countries and concern about the extremist agitation this sometimes allows in practice restricting religious freedoms leads to much more conflict than openness and tolerance. Brian J. Grimm and Roger Finke show that from 2000 to 2007 of 143 countries with populations over 2 million 123 countries (86%) have documented cases of people being physically abused or displaced because of religious persecution. With more than 10,000 affected in 25 countries. [1] This is because countries with higher levels of government favouritism of religion have a much higher level of social hostilities. [2] It is notable that the propensity for civil war is very high where there is very little religious freedom, for example Afghanistan or Mali, and similarly terrorist groups predominantly come from the same countries. [3] While conflict in other countries may not be considered a problem for other countries in practice when a country falls into civil war, as Libya did in 2011 and Syria in 2012, they become the major foreign policy issues requiring reaction even from powers that are distant from the conflict.  [1] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom.  [2] ‘Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion’, The Pew Forum on Religion &amp; Public Life, 20 September 2012,    [3] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom

Religious pluralism is part of more general pluralism and tolerance. Where one occurs so it is likely that other forms of tolerance will also occur with the most religiously tolerant states being pluralistic democracies. The reason democratic peace has gained in popularity is the difficulty of finding conflicts where two democracies have fought each other. This is less difficult when considering two religiously tolerant societies. One difficulty would be working out when a society is tolerant when the UK and Argentina fought over the Falklands Argentina was certainly not a democracy but was it particularly intolerant? [1]  It is notable that Europe’s most tolerant period of history prior to the second half of the 20th century was the late 18th century when the enlightenment spread religious tolerance as far as Russia [2] but the French Revolution’s declaration “No one should be disturbed for his opinions, even in religion, provided that their manifestation does not trouble public order as established by law” certainly did not usher in an era of peace. [3]  Finally while the spread of democracy can explain the increase in interstate peace in the modern era it does not have a long history through which it can fall down. However religious tolerance has often been a norm before the idea of an exclusive god came along; Buddhism merged with Shinto and Daoism in Japan and China, the Roman empire regularly added gods from its conquests, and some of the world’s greatest conquerors such as Akbar in India have been open to all religions.  [1] ‘Religious intolerance in Argentina’, Report presented to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief on the occasion of his visit to Argentina, 6 April 2001  [2] Corwin, Julie, ‘Russia: Catherine The Great’s Lessons On Religious Tolerance’, Radio Free Europe, 30 August 2006  [3] Hunt, Lynn, ‘The enlightenment and the origins of religious toleration’, Burgerhart Lectures, Nummer 4, 2011, p.9

It is religiously intolerant states that pose most threat  There is a strong correlation between states that are religiously intolerant and those that are a threat to other states and the international order. In 1999 Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan were designated as countries of particular concern with regards to religious freedom. Also the Taliban and Serbia were also included and Saudi Arabia and North Korea were countries where “religious freedoms may be suppressed”. [1] All of these are countries are countries which over the next decade were to one way or another become major security concerns and several of them involved in conflicts with the United States and other countries. As William Inboden notes “Those actors with the most egregious religious-freedom violations are remarkably consonant with those that pose a potential threat to the United States and its interests... Stated simply: There is not a single nation in the world that both respects religious freedom and poses a security threat to the United States.” [2] Religious freedom therefore should be much higher up the priority list in terms of foreign policy.  [1] Statement, Robert A. Seiple, Ambassador-at-Large for International Freedom, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, regarding religious freedom, U.S. Department of State, 6 October 1999, (near the end)  [2] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012

These countries are not specifically religiously intolerant they are simply intolerant full stop. Usually it is not religion that is particularly singled out for intolerance but all possible forms of organised opposition. This is the case in Burma where monks lead marches against the Junta but the political opposition was treated in the same way with beatings and arrests, it was the act of opposition the regime was opposed to not its religious affiliation. In China today it is the organisation that matters – the state is concerned with large organisations like the Catholic Church or Fulan Gong but is happy for its citizens to be Christian, atheist, or Confucian so long as they are not part of a large organisation. [1] With dictatorial regimes the primary concern is the survival of the regime, organised religion is a threat to this, so religion is suppressed and instead a personality cult manufactured. This is only not the case when the existing dominant religion can be coopted to buttress the state which often leads to repression of religious minorities because they become the ones that are a threat.  [1] Gardam, Tim, ‘Christians in China: Is the country in spiritual crisis?’, BBC News, 12 September 2011

Religious pluralism creates a more tolerant and peaceful society  Democratic peace theory is the proposition that democratic states do not fight interstate wars against each other. And so far the empirical evidence is strong. [1] It has been suggested that ‘democratic peace’ is really liberal peace that relies less on simply having democracy (although that is likely to be a part) but upon liberal values such as rule of law, human rights, and free markets. [2] Inboden argues that this should include religious freedom creating a ‘religious-freedom peace’. [3] Essentially states that share these liberal values will be unwilling to go to war with each other precisely because they are tolerant of difference; if they are tolerant of difference internally then external tolerance with other countries that are tolerant even if they as a majority are a totally different religion. Tolerance means that religion can no longer be a point of anything more serious than diplomatic conflict.  [1] Ray, James Lee, ‘Does Democracy Cause Peace?’, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1998.  [2] Richmond, Oliver P, ‘Understanding the Liberal Peace’, University of St Andrews, p.1  [3] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012

It is not about the worth of promoting one thing rather than another. Resources are finite and no country can promote all its values, everywhere, and all the time. Choices need to be made and priorities in foreign policy set. That focus should be on promoting religious freedom. Promoting political rights has often resulted in regimes becoming less cooperative even when the policy is a success. For example the transition in Egypt has changed the country from being a key ally of the United States to a nation that is increasingly Islamist and potentially a threat to another key ally, Israel. Now 77% of Egyptians say "The peace treaty with Israel is no longer useful and should be dissolved." [1]  [1] Rogin, Josh, ‘New Poll: Egyptians turning toward Iran, want nuclear weapons’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 19 October 2012

That other nations foreign policies are not motivated either by religion or freedom of religion does not mean that ours should not be. Moreover our policy does not need to be motivated by religious freedom for us to recognise it as a worthwhile objective. The motivation for reaching the objective would be national security as is the case elsewhere. It would simply be based on the recognition that our security is best secured by having other countries that are equally tolerant towards all faiths with the attendant peaceful relations and cooperation this brings in their international relations.

Promoting religious freedom exacerbates conflict  Once a pluralistic religiously free society is created there may be less conflict, but how do we get to that stage? Promoting religious freedom itself creates diplomatic conflict between states because domestic religion is considered to be an area where states are sovereign so dislike interference. [1]  Promoting religious tolerance is not as well received by the people as the promotion of political rights. This is because often the dominant religion is favoured while minorities are those who are not tolerated. Countries trying to promote religious freedom are therefore not likely to find as much support from civil society as would be the case when advocating that citizens be allowed to vote in free and fair elections. The country promoting this freedom is pushing an agenda that is often contrary to centuries of ingrained habits and prejudices. It should not be surprising that even as the Arab spring was occurring there were attacks on Coptic churches, [2] while the communities may have been united by a desire for political change in the form of the overthrow of Mubarak such unity will only come very slowly when it comes to religious divides.  [1] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition)  [2] Abiyzeud, Rania, ‘After the Egyptian Revolution: The Wars of Religion’, Time, 10 March 2011

Concentrating on religious freedom is too narrow, instead human rights in general should be considered  Of course religious freedom must be respected and democratic nations must try to encourage it but this is simply a part of much more general promotion of human rights rather than a priority in and of itself. It would be hypocritical to be highlighting the plight of the Copts in Egypt while ignoring gender equality in Saudi Arabia or the lack of political freedoms in Belarus. [1] All of these things are a part of the same agenda of encouraging human rights.  Moreover why should promoting religious freedom in Saudi Arabia be placed above promoting gender rights or political rights? Are the Shiites of the country somehow more worthy than the women? Currently the promotion of religious freedom is within human rights, so for example The Office of International Religious Freedom in the State Department is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. [2] Having religious freedom within promotion of human rights is the right approach to take as it means whichever human rights are most at risk can be promoted and aided in any given country and it encourages the linking of religious freedom with other freedoms. Egyptians may not be very receptive to religious freedom but obviously are to political freedom so religious freedom needs to be linked as a part of having political freedom.  [1] Chapman, Annabelle, ‘When doing nothing is free expression’, FreeSpeechDebate, 10 February 2012  [2] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘Religious Freedom’, U.S. Department of State

Religion does not motivate foreign policy  Religion is very rarely a motivation in foreign policy, it is unusual for it even to be a supporting factor and this is true even of countries that are domestically very religious. Instead foreign policy is primarily motivated by realist concerns about what is best for the country’s security (so preventing conflict, trying to make sure you have allies abroad etc), and its power in the form of a healthy economy.  Nations do promote their own values in areas such as human rights but this is because they believe the end point of these values is beneficial – democracies believe that if other states become democracies not only will they not fight but there will be more trade and it will be economically good all round. It is notable that when these kind of issues conflict with security and issues of power then human rights don’t affect policy. This has been particularly notable recently in conflicts in Libya and Syria, there is just as much humanitarian cause for intervention in Syria as there was in Libya [1] yet because Syria is ‘complex’ and other countries like Russia have opposing interests there will not be any intervention almost no matter how much killing by Syria’s Bashar al Assad. [2]  With religion an even more marginal influence in foreign policy than broad human rights concerns for most nations it is difficult to see why a nation should make religious freedom a priority.  [1] Crowley, Michael, ‘The Obama Doctrine: Syria vs. Libya Intervention’, Time, 1 June 2012  [2] Rogin, Josh, ‘NATO chief: Intervention just won’t work in Syria’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 29 February 2012

An objective being difficult does not mean it is not worthwhile pursuing it. In the case of Egypt it may now be a democracy but it is certainly not a tolerant society – it would therefore be wrong for supporters to say job done and stop supporting change. Yes there will be times when a dominant group objects to having to present their religious case in a free market place of ideas and so resort to violence but without such tolerance the country in question will never be a truly stable country that works for the benefit of all its citizens and plays a constructive role in global politics.

The problem with this approach is twofold; firstly it means that because of an implicit threat of force the majority have had their rights subordinated to the preferences of a minority. Regardless of the context of how this happens, this kind of precedent is always the first step on the road to tyranny. Secondly it is a recipe for social stagnation; if the state acts to prevent anyone from encountering views that they disagree with or might find disturbing then their view will never change and the state will find itself forever trapped in a paradigm of conflict and stagnation.

India has a specific need to main social cohesion  India’s post-independence history is one of partition along religious grounds with Pakistan and then open warfare with that state over territory. There is still a large Muslim minority in India and there are deep underlying social tensions within the country on this basis, along with frosty relations with a nuclear-capable Pakistan.  In this context, India’s leaders have a special reason to pay attention to the sensibilities of their minority populations. If allowing the publication of The Satanic Verses would result in social unrest then on the balance of harms it is a rational choice to make a limited restriction on freedom of speech rather than see potential millions having their property and lives threatened.

People have a right to choose their cultural values  Society has a right to choose and structure its values as it sees fit and there is no reason why the Western construction of values is right or should take priority over any other.  In Muslim countries faith may be a more important aspect of life that it might be in Western countries and it is entirely legitimate that those societies might choose to value protecting the dignity of their faith over absolute freedom of speech.

‘Freedom of speech’ is not so much a ‘cultural value’ so much as it is a vehicle for communicating and exploring different cultural values.

Freedom of Speech is but one right amongst many, including freedom of religion, and they are not intrinsically ranked against each other. The right of people to have and hold religious views without having those views demonised or insulted is a right that might easily be considered just as important.  Moreover the West is often hypocritical with how it defines the right to free speech – Western countries often restrict incitement to violence or speech which is insulting to individuals, or even just when that speech is against the national interest (such as with official secrets).  If it is legitimate to use state institutions such as the courts to protect individuals from insults, why is it illegitimate to use state institutions to protect religions from insults?

Freedom of Speech is a Universal Right  Freedom of speech and expression exists in any modern list of human rights. It is a fundamental right that is necessary for any society to function properly and for individuals to achieve happiness and fulfilment in their lives.  ‘Hurt and outrage’ are false harms – nobody suffers any damage from being exposed to an opposing view other than what they choose to suffer based on how close-minded they are. On the contrary, everybody has a chance to benefit when they are exposed to a foreign view or opinion, whether it be by changing their own view or being able to re-affirm their existing view in a new way.

Punishing the users of these extremist websites will not force these extremists to confront their views either. Punishing them is likely to create a victim mentality, a belief that the state is out to get them because of their beliefs not because of any particular act they may have committed. This is similarly likely to confirm them in their resentments and cause more radicalisation.

The internet is an echo chamber that will confirm extremists in their views if not stopped  The internet may be a free for all where all ideas and viewpoints can be found but that does not mean that all users view all these views. Instead the internet acts as an echo chamber that encourages people to believe their own views are correct and so get more extreme rather than challenging them. Eli Pariser author of a book called The Filter Bubble argues that the internet forces us to consume a very narrow range of views as search engines have been personalised with the intention of letting users find what they like so two people searching for the same thing on google can get very different results, for example when googling ‘BP’ during the oil spill one person might be directed to information about the spill and its environmental consequences while another might get just investment information. [1] When this kind of filtering is added to people constantly interacting with extremists and on websites praise and incite terrorism it is clear that users of these sites will get caught in a confirmation bias and conformation bias tends to lead to people becoming more polarised. [2] It is therefore the right policy to punish users of extremist websites before they become too radicalised as it is only a very short step from believing an attack is praiseworthy to carrying out similar attacks.  [1] Gross, Doug, ‘What the Internet is hiding from you’, CNN, 19 May 2011.  [2] Lord, C., Ross, L., and Lepper, M., ‘Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence’. JPSP, 1979, no.37, pp.2098-2109. Summary from faculty.babson.edu.

The proposition is assuming that we know what effect visiting extremist websites will have, we don’t. For some regularly visiting websites that promote violence may end up sickening them and encouraging them to re-evaluate their views rather than further radicalising them. The best way to prevent heinous terrorist acts is not to lock people up on minor offenses but to amass evidence of the much larger offences they are planning and convict them for those offenses rather than a law that will catch many innocents as well as the guilty.

There needs to be a deterrent against those thinking of visiting extremist websites  National security concerns around terrorism mean that it is necessary to have a deterrent that will help prevent the recruitment of terrorists. Terrorism is one of the biggest threats to western countries today and this is potentially an effective way of dealing with it.  Traditional military responses to terrorism do not work due to terrorists’ underground nature and decentralised cell structure that operates throughout the world. It is even questionable whether ‘al Qaeda’ as a group exists at all except as an identity for those wanting to attack the west to operate under. Efforts against terrorism therefore need to be aimed at preventing radicalisation and stopping individuals rather than attempting to destroy the whole group known as al Qaeda. This law not only deters people from becoming extremists through making them think twice about visiting extremist websites but it also helps to deter promoters of extremism through denying them an audience. [1]  If punishing users of extremist websites prevents even a few people who would otherwise have visited these websites from doing so and setting out on a part of radicalisation that leads to terrorism then it will have been a success.  [1] Kroenig, Matthew and Pavel, Barry, ‘How to Deter Terrorism’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.2, Spring 2012, pp.21-36, p.25.

There is no evidence that a deterrent like this works, we will never know who might have been radicalised but was not because they were deterred from visiting extremist websites. However if those visiting these websites really are terrorists then a spell in prison is not going to deter them. Moreover this is not a good way of preventing radicalisation as it does not get to the key issues. Instead of prosecuting those who visit extremist websites they must be shown how those views are wrong, something that can only be done through debate and discussion, [1] locking them up will not do this.  [1] Rothschild, Nathalie, ‘How can debate challenge extremism?’, guardian.co.uk.

Link between visiting extremist websites and being radicalised  Regardless of whether as Sarkozy claims Mohammed Merah would himself have been stopped earlier had this law been in place at the time this law will catch some terrorists in the future and stop them before they can do large amounts of harm. Punishing users of extremist websites will mean that the government can stop those who are on a path to radicalisation through their access to the internet and as a result this will help neutralise a key tool used by extremists to radicalise others.  There have already been examples of people being inspired to carry out violent jihad through material online such as Roshonara Choudhry who after watching some of Anwar Al Awlaki’s sermons online attempted to murder Labour MP Stephen Timms. [1] This kind of legislation would mean that he could be punished for the lesser crime thereby preventing him from being able to engage in much more damaging criminal activities. Simply put if extremists are behind bars they are not engaging in terrorist attacks that could kill many people.  [1] Dodd, Vikram, ‘YouTube urged to delete radical cleric’s sermons’, guardian.co.uk, 28 February 2011.

Many of the worries raised about who might be charged under such laws are irrelevant, judges and juries will be able to tell when someone is a journalist or intelligence official who does not have any criminal intent. Others who are visiting these extremist sites based upon ideology and yet are never going to engage in terrorist attacks themselves may well still provide financial or other support to those who do commit more violent acts. [1] A primary aim of the law is “to forbid and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests” [2] something that this does by through preventing more major crimes by prosecuting for a minor crime. We should also remember that the punishment need not be disproportionate as it could simply mean restricting the guilty party’s internet access rather than prison.  [1] Kroenig, Matthew and Pavel, Barry, ‘How to Deter Terrorism’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.2, Spring 2012, pp.21-36, p.24.  [2] Duff, Antony, "Theories of Criminal Law", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Criminalisation will prevent radicalisation by stopping users accessing the most extreme content. Sites such as YouTube and Facebook already police themselves and are unlikely to allow extremist materials to remain online for extended periods in the face of public pressure. [1] It is for extremist websites where public pressure can have no effect that needs the law to step in by punishing those who are regularly visiting those sites and being radicalised by them.  [1] Google, ‘Our approach to free expression and controversial content’, googleblog, 9 March 2012.

Criminalisation creates more problems than it solves  A law that punishes users of extremist websites would create a whole host of practical problems. Most obviously how are the authorities to monitor who are visiting extremist websites without a large expansion of a surveillance society that already exists? [1] There would need to be large scale monitoring of what websites everyone visits or at least the ability for governments to get records from internet service providers, potentially a grave breach of individual’s right to privacy.  Laws are only effective if those who are subject to the law have some idea of what that law means and what they should not be doing. [2] A good law should define what exactly the criminality is and this law would almost certainly have many problems with definitions. What makes someone a regular or habitual visitor? A few visits too many sites, hundreds of visits, regular visits once a week? There will also be challenges working out which websites should be considered extremist and even then how is a user to know that a website they visit is considered an ‘extremist’ website? Any type of warning would be counterproductive as no one would ever be caught and extremists would keep changing websites. This would create a climate of fear on the internet due to ambiguity about what is acceptable and what might result in being thrown into prison. While itself a terrible infringement of freedom of expression at least blocking access to some websites has the advantage of showing what the state considers unacceptable.  [1] Ball, Kirstie et al., ‘A Report on the Surveillance Society’, Surveillance Studies Network, September 2006, p.1.  [2] Robinson, Paul, ‘The Role of Deterrence in the Formulation of Criminal Law Rules: At Its Worst When Doing Its Best’, Scholarship at Penn Law, Paper 51, p.31.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right.  Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that is recognised universally as is shown by its inclusion in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] This however should not just be taken as the freedom to have an opinion but also as the freedom to “seek and receive… information and ideas through any media”, being cut off from information that a person is seeking is as much an infringement of human rights as preventing them from voicing their opinion. [2] People are denied their voice as much by not having access to information as by not being allowed to speak because access to information is fundamental in the process of being able to form those opinions. Learning and opinion forming cannot exist within a vacuum access to information that enables this. This freedom includes the freedom to access extremist websites as often as you wish without being punished for this action, we cannot prejudge what opinion will be formed from access to this information let alone what actions may result from that opinion.  [1] The General Assembly of the United Nations, ‘Article 19’, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948.  [2] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.24

There is a lack of proportionality in punishing users of extremist websites  It is a basic principle of fairness that punishment should fit the crime. [1] In this case the crime is visiting a website, something that in itself may cause no harm at all so why should there be punishment? At best such a law would be punishing on the basis of future harm the accused would otherwise cause if not punished while at worst it would be an arbitrary punishment for people who would never have committed any harm at all.  Not everyone who visits extremist websites is themselves an extremist or is going to be radicalised even after regular visits. Moreover not every person with extremist views is either themselves violent or intending to promote violence. Finally there are a large number of people who regularly visit extremist websites with the purpose of monitoring them; these may be members of the police, the intelligence services, those simply wanting to understand the other and journalists attempting to keep up with extremist trends. What such a law would be doing would be criminalising curiosity.  [1] Hirsch, Andrew Vvon, ‘Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment’, Crime and Justice, Vol.16 (1992), pp.55-98.

Criminalisation will not stop radicalisation  How will criminalising visiting extremist websites prevent radicalisation? Those who know about the law will simply look for the same material that they used to find on extremist websites elsewhere on the internet either through social networks such as Facebook and twitter, where for example Muhammad al-Arefe a Saudi cleric who has issued a fatwa endorsing violence against non-Muslims has over a million followers, [1] or other immense sites such as youtube. Radicalisation over the internet will therefore not be stopped by punishing users of certain websites.  Indeed such punishment of users of extremist websites may well end up creating more radical extremists than it prevents. Merah himself when talking to police negotiators before his death told them that it was being sent to prison for 18 months for driving without a licence that provoked his outrage against France and path to murder. This law would be putting more young men in prison and therefore potentially radicalising them through giving them something to be angry about, the opportunity to meet real extremists and demonstrating why the extremists believe the west should be attacked. [2]  [1] Kessler, Oren, ‘Saudi clerics use social media to spread hate’, Jerusalem Post, 10 May 2012.  [2] Lando, Barry, ‘New Laws Pushed by Nicolas Sarkozy After Toulouse Massacre Go Too Far’, The Daily Beast, 24 March 2012.

Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism.  [1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

This ‘climate of fear’ would only apply to those who know that what they are looking for is wrong. For these people if it does create a climate of fear then this is beneficial as it helps to create deterrence. Government would only be monitoring those it already suspects of extremism so ordinarily law abiding citizens need not be worried about surveillance as it will not affect them.

Money cannot be considered a form of symbolic expression the same way burning a flag is. Money only magnifies a certain idea, by giving it a greater platform. It is not a constitutive part of speech, or speech in itself. If someone burns a flag in political protest the point she’s making does not become more powerful or popular by burning additional flags, nor does her influence become directly proportional to the amount of flags she burns. The symbolic gesture of a donation and the endorsement that comes with it does not also require the right to spend unlimited sums of money to express one’s support.

Money as “symbolic expression”.  Not only is money instrumental to effective political communication, the expenditure of money in support of a campaign or cause is also, in itself, a form of political expression. The gesture of donating money expresses one’s allegiance to and endorsement of a candidate’s or organization’s stance on the issues that form the political discourse of the society we live in. It is a basic way of political engagement. It is also one which is most readily available to any citizen. Therefore, donating money is a speech act which needs to be protected, in the same way burning a flag is considered to be a gesture of “symbolic expression” which is protected by the First Amendment [1] .  [1] Eugene Voloch, “Flag Buring and Free Speech”, Wall Street Journal 2009.

Money gives a megaphone to one point of view. That view then gains more notoriety by spending more money to advance and promote it, by using mass media to bring it to the attention of a broader group of people, by hiring advocates to persuade a broader audience, by creating hype around an issue or candidate, with financial resources. Figuring out what came first, the money or the popularity these candidates gained; is a chicken or egg dilemma. Money and popularity are part of a self-reinforcing cycle

Money is intrinsic to political speech.  In Buckley, the Justices declared: “virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.” [1] In the 2008 election, presidential candidates spent 1.7 billion dollars on their campaigns [2] . This helps to show that nowadays, the effective communication of political ideas cannot be achieved without the expenditure of money. Therefore, one cannot protect political speech and at the same time place restrictions on the main resource which makes it possible, there is little point in freedom to elucidate ideas without the ability to spread those ideas. Spending money has become an inextricable component of political communication.  [1] U.S. Supreme Court BUCKLEY v. VALEO, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).   [2] Jonathan D. Saland, “Spending Dobuled as Obama Led First Billion Dollar Race in 2008”, Bloomberg 2008.

Something can be an appendage to a right. But it does not mean the government has an obligation to afford it the same protections as the right itself. Effective communication of political ideals also requires access to airways, printing presses, campaign staff, etc. But the government has no obligation to treat access to these as a Constitutional, inviolable right, on par with one’s freedom to say what she pleases.  An expression of an opinion is protected strictly by the letter of the law. However, the Citizen's United decision effectively expands this protection to two new entities: 1) non-person and 2) act of spending. Rather than reinterpreting current legislation that protects free speech, new laws ought to be created seeking to protect these two entities from committing to political expressions. And, this has to be exercised through the legislative branch rather than judicial.  With the Citizen's United decision, the judicial branch is effectively writing new legislation that is 1) recognizing corporate entities to have same political expression rights as citizens/individuals and 2) redefining the act of spending to be the same as an expression of an opinion as well as an act of demonstrating an expression of an opinion.

Money as a metric of support for political ideas.  Money is actually a very effective way of gauging the success of the ideas presented to the electorate, it shows the best political ideas and personalities in the through the market. It is often argued that politicians who spend a lot of money win elections. However, when this hypothesis was scientifically tested, it turned out that in fact successful and popular candidates merely attracted more money, the same way they attract more volunteers, more endorsers, and more votes [1] . Therefore, money, like an endorsement, is just a demonstrative way of throwing one’s weight behind a candidate one agrees with. Viewed in this context, money is not some sinister device for unpopular ideas to rise to the top against the will of the majority, but, like an endorsement, a form of speech supporting those ideas which are already popular enough to attract it.  [1] Steven D. Levitt “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes to the U.S. House”. The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 102, Issue 4, August 1994, pp. 777-798.

This point of view assumes an inherent virtue of middle of the road, status quo ideas, and picks winners and losers before the debate even gets a chance to occur. It presupposes that certain ideas automatically deserve less ‘airtime’ than others because at the moment they happen to be unpopular. Every great idea which moved the debate forward and modernized the world, from the abolition of slavery to universal suffrage, started as a fringe, unpopular idea at one time. Unpopular ideas, whether they turn out to be good or bad, might need a financial boost to join the debate that may establish their value. They cannot simply be pre-emptively deemed unworthy before even being scrutinized in the marketplace of ideas.

Money is a fungible resource and can fulfil different roles depending on the context in which it is used. It can be exchanged for almost anything and should be treated differently according to the circumstances in which it is used. It can be exchanged food, housing, weapons, medicine, services, hired hands. More conventional examples of property, such as real estate, or a car, have no equally fungible characteristic. When it is used to advance political debate, money becomes inherent to political speech. Therefore, in the context of campaign contributions and expenditures money deserves the protections of the First Amendment.

Unlimited political contributions undermine fair democratic representation.  Allowing for unlimited political contributions under the protection of the First Amendment distorts one of the most fundamental democratic tenets, the principle of fair representation – “one person, one vote.” [1] The Supreme Court has in the past also recognized this principle to mean more than the right to cast one vote which is counted equally. In Reynolds v Sims the Court held that “full and effective participation by all citizens in state government requires… that each citizen has an equally effective voice in the election of members of the state legislature”. [2] Such an “equally effective voice” is undermined by one individual or organization being able to influence the votes of thousands or hundreds of thousands through the deployment of financial resources which the average voter does not possess. This undermines the fair scheme of representation that is fundamental to a veritable democracy.  [1] John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Chapter 12: “Maintaining the Fair Value of Political Liberties”  [2] Reynolds v Sims, U.S. Supreme Court, 1964.

Money stifles, it does not advance debate.  We protect speech under almost all circumstances and cherish its freedom as a tenet of democracy because it enhances debate and better decision-making. We believe that in the free marketplace of ideas, where everyone is given an equal opportunity to advance competing points of view, based on ever more complete information, voters will be better informed to make the right choice for themselves in the voting booth. But money, unlike speech, does not have the intrinsic property of enhancing a debate. At best, it can be a facilitator for the debate, without having communicative value of its own. But at worst, instead of enhancing the democratic debate, it distorts it, by giving certain ideas disproportionate influence, based not on the value and strength of their arguments, but on the spending power of their supporters. A clear example is the U.S. Tea Party movement, which has not enriched the debate in American politics. It has made it acrimonious, divisive, and radicalized. The Tea Party has empowered the fringes of American extremism. One has to wonder if these ideas would have done so well on their own, without having been bankrolled by millionaires like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers [1] . It may also be used to stifle the other side; it is notable that in the 2012 presidential campaign more than 80% of adverts were negative so not attempting to inform voters. [2] For this reason, not only does money not fulfil the role which earns speech its expansive protections, it actively works against it. Money should be tightly controlled, not equated to speech and given limitless protection.  [1] Frank Rich, “The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party”, New York Times 2010.   [2] “Mad Money: TV ads in the 2012 presidential campaign”, Washington Post, 14 November 2012.

Money is property.  In his concurring opinion in Nixon v Shrink Missouri Government Pack, Justice John Paul Stevens said: “Money is property; it is not speech. Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired labourers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results.” [1] In other words, simply because money and speech can be means to the same end, it does not automatically mean they deserve the same level of protection. The freedom to use one’s property as she sees fit is different from allowing someone to say what she pleases.  [1] Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, U.S. Supreme Court 2000

Taken to its logical conclusion, such an argument can have anti-democratic implications. Perhaps the government should also cap the amount of time someone can volunteer to a political campaign or in support of a political cause. Other members of the electorate might have greater time or financial constraints which may not permit them to dedicate equal amounts of time influencing the votes of their fellow citizens. And if one advocate is superior in eloquence, persuasion, or charisma to others, should she not be permitted to use her talents in support of her cause or candidate, because her voice is essentially “more effective”, to paraphrase the Court? Such an outcome-focused approach to the definition of fair representation ends up infringing on citizens’ fundamental right to pursue the advancement of their interests within the democratic debate.

There are already laws in place to respond to the fabrication of evidence in support of a news report. Libel laws already prevent newspapers from making attacks based on untruths or even ones that are true but are not in the public interest.  There is no doubt that times are tough for the British Press – as they are for newspapers around the world – but the overwhelming majority of journalists and publications have responded to that by diversifying the platforms they use for delivering the news. In addition to which they have embraced a 24-hour approach to delivering the news and, for many, the print platform is now seen as a ‘legacy project’.  To constrain and obstruct the hard work and harder principles of the overwhelming majority of journalists because of the actions of a desperate few would really throw the baby out with the bath water.

The British tabloid press isn’t so much free as in freefall. Tabloid journalism in the UK has always been reckless and arrogant in pursuit of the trivial, but as advertising revenue dwindles that trend looks set to get worse  The media increasingly resembles one of the drug addicts it is usually so keen to condemn. As competition over dwindling advertising revenue becomes increasingly bitter, papers become ever more desperate for the next hit story –normally represented by celebrity gossip or a minor scandal. Such content has nothing to do with bold investigative journalism and everything to do with muck-racking for salacious stories and- when that doesn’t work- simply fabricating them.  Creating the impression that Millie Dowler was still alive was simply the most grotesque of a series of activities that put sales way ahead of truth.

t is entirely fair to say that the way we approach and share information has changed beyond recognition in the last thirty years. There have been innumerable efforts made to control high-speed information networks and all have failed.  To hobble journalists with constraining regulation is as impractical as it is reckless at a time when they are no longer competing with a handful of their peers, but also a wider network of information exchange between semi-professional bloggers and capricious groups such as Anonymous and 4chan/b, who spread lies and discord disguised as “entertainment”.  It is surely better that stories should be put together by trained and acreddited journalists and published through businesses that are bound by libel and other laws than to have them drip out through social media, as was seen with the Ryan Giggs affair over super-injunctions. Introducing regulation would be self-defeating simply because of this fact [i] .  [i] Lucy Buckland. “'It went from thrilling to seedy... I was a fool to risk everything': Natasha Giggs confesses her regrets over Ryan affair”. Daily Mail. 23 December 2011,

The British tabloid press has proved singularly incapable of regulating – or for that matter restraining – itself.  The phone hacking scandal is simply a new low in the recent, tawdry life of the tabloid press. As the Leveson Inquiry is discovering, the use of private detectives, bribing police officers, and trailing the children of celebrities all seem to be common tricks not just for the News of the World but for tabloid journalism as an industry.  Indeed, the journalist who broke the story for the Guardian admitted to the Levenson inquiry that he had hacked a phone on one occasion. Despite the protestation of the Guardian’s editors [i] that “99 percent” of journalists wouldn’t know how to hack a phone, such practices and a culture that invades privacy seems commonplace.  [i] Statement by Alan Rusbridger to the Leveson Inquiry.

It is part of the nature of journalism that it tends to say and reveal things that many people would rather remained unsaid and concealed. On the subject of working with police officers, papers have held the feet of police officers to the fire over many investigations including the Stephen Lawrence murder.  It is further worth bearing in mind that the collusion of senior members of the Metropolitan police with tabloid journalists was revealed not by a police investigation but by an investigative reporter.  Police and politicians may like their incompetence or corruption to take place behind closed doors, but that is the very reason for fostering and protecting a vigorous and interventionist press that is willing to bend the rules to find the truth.

There have to be limits to the permissible levels of intrusion into people’s lives, in an increasingly connected world people- celebrities or not- have never been more conscious of this simple fact.  In an age when any fool with a cell phone and a twitter account can snap a topless pop star on the beach, tabloid hacks are under greater pressure than ever to go the extra mile. There is little reason to doubt that they will. Privacy is already one of the dominant legal issues of our age that looks likely to become ever more the case.  Against that background, when a flat out lie can be broadcast around the world in seconds, clearly a different legal and regulatory framework is needed from the old days of print where an apology was actually relevant – however begrudgingly given.

The idea that stopping journalists rummaging through the bins of private citizens in pursuit of credit card statements on the off-chance they might have done something unusual is hardly likely to bring down the entire edifice of freedom and democracy.  Indeed, there is a clear democratic mandate for the robust protection of privacy- informed by the basic equality that underlies rule-of-law- derived from the revulsion that most people feel at the actions of certain parts of the press. As in any profession- including law, medicine and politics- practitioners are allowed discretion on the understanding that they won’t abuse it.  In this instance, the discretion leant to the political class has been routinely and systematically abused over a period of decades, to little benefit. All of the examples that Opposition has been able to cite have been the result of old-fashioned, dogged investigation and courageous writing and editorship.  If regulation gets journalists away from the addiction to celebrity, away from the easy sells of sex and venality and back into the better traditions of the trade, it may serve to revive the entire newspaper industry.

We should remember that the original defence of the NoW was that phone hacking had been carried out by just ‘one rogue reporter’ [i] and that defence has crumbled at every stage. It quickly became clear that others at the paper were involved, then that others in the group and now, apparently, that the practice was fairly commonplace at other papers.  Had this been just one bad apple then the idea that no new regulation was really needed for the otherwise good and noble folk of medialand might stand. As evidence- and a string of arrests among the News of the World’s senior staff- has demonstrated, flaunting of the law, of basic ethical standards and of simple honesty was rife at the news of the world, and is likely to have been used frequently in the newsrooms of the NoW’s rivals.  [i] Huffington Post. “Julian Pike, News Of The World Solicitor, Says He Knew That Phone Hacking Was Widespread In 2009”. 11 January 2012.

Who does the regulating? All of the obvious bodies – police, parliament and so on – haven’t exactly shown themselves to be whiter than white in the last year or so.  Newspapers are at least accountable to their readers and it is worth noting that exactly the kinds of stories now under the spotlight are the ones that prove the most popular. Further they already work within a legal framework and are accountable to the courts when they break laws governing libel, privacy or theft of information.  When we look at the possible candidates for overseeing the media, the line-up is fairly unimpressive and all have an obvious self-interest: MP’s expenses scandal was revealed by journalists, corruption and incompetence (as well as racism previously) at the Metropolitan Police was uncovered by journalists. That would only leave them accountable to the courts, which they already are, or a regulatory body comprising other papers and the public, which they already are.

All of those involved in the phone hacking cases broke laws. Existing laws. They can be prosecuted under existing frameworks and cases are already being pursued. There is no need for another set of controls  We should be very cautious when giving politicians- in particular- the power to control what is said about them. Whatever Lord Leveson suggests, chances are those decisions will need to go before parliament.  The actions of the British media may frequently be distasteful and those who read the so-called ‘quality’ press may find the obsession of the tabloid press with matters that mostly seem trivial and tawdry offensive. However, the liberty that- almost incidentally- allows tabloid newspapers to produce populist pablum, enables broadsheets to maintain an excoriating and forensic oversight of the political class as a whole. The recent Parliamentary expenses scandal would be unthinkable in many countries: analysis undertaken by the press as a whole demonstrating a culture of corruption across the entire political class, not only breathtaking in its extent but also a clear mark of just how far politicians had moved from the realities of day-to-day life for people who actually pay for their own house.  In this regard, journalistic license is the price of liberty.

The overwhelming majority of journalists would not know – and wouldn’t want to know – how to hack a phone and it is unfair to restrict them because a few do  Introducing regulation on the basis that a handful of journalists have broken laws that already exist – and were caught doing so by other journalists – seems odd, to say the least.  There is little doubt that there was something extremely murky going on at the News of the World but it is worth remembering that the paper has since been shut down.  To any observer this looks an awful lot like politicians using the excuse of one newspaper’s poor conduct- which, it is worth repeating, has been shuttered- to attempt to regulate the rest. One of the popular suggestions at the moment is that no journalist should be able to print a story about a politician without getting their permission first. Such a rule would strike at the very heart of a free press.

It is, of course, a matter for Lord Leveson and his inquiry to make recommendations on what the final regulatory framework should be. However the idea that newspapers are already accountable in an appropriate manner simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There is, if nothing else, compelling popular support [i] on such a scale that, apparently the readers of the newspapers in question are uncertain as to whether they are up to the job themselves.  There has also been an undercurrent in the press which amounts to “well people bought it so it’s their fault really”, which also doesn’t stand up to analysis. Readers of newspapers should surely be allowed to assume that the journalists who gather their news- and style themselves as professionals- act both legally and ethically. It is not the job of readers to double check the facts and activities behind a story.  [i] BBC Website. “Poll suggests public want much tighter press controls”. 14 December 2011.

It seems unlikely that it will become any less iconic after publication. Indeed the very fact that it has been published is likely to be hailed as a great victory. Neo-Nazis in Germany and elsewhere will not present this as the result of the elapse of copyright and a measured response by the state. As in any comparable situation, it will be presented as a victory. To take one example, when fascist leaders are interviewed on television or invited to speak in university debates, those actions are presented to their followers as proof of how seriously they are now being taken by the mainstream. None of those followers will be aware that their leader was roundly thrashed, because they didn’t watch the interview and didn’t attend the debate. Similarly the book will be waved, unopened at rallies to demonstrate to the faithful that progress is being made.

Banning the book would have simply increased its role as an iconic symbol.  Extreme parties frequently thrive when they are able to present themselves as being suppressed by a supposed elite. Their ability to portray themselves as being unfairly silenced by a capricious elite has long been used to attract support by parties on the far-right in Europe and elsewhere. For example the far right National Democratic Party went to court to get its newsletter delivered by the postal service. [i] Indeed, given the weakness of many of the arguments they make, silencing them has frequently been far more self-defeating than opening up their beliefs to scrutiny [ii] .  As long as Mein Kampf remained unavailable it acquired the inevitable allure of the unattainable. The book could be presented as having a status far beyond what it is – the ill thought-out and self-indulgent ramblings of a bad writer.  At the moment the book is not, per se, banned, it’s just that the owners of the copyright haven’t allowed publication until now. As a result, come 2016, there would have needed to be an intervention in the normal flow of events to prevent its subsequent publication; Munich’s Institute for Contemporary History had already said it would publish the book. [iii] This would have given the impression that mainstream German society was in some way afraid of the book or its contents and given credence to the suggestions of extremists that there is no effective response to their arguments. By publishing the book in this manner, the state removes both the allure of the hidden icon for devotees and any commercial interest for other publishers. Added to which, those prepared to plough through it (even Mussolini said that it was boring) will at least be rewarded with historical insights from leading scholars.  [i] Reuters, ‘German far right in legal battle over free speech’, Yahoo News, 29 June 2012,   [ii] Bavaria to publish ‘unattractive’ new edition of Mein Kampf. Tony Paterson. The Independent. 26 April 2012.  [iii] Relax News, ‘’Mein Kampf’ to see its first post-WWII publication in Germany’, The Independent, 6 February 2010,

Presenting Mein Kampf as a text for critical discussion gives the impression, at least, that those who supported its arguments and those who decried them were somehow on an equal footing. Having the massed ranks of German academia comment on it is likely to add to its credibility rather than detracting from it as it will suggest that the ideas are worthy of analysis. Treating the text in such a way would be akin to teaching theories of a flat earth in Geography. No child is likely to get through their school career without some discussion of WWII, proposition has failed to demonstrate what, exactly, this would add to that situation.

It was not the powerful arguments that are made in Mein Kampf that led to the atrocities of Nazi Germany, mostly because there are none.  The content of the book is not grounds for supressing its publication or use and so, all other things being equal, there should be a presumption in favour of publication. There is an entirely understandable interest in the publication of the book in a country where it is so notorious. It’s important to bear in mind that this is not a bomb making manual and most experts feel that the arguments are weak to the point of absurdity [i] – and the commentary will serve to enforce that point. The content of the book, in and of itself, were not therefore grounds for continued suppression of the text.  Generally speaking, it seems a relatively sensible rule of thumb that if there is no direct harm that can be shown as a result of publication and there is sufficient interest to merit doing so then it would normally be published [ii] . By doing so ahead of the end of the copyright, the state will prevent commercial publishers making a profit and this should dampen down the impact of its arrival.  It is standard to take such a presumption in favour of publication in many other circumstances, even where some groups may find doing so offensive – the Satanic Verses being a case in point. [iii]  There is no doubt that the book also has an iconic significance but that might also be said of Das Kapital and, more explicitly, the works of Lenin and Mao but they remain in print for both scholarly and popular consumption.  It seems sensible to treat Mein Kampf as just another book. If this were a recently discovered autobiography by another significant historical figure, it would almost certainly be published - even if it wasn’t very good.  [i] Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German edition since WWII. BBC Website. 25 April 2012.  [ii] Viewpoint: Let Germans read Mein Kampf. Stephen J Kramer. BBC News. 10 May 2012.  [iii] Devji, Faisal, ‘Does Salman Rushdie exist?’, Free Speech Debate, 13 March 2012,

There is no such thing as a ‘presumption in favour of publication’. Publishers don’t publish books all the time – and absolutely nobody cries free speech. Proposition have said it themselves, the arguments aren’t persuasive. However, having it published at all would have given the work a degree of credibility it doesn’t deserve, having it published with the authority of the state will redouble that. Many of the neo-Nazis who see it as iconic would, in all probability, never have got as far as actually reading the book – let alone any commentary – but they will see a book written by Hitler from the print of the state of Bavaria.

The ban achieved no practical impact in the Internet age as it was not global.  If there were not already easy access to the book through the Internet [i] , then it might be possible to argue that there was some practical purpose to be served by continuing its suppression. However, when any disaffected teenager can gain easy access to the text while sitting alone in their bedroom, it seems foolish that it cannot also be examined in the cooler light of their history class.  The issue is not access to the text; it’s not even really about ownership of the book – both of which are already possible – but rather about how the book is treated. Not publishing or using the book up until now has simply maintained a situation that was put in place after WWII, which in some ways served a purpose, of saying there was no particular reason for a change at any particular time during that process. However, as the seventieth anniversary of the end of the war comes into view, it seems reasonable that the book should be treated as exactly what it is; an interesting historical artefact, to be examined as one might any other.  [i] For example through Project Gutenberg, here .

All of which goes to show how ridiculous bans are in practice as a political tool. When neo-Nazis arrive at rallies with an assortment of black geometric shapes on a white background surrounded by red, nobody stands around trying to figure out what the reference might be. In the same way banning publication of the book doesn’t expunge it from history, everyone still knows it was written, who write it, and broadly what it’s about. It is the symbolism behind the icon, rather than the artifact itself, that caries the significance. As a result banning the artifact achieves little.

If the publication of other versions is ‘inevitable’ then it makes sense for those versions to be framed within the narrative set by a version grounded in scholarship and critical discourse. Indeed the very process of allowing people to understand that different versions of the same text can fulfill radically different roles is welcome development in its own right. It is also likely that by the time copyright runs out, people’s curiosity will have been largely sated by the official version.

Money for blood.  If Mein Kampf were presented by a contemporary writer to a contemporary publisher, nobody would go near it; simply because nobody would buy it. There is virtually no market for books of its kind, of which it is a poor example, and even those who might be interested in what it has to say tend not to be known for their book buying enthusiasm.  The overwhelming reason why this would be bought is either out of morbid curiosity or the desire, on the part of neo-Nazis to own an icon. Even one of the editors of the version to be published, Edith Raim, has said "Our book won't find any buyers in the Neo-Nazi scene. It's going to be a solid scientific work". [i] No doubt both will happen. Selling the book will result in profits from both groups – particularly the latter for whom possession of the physical thing itself is likely to be more important. Those sales will result in profits and it seems distasteful that any profit should be made – either by the state of Bavaria or subsequent publishers of other versions. This wouldn’t be published on the basis of the book itself, the only thing that is driving those profits is the historical role of Hitler, his notoriety and his atrocities.  [i] Evans, Stephen, ‘Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German publication since WWII’, BBC News, 25 April 2012,

Publication is inconsistent with other legislation.  Publication of the book provides another symbol for European neo-Nazis who present a very real threat. The Swastika and Nazi salute remain banned in Germany and other jurisdictions; this should be added to that list. [i]  If Mein Kampf were one of a kind, there might be an argument in favour of treating it in the manner suggested by Proposition. However, the reality is that it isn’t. All sorts of Nazi imagery remain banned and not just in Germany and not just because others find them offensive. They are banned because they serve as rallying points for some of the most dangerous elements in society who, in turn, pose a very real and immediate threat to the physical well-being of groups ranging from immigrant to Jews to homosexuals.  The real issue of consistency, if the Swastika is banned, then why not add Mein Kampf to the list? At the time of the prohibition of these other images, there was no need to do so as it was unavailable as a result of copyright. It is not unreasonable to suppose that, had that not been the case, it would have been banned at the time. All additional legislation would do now is to rectify an historical oversight.  [i] Evans, Stephen, ‘Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German publication since WWII’, BBC News, 25 April 2012,

Without appropriate legislation, neo-Nazi groups will publish their own version as a propaganda tool.  One of the principle reasons for the production of this text was that “Once anyone is free to publish Hitler’s work, now-Nazis will inevitably churn out editions favourable to the Nazi leader.” [i]  This decision to publish does absolutely nothing to change that “inevitable” fact. The state of Bavaria has done nothing to restrict other publications but have simply produced an ‘authorized version’ which does nothing more but give credibility to others. This will still leave the possibility of “charlatans and neo-Nazis appropriating this infamous book for themselves”. [ii] It will allow a narrative to emerge on which is the better publication – should it be interpreted as we see it today or should it be understood within the setting of Hitler’s own time; is it possible to approach the text itself without sharing the perspective of those original readers in the twenties, and so on.  Presumably the Bavarian state has taken this approach because it does not want to be accused of stifling debate on this subject. Which is odd because it’s been doing so for nearly seventy years. The compromise of having the official versions and allowing alternatives is, perhaps, the worst possible outcome, allowing the neo-fascist versions the veneer of respectability of being ‘alternatives’ rather than simply being flat-out wrong.  [i] Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” to be published in Germany for the first time since WWII. Alexander Nazaryan. New York Daily News. April 24 2012.  [ii] AP, ‘Historians hope to publish Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’, USA Today, 5th February 2010,

The point is that it isn’t being presented to a contemporary publisher by a contemporary author. As with all texts, it is of its time and forms its own part of the historical record. It’s entirely likely that if The Canterbury Tales were presented by a contemporary author, publishers wouldn’t be fighting over it. However, within its context it is one of the founding documents of world literature. Moreover as Stephan Kramer, the General Secretary of Germany's Central Council of Jews points out publishing "A historically critical edition… prevent[s] neo-Nazis profiting from it." [i]  [i] Paterson, Tony, ‘German Jews want ‘Mein Kampf’ reprinted’, The Independent, 10 August 2009,

A democracy, like any state, owes its first duty to its citizens, and its national interest is therefore in selling this equipment to help business at home. While it is convenient, perhaps even morally right at times, to stand publicly for the universality of democratic principles, such stands should not be taken at the expense of national security or influence. It should certainly not be considered an obligation. Sweeping policies like this will alienate valuable allies and make it more difficult for democracies to deal with the undemocratic world. With regard to domestic freedoms, states have long held different standards of action when dealing with their own citizens than those of other states, and that has never served to erode domestic freedoms.

Democratic states have an obligation to not bolster repression abroad  It is common for Western democracies to make sweeping statements about the universality of certain rights, and that their system of government is the one that should be most sought after in the world, that democracy is the only legitimate form of government. As when Obama in Cairo proclaimed “These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” [1] They claim to work in the United Nations and other organizations toward the improvement of rights in other countries and clamour about the need for building governments accountability around the world, using their liberal-democratic paradigm as the model. Yet at the same time democratic governments and companies sell technologies to non-democratic allies that are used to systematically abuse the rights of citizens and to entrench the power of those avowedly illegitimate regimes. These hypocrisies read as a litany of shame. A telling example is the Blair government in the United Kingdom selling weapons to an oppressive regime in Indonesia for the sake of political expediency even after proclaiming an ‘ethical foreign policy’. [2]  Even if democracies do not feel it is a defensible position to actively seek to subvert all non-democratic states, and that non-democracies should be considered semi-legitimate on the basis of nations’ right to self-determination, they should still feel morally obliged not to abet those regimes by providing the very tools of oppression on which they rely. [3] To continue dealing in these technologies serves only to make democratic countries’ statements hollow, and the rights they claim to uphold seem less absolute, a risk in itself to freedoms within democracies. Respect for rights begins at home, and actively eroding them elsewhere reduces respect for them by home governments.  [1] Obama, Barack, “Remarks by the President on a new beginning”, Office of the Press Secretary, 4 June 2009,   [2] Burrows, G. “No-Nonsense Guide to the Arms Trade”. New Internationalist. 2002,   [3] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012.

Corporations are bound to obey the laws of the societies in which they are based, but they are not so constrained in their foreign dealings, in which they are bound instead by foreign laws that are often much more lax. The nature of the international landscape, with its many incompatible and overlapping forms of government and regulatory frameworks, demands that corporations be flexible in order to survive. The constraints put upon the manufacturers of surveillance equipment put forward by this policy will make them less competitive in the international market, which is often the primary market for these businesses. Furthermore, if they feel constrained they may pull up stakes and move their operations abroad to a more accommodating jurisdiction. This would serve to harm domestic jobs and undermine the ability of democratic states to maintain their edge over others in essential surveillance technology development.

Advanced surveillance technology prevents dissidents from being able to organize and sue for freedom  High-tech surveillance technology has given repressive governments and police states a new lease on life. Now more than ever they can intrude into every aspect of people’s lives, ensuring that dissent is cowed for fear of the ever present threat of the security services. The vision of Orwell’s 1984 has become a living nightmare for people all over the world. Their power has made it extremely difficult for movements for reform, government accountability, and democracy, which have foundered when faced with these sophisticated security apparatuses (Valentino-Devries, 2011). [1] By dominating the flow of information states have the power to keep their people in check and prevent them from ever posing a threat to their repressive status quo. Thus China blocks access to the internet and to other forms of communications in Tibet to “ensure the absolute security of Tibet’s ideological and cultural realm”. It cuts the Tibetan people off from outside world so as to prevent any rerun of the instability that occurred in 2008, which China blamed on the influence of the Dalai Lama from outside. [2]  Only external help in alleviating this censorship could allow activists to organize effectively and perhaps to one day bring about genuine reform and justice to their societies. The surveillance equipment on which these regimes rely is often only available from firms and governments in the democratic world where, by and large, technology is generally far more advanced than in the non-democratic world. Without access to these technologies, the regimes would be far more hard-pressed to keep rigid tabs on their citizens, allowing for the seeds of dissent to take root. Only then can the forces clamouring for democracy hope to be able to organise networks of activists, and to have their views considered by the state.  [1] Valentino-Devries, J. “US Firm Acknowledges Syria Uses its Gear to Block Web”. Wall Street Journal. 29 October 2011,   [2] Human Rights Watch, “China: Attempts to Seal Off Tibet from Outside Information”, 13 July 2012,

Security services have managed to watch over and infiltrate the efforts of dissidents all through history. The visibility and tactics is all that has changed. The internet was never going to just be an arena that helps dissidents in authoritarian regimes but as with other technological advances, such as the telephone both increases communication and provides methods of monitoring that communication. If non-democratic states were to lose access to Western technology, they would either procure comparable replacements from other non-democracies, or they would pursue more traditional forms of surveillance, ones that tend to be more invasive and physically threatening.

Is a minor ban really a good signal? The chances are the government will ignore it and those who it is meant to encourage will never hear about it. In the event that the regimes it is aimed at do take not far from weakening them, this policy serves only to alienate them. The lack of respect the policy is clearly aimed to show will galvanize the leaderships in undemocratic regimes to cut off various ties with democratic states, limiting the flow of ideas and democratic principles that natural adhere to activities like international trade. The result is non-democracies will be less willing to talk about reform in the international community because they see their very form of government as under threat by foreign agents seeking to discredit them. Ultimately, a boost in Western moral does little to promote democracy and human rights while a negative signal will result in regimes being more suspicious and obstinate.

The right of Western businesses to sell their services abroad can be curtailed when their actions stand counter to the interests of their home governments  Corporations are private entities that have the right to sell their services and to deal with agents foreign and domestic, including governments. However, this right can be limited when those actions are oppositional to the aims of the home state in which they are incorporated. The sale of surveillance technology to undemocratic regimes stands against the avowed aims of democracies and against their strategic interests in bolstering democracy abroad and maintaining a reputation for fair dealing. For this reason it is perfectly legitimate for governments to ban the corporations within their borders from selling dangerous technologies to foreign governments. Such is already the case with many kinds of strategic technology, especially weapons technology. [1] The EU, for example, bans a range of arms sales to various oppressive states on these grounds, [2] China in particular is an example where it would potentially be very lucrative to overturn the ban. [3] Corporations benefit from the protection of democratic states, as they provide bases of operations that shield their right to property and ensure stability and the rule of law. If corporations wish to benefit from these provisions they must be willing to accept the instructions of the states that house them regarding what can and cannot be sold to foreign powers.  [1] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012.   [2] Banks, M. “Senior MEP Calls for Freeze on Arms Sale to North Africa”. The Parliament.com. 7 July 2011.   [3] See the debatabase debate ‘This House believes the European Union should lift its ban on member states selling arms to China’

This ban would have a powerful signalling effect expressing disapproval of non-democracies' system of government  A ban on the sale of surveillance technology to non-democracies serves ultimately as a statement of disapproval. It shows that the undemocratic regimes cannot be trusted with the ability to spy on their people. This signal has several effects. An example of this international shaming affecting is the international bans on the use of landmines. Various states created a framework, the Ottawa Convention, [1] in which their condemnation pressured nearly every other state, including authoritarian regimes, to follow suit. [2] Domestically it serves to bolster people’s faith in the system of rights they value highly and enshrine in law. They can point to this ban as an example of their government’s desire to make a better world and not to increase repression for the sake of power or profit. In the undemocratic states themselves, the regime leaders will be faced with a significant public relations blow as they come under criticism. This serves to embolden and empower holders of dissenting opinions and to spark pro-democratic discourse. In the international community it makes an emphatic value judgement on the merit of certain systems of government, namely the superiority of democracy and government accountability to the people, principles most non-democracies still pay some form of lip-service to. Overall, this policy boosts the credibility of democracy, while undermining the influence of undemocratic states.  [1] See the debatabase debate ‘This House (as the USA) would sign the Ottawa convention banning landmines’,   [2] Wexler, L. “The International Deployment of Shame, Second-Best Responses, And Norm Entrepreneurship: The Campaign to Ban Landmine and the landmine Ban Treaty”. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2003.

Banning the sale of surveillance technology does not mean democracies are declaring all undemocratic regimes illegitimate. Rather, they are simply not allowing their technology to aid in the repression of people, which is the only use to which that technology is put in practice. Reform sometimes demands a firm hand, and while some regimes will be riled by what they perceive as an insult, the greater chance for dissidents to develop networks and voices is worth the cost.

Real politick is not the only consideration democracies should entertain when they engage in international relations. Indeed, the Western powers have sought since World War II to develop a system of international justice that recognizes the primacy of peoples’ rights irrespective of where they are born. This principle is constantly compromised as democracies jockey for influence with undemocratic regimes, bolstering those regimes and their repressive norms in the process. In order to be consistent, and to serve the true interests of justice, democracies must not aid undemocratic governments in the repression of their people.

It is hypocritical for democratic governments to utilize surveillance technology to watch their own people while denying that technology to others  It is a fatal conceit to consider democracies somehow above the influence of using their surveillance technology to curtail the freedoms of their own citizens. The biggest customers of Western surveillance technology companies are wealthy democracies. The United Kingdom, for example, has one of the most-watched populations in the world, with a saturation of CCTV cameras far in excess of any dictatorship. [1] The PATRIOT Act in America, also, has given the federal government enormous scope for domestic spying. These powers are no less simply because the government is composed in part of elected officials. The security establishment is appointed, not elected, and their servicemen are promoted from within. It is base hypocrisy to pretend that the security systems are inherently more just when employed in democratic states than in undemocratic ones. They are used for the same purpose, to ensure that the state is protected and the status quo maintained. Democracies have no moral basis on which to base this policy.  [1] BBC News. “Britain is ‘Surveillance Society’”. 2 November 2006,

The inability to use advanced technologies merely forces non-democracies to utilize more unsavoury methods to achieve their aims  If it is the aim of an undemocratic regime to use advanced surveillance technology to gather intelligence on, and ultimately crush, dissent it will find other means of doing so. Their calculus of survival is not changed, only their available methods. Their first port of call will be the more advanced non-democracies that might be able to supply comparable surveillance equipment. China’s military and surveillance technology is fast catching up to that of the West, and makes an appealing alternative source for equipment. [1] The only difference is that the Chinese have no compunction at all about how the technology is used, meaning worse outcomes for pro-democracy groups who run afoul of them. When this strategy fails regimes can turn to the tried and tested models of past decades, using physical force and other less technological modes of coercion to cow dissent. Again, this form of repression is quite effective, but it is also much more painful to those on the receiving end. Given the options, democracies supplying surveillance technology may be the best option for dissidents in undemocratic countries.  [1] Walton, G. “China’s Golden Shield: Corporations and the Development of Surveillance Technology in the People’s Republic of China”. International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. 2001.

This ban will alienate non-democracies from discourse and stifle reform efforts  When a state is declared illegitimate in the eyes of a large part of the international community, its natural reaction is one of upset and anger. A ban on the sale of surveillance technology to non-democracies would be seen as a brutal slap in the face to many regimes that consider themselves, and are often considered by their people, to be the legitimate government of their country. The ban will result in further tension between non-democracies and democracies, breaking down communication channels. Democracies are best able to effect change in regimes when they seek to engage them constructively, to galvanize them to make gradual connections to the development of civil society and to loosen restrictions on freedoms, such as reducing domestic spying. The ban makes it clear that the ultimate aim of democracies is to effectively overthrow the existing governments of non-democracies in favour of systems more like their own. The outcome of this conclusion is far less willingness on the part of these regimes to discuss reform, and makes it more likely that they will demonize pro-democracy activists within their borders as agents of foreign powers seeking to subvert and conquer them. This particular narrative has been used to great effect by many regimes throughout history, including North Korea and Zimbabwe, Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa for example denounced a travel and arms sales ban as attempting to “undermine the inclusive government”. [1] By treating non-democracies as responsible actors democracies do much more in effectively furthering their own aims.  [1] BBC News, “Zimbabwean minister denounces EU”, 14 September 2009,

Presuming democracy is the only legitimate or worthwhile form of government is both inaccurate and unproductive  As much as the more liberal citizenry of many of the world’s democracies wish to believe otherwise, democracy as a system of government is not the only game in town. In fact, the growth of the strong-state/state-capitalism approach to government has gained much traction in developing countries that witness the incredible rise of China, which will before long be the world’s largest economy, flourish under an undemocratic model. [1] Chinas ruling communist party have legitimacy as a result of its performance and its historical role reunifying the country. [2] Democracies pretending they are the only meaningful or legitimate states only serve to antagonize their non-democratic neighbours. Such antagonism is doubly damaging, considering that all states, democracies included, rely on alliances and deals with other states to guarantee their security and prosperity. This has meant that through history democracies have had to deal with non-democracies as equal partners on the international stage, and this fact is no different today. States cannot always pick and choose their allies, and democracies best serve their citizens by furthering their genuine interests on the world stage. This policy serves as a wedge between democracies and their undemocratic allies that will only weaken their relations to the detriment of both. When the matter comes to surveillance technology, Western states’ unwillingness to share an important technology they are willing to use themselves causes tension between these states. Non-democracies have just as much right to security that surveillance technology can provide as the more advanced states that develop those technologies.  [1] Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. “Is State Capitalism Winning?”. Project Syndicate. 31 December 2012.   [2] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,

Oppressive regimes have turned to the use of advanced surveillance technology in response to activists’ learning to evade more conventional methods of surveillance, and by moving their organizations online. Western surveillance technology has filled a niche that was once open for dissidents. By placing this ban, even if the regimes turn back to old methods, they will still be hampered in the crushing of dissent. Furthermore, no regime has the resources or power to have physical surveillance as pervasive as the technology denied them would allow. Electronic surveillance therefore can cast a much broader net that would allow the government to repress many more people who would not be subject to more labour intensive physical surveillance.

While Western states are willing to use surveillance technology to restrict their citizens, they do so always with a democratic mandate. That is the key difference. Democracies use surveillance technology to provide their people with the safety and security they demand, a security over which the people always have the veto of the ballot box. The non-democracy is not checked by any such power, and thus its use of surveillance technology faces no constraint.

It matters if celebrities have double standards when they present themselves as being whiter than white. Equally, as Prop points out, there are already laws on defamation, libel, slander, defamation, trespass and surveillance. It is difficult to see what the register would add to these. One of the points that Leveson has routinely ignored is that all of the issues that prompted the inquiry are already illegal; hence the arrest of the journalists and executives involved [i] .  [i] BBCwebsite. Journalist arrested in computer hacking probe. 29 August 2012.

Redressing the balance  Such a register would, presumably still allow reporting when there was a genuine public interest – just as is the case for any other member of the public [i] . Presumably in such a circumstance, judicial approval could be sought – a process considerably quicker and easier than grinding an apology out of a magazine or newspaper; let alone winning a libel case.  Putting the burden on publications to demonstrate that something was news rather than gossip would be of huge benefit not only to celebrities themselves but to those long-suffering consumers of British news who, whilst hating it, have had to plough through this dross as it makes its way from the pages of magazines into the public consciousness [ii] .  So what if celebrities have double-standards? So do most people, none of who would appreciate that fact being pointed out on the front pages of the media.  [i] The Telegraph. Matthew Holehouse. “Leveson Inquiry: Judge suggests a ‘celebrity privacy registry’”. 18 January 2012.  [ii] The Guardian. Sam Delaney. “Will the Leveson inquiry kill celebrity magazines?” 26 December 2011.

If this is going to come down to professional judgement on what is and isn’t news then editors of successful magazines and newspapers would seem to have rather more relevant experience than a High Court judge. One of the ironies of the whole process has been that the one group who took no responsibility for the various crimes of newspapers are the people who bought them; papers follow the whims of their readers, whether the middle class like it or not.

A right to privacy – even if you are famous  Just because somebody chooses to be an actor, singer or an entertainer of any kind does not mean that they lose their right to a private life. In the context of the UK (the Scope of the Leveson Enquiry) it’s worth mentioning that this right is guaranteed under both the Human Rights Act of 1998, which in turn is predicated on the European Convention of Human Rights [i] .  The people who are having their private lives splayed over the tabloids and gossip magazines are not politicians or judges taking bribes, they are not police officers beating up suspects, they are not teachers offering grades in exchange for sexual favours or any other area of sensible journalistic investigation. They are people who happen to work in the entertainment industries and their lives are being interrupted for the sake of prurience and curiosity that has nothing to do with a meaningful news agenda.  If, as some of those mentioned in the introduction suggest, the worst that happens as a result of such a register is that celebrity magazines vanish, then the proposition is quite relaxed about that.  [i] Article 8 of the ECHR and the UK HRA (1998). Outlined here .

Article eight only applies to public bodies so, for the most part, the media are not affected. However, to tackle the more general point – celebrity, by its nature requires some surrender of privacy; presumably those who would sign such a register would still want the ‘good’ publicity but want approval over the ‘bad’ stuff. Once you start giving anyone copy approval over a supposedly free press, you might as shut it down. It has simply ceased to be free at that point.

Making editor’s think twice  A paparazzo’s shot of a second or third rate celeb doing something stupid, or something perfectly sensible but just not in makeup – or clothes – makes for an easy page lead. Anything that makes editors pause and consider whether they have something that might actually pass for news might do a great deal to pull large chunks of the British media – along with the readers they claim to serve – out of the gutter.  In recent decades anything with ‘celebrity’ associations has been considered news as a sought of kneejerk reaction by editors. Even in the ‘quality’ press there’s still plenty of coverage of vacuous, self-absorbed, talentless individuals who are famous, mostly, for being famous.  The defence of many editors is that these individuals deliberately court the attention they receive, which is, no doubt, true. However, whether it’s a good idea to give it to them is something that ought to give editors pause for thought given the deforming impact it has on young people’s sense of ambition [i] . Anything that means that such a productive golden goose is just one signature away from being killed, might be enough to make them ask whether it is really worth it.  Nobody is suggesting that this will transform the media overnight but readers moving away from publications that focussed exclusively on celebrity gossip to publications that, while containing some, also have much more news and analysis of real world events and issues certainly couldn’t hurt levels of social and political engagement. The best way to encourage engagement is through education, which the media can provide.  [i] The Telegraph. Lucy Cockcroft. “Cult of Celebrity ‘is harming children”. 14 March 2008.

It would seem to be entirely up to the media if they chose to seek an interview with a celebrity about their latest movie – that is, after all, part of most actors’ job descriptions and part of the media’s duty to inform. That hardly seems relevant to whether it’s possible to publish a picture of them shouting at their kids.

The response as simple as the point: Leveson wasn’t asked to create a regulatory framework for the Internet. The web is the papers’ problem, not Leveson’s.

It would allow for an entirely false image to be created  If celebrities were, in fact simply hard-working entertainment professionals who finished rehearsals and then returned to their private lives then the idea of protecting that privacy might make sense. The reality is that it just isn’t so. It is routine for celebrities to use their status to express opinions on political or social matters on which they have no expertise whatsoever – and expect the media to cover it. Whether it’s the modest but routine endorsing of political parties in the build-up to elections [i] to Paul McCartney on animal rights to Matt Damon on virtually everything – why are we listening to their opinions rather than, say, a professor of economics or ethics?  Equally, they expect coverage – and to be taken seriously – when announcing that the latest movie, or book or album is a masterpiece despite the panning it’s receiving from the critics.  It’s also questionable as to whether pop singer or movie star would count as quite the right career choice for someone looking for a quiet life [ii] .  It would be interesting to see how many would sign-up to Leveson’s proposed list if it was a blanket ban on publicity. No coverage of charity events that happened to get a celeb along, no interviews with actors on economics or pop musicians on ethics.  [i] The Independent. Matilda Battersby and Thomas Mendelsohn. A who’s who of celebrity political endorsements.” 4 May 2010.  [ii] The Guardian. Owen Bowcott. “Media interest in celebrities’ lives is legitimate, European court rules.” 7 February 2012.

It sets a very dangerous precedent for controlling the output of the media – who is a celebrity?  What and who else should the media not be allowed to cover. By the same logic as banning the coverage of the private lives of those celebs that make a living out of publicity, why not the financial lives of those bankers who make their living out of money? There’s no doubt that it caused embarrassment and inconvenience to those concerned and the collapse of banks could have been reported perfectly well without mentioning the tens of millions made by their directors and traders.  When does someone become a celebrity and when do they cease to be. If a politician appears on “I’m a celebrity…” or “Celebrity Big Brother”, do they cease to be a politician?  Are the Hamiltons public figures or celebrities? Is Portillo? Is Galloway? Nadine Dorries is the latest sitting member of Parliament to take part in a reality TV show; in this case I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here. [i] When actors become members of parliament is their previous life covered.  Perhaps most obviously if a comedian like Jimmy Carr whose material is often political turns out not to be paying his taxes what happens? [ii]  There are several differences between telling newspapers what they can and can’t cover in advance and establishing a regulatory framework for when they overstep the mark. An important one of those differences is that Leveson was asked to investigate the latter and not the former.  [i] Mulholland, Hélène, ‘Nadine Dorries to go ahead with TV show after learning of Tory suspension’, guardian.co.uk, 9 November 2012,   [ii] The Guardian. Rupert Sawyer. “Poor Jimmy Carr. Being a celebrity shouldn’t be taxing.” 22 June 2012.

It simply won’t work in an internet age  Whatever one thinks about the morality of this idea – and Opposition believes it is an attack on free expression – the simple and compelling fact is that it won’t work. The super-injunctions [i] fiasco demonstrated that keeping information silent in an internet age is simply impossible when there is a keen public interest.  Whether Prop likes it or not, the public is interested in celebrity news, requiring newspapers to ignore what is happening in the blogosphere is asking them not to do their job. It would mean that the only people on the planet who couldn’t tweet celebrity gossip would be those hired to do so.  This is important because it’s effectively impossible to sue a blog or a twitter account so they can publish any old nonsense. The press by contrast are subject to the law and, as a result, rumours remain the stuff of fantasy until they appear in the media. Without that arbiter between truth and fantasy, a curious public might as well believe what some fantasist has posted on their website.  [i] Useful background on super-injunctions as the history leading up to them is here on the BBC site.

There is a clear and demonstrable difference between the public right to know that their savings have been lost but the person who lost them walked off with £40m and seeing a picture that suggests an actress has put on five pounds. The first actually affects the real lives of real people, the second really doesn’t. As for blurred definitions, the NUJ’s own definition of a journalist would seem to work – wherever the person receives the majority of their earnings.

Their song may have gone on to discuss political themes but its basis was an appeal to Mary to rid Russia of Putin. All the rest was trappings after that initial statement – a sort of protracted “because”. It is quite routine for prayers to start with an appeal to diving authority before addressing secular themes just as this did; it was a mockery of a prayer and, therefore, profane.

The focus of their song was one of political dissent rather than religion  Pussy Riot’s protest was politically focussed, the response seems politically driven and now they are prisoners. The name and chorus of the song performed was Virgin Mary, Chase Putin Out. [i] It is very hard to see what would be a better definition of the phrase ‘political prisoner’. Where any punishment required for this act – and Proposition contends that there was not – then it was at most a mild public order offence. Amnesty International and the overwhelming majority of the International media have reached that conclusion.  The very fact that this has become a cause celebre shows the extent to which those who able to step back from the situation recognise this for what it is; a clear abuse of presidential power given the thinnest sheen of respectability by a compliant church.  Such religious content as was contained in the protest fairly obviously relates to the setting and is not the main content of the song. It’s a fairly straightforward artistic device. It does, however, raise the question that if the intent of this song was to be blasphemous – a necessary component of proving it to be so – then why did they do such a bad job of it and spend so much their time going on about politics; it would suggest somewhat incompetent activists.  [i] Elder, Miriam, ‘Pussy Riot trial: prosecutors call for three-year jail term’, guardian.co.uk, 7 August 2012

It is not just the hierarchy of the Church that have objected to the bands actions. There have also been popular protests from regular churchgoers who have been offended by Pussy Riot’s actions. Strangely this fact rarely gets more than a line – and often not even that – in the Western press. [i] This is not therefore a case of the Church ‘propping up’ the state rather it is speaking out for the outrage that many of its members feel.  [i] BBC Website. Pussy Riot members jailed for two years for hooliganism. 17 August 2012

The blasphemy charge looks suspiciously convenient for Putin  There seems to be little doubt in any one’s mind that Putin and his regime were the focus of the protest. It is, equally, no secret that Putin has a fairly brutal attitude towards political dissent; he has expelled even allies in parliament for criticism [i] , uses force to crush unsanctioned protests, [ii] and locks up potential opponents. [iii] Locking up Pussy Riot in order to stop their opposition therefore fits in with Putin’s previous actions against his opposition and seems likely to be the desired result. In the light of that, it seems an extraordinary coincidence that what he would have wanted is exactly what happened. Putin himself said after they were sentenced "We have red lines beyond which starts the destruction of the moral foundations of our society… If people cross this line they should be made responsible in line with the law." [iv]  Putin’s record is not one that suggests that he is happy to step back and allow events to take their course in the hope that what he wants to happen just chances to come along – quite the reverse. Suggesting that this is a happy coincidence for Putin would be a little like suggesting that the decision to have term limits for the presidency, just not for Putin, was just the happy outcome of an impartial process. [v] If this was just the Church and the courts happening to favour the interests of an over-mighty president, then Putin must be the luckiest man alive.  [i] Vasilyeva, Nataliya, ‘Anti-Putin lawmaker ousted in Russia; who's next?’, guardian.co.uk, 14 September 2012  [ii] Heritage, Timothy, ‘Vladimir Putin using force to crush protests, Russian opposition fears’, National Post, 6 March 2012  [iii] Parfitt, Tom, ‘Mikhail Khodorkovsky sentenced to 14 years in prison’, The Guardian, 30 December 2010  [iv] Stott, Michael, ‘Pussy Riot got what they deserved: Putin’, Reuters, 25 October 2012  [v] Boudreaux, Richard, ‘Putin Accepts Term Limits in Principle, but Not for Him’, The Wall Street Journal, 11 April 2012

What is extraordinary is that despite the liberal outrage of much of the Western press, the Russian court system has delivered an appropriate verdict. There can be little doubt that their actions showed a fantastic level of disrespect for the Church, this is the closest relevant charge. Rulings may be convenient or not for leaders of all political persuasions – neither proves bias within the courts.

History of the Orthodox Church and the Russian state  The Russian Orthodox Church has long been happy to prop up whichever strongman happens to be running the Kremlin, this was particularly the case in the time of the Tsars but was even the case under the Communists for all their supposed Atheism. [i] It certainly would not come as any surprise to Kremlin-watchers that, as Putin’s government shreds the last vestiges of democratic credibility in favour of the strong-arm tactics of earlier Russian leaders – Tsarist and Communist – that the Church would be only too happy to help out with such difficulties as this as the Church and Putin are particularly close.  The fact is that the long arm of the presidential office now reaches into all parts of Russian public life, including religious life, for example the FSB has harassed other Christian sects and proselytizing has been banned. [ii] The intrusion of the state has been demonstrated far more effectively by the response to the protest than could ever have been achieved through such an event on its own. Although that reality may be powerfully ironic, it does little to help these political prisoners held at presidential whim and nothing more than hollow and self-serving justification from the courts.  [i] Miner, Steven Merritt, Stalin’s Holy War, The University of North Carolina Press, April 2003  [ii] Levy, Clifford J., ‘At Expense of All Others, Putin Picks a Church’, The New York Times, 24 April 2008

It’s a parody of a prayer; nobody has ever denied that. If that’s the form of protest to be used, where better than a church? No property was damaged although some feathers may have been ruffled – but fair enough. Protesting the increasingly totalitarian rule of one of the world’s most powerful nations would seem to justify a fairly minor disturbance on a Sunday morning.

Firstly protesting in a Church clearly has served to draw maximum attention to the issue and so they appear to have been proven right to have done so. Secondly, it is the severity of the sentence that is the issue here, Tatchell’s actions were described by the magistrate as “a minor public order offence” and he was given a fine of under £20.

Intention  Perhaps more damning than the fact that the protest did cause offence or the fact that it was always likely to was the fact that it was clearly intended to do. At no point can the members of Pussy Riot been under the illusion that no offence would be caused; quite the reverse, they were counting on it. Counting not only on the outcry in the domestic media but also on the impact that would have on the international media in an effort to give themselves some cover.  While the charge of ‘hooliganism’ might seem laughable this does meet the Russian definition “The flagrant violation of public order expressed by a clear disrespect for society.” [i] It is clear they did this in terms of their intrusion to areas reserved for priests, by manifestly contradicting common church rules, expressing their disrespect and using swear words, [ii] it is clear that profanity is a much greater offence within a church than outside even if it is a word used in ‘everyday speech’. [iii]  It is important to be clear that this is not Solzhenitsyn, because of the way this was staged it was intended from the outset to do nothing more than grab headlines. There is no denying that there are real political divisions in Moscow and that there are many people with very real issues with Putin’s style of leadership, it is difficult to see how this publicity grabbing stunt does anything to help that cause.  [i] Taylor, Adam, ‘Why Russian Punks Pussy Riot Aren't Heroes’, Business Insider, 16 August 2012  [ii] Whitmore, Brian, ‘Pussy Riot: The Punk Band That Isn't And The Concert That Wasn't’, Radio Free Europe, 30 July 2012  [iii] Fraser, Giles, ‘Pussy Riot's crime was violating the sacred. That's what got Jesus in court’, The Guardian, 10 August 2010

Why use the form of a prayer and mention the Virgin in a political protest?  The members of Pussy Riot themselves seem to admit that the protest was at least in part religious, Sparrow, one of the members told the Guardian "It was just a prayer. A very special prayer”. [i] When combined with the setting in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour shows the intent. It would, in theory, be possible to imagine a protest in such a setting that did not cause offence – or at least sought to minimise it. However, the religious overtones and references seem designed purely to inflame it. They served no purpose in making the case about Putin’s policies but seem calculated to offend the congregation and clergy and, given the setting, the Orthodox Church as a whole.  However, a quiet and dignified protest, while making the political point more powerfully and without offence would not have served the main purpose here; publicity through maximizing offence as a result of deliberate blasphemy.  To intend blasphemy, to commit blasphemy, in the full and wilful knowledge that it is blasphemous and then claim it is political dissent is offensive not only to the religious but to those who have genuinely suffered as a result of their political dissent [ii] .  [i] Cadwalladr, Carole, ‘Pussy Riot: will Vladimir Putin regret taking on Russia's cool women punks?’, The Observer, 29 July 2012  [ii] Daily Mail. Mark Dooley. “Am I the only person who thinks that pussy riot should have been jailed?” 24 August 2012.

If it was a purely political statement, then why stage it in a church?  There is no shortage of possible venues to stage a protest such as this one. A busy supermarket, a train station, a park, the middle of the street – all of them would have fulfilled the requirement for lots of people with attentions to be attracted. Since it was dubbed not a live concert the location would have been totally interchangeable. [i] Holding it in a church – in front of the high alter during mass – was calculated to cause maximum effect, maximum shock and maximum publicity. Causing intended offence during a religious ceremony is about as close to the definition of blasphemy as it would be possible to get.  Vladimir Putin has shrugged off challenges from much more serious critics than an attention-seeking group of musicians. This very act was calculated to cause the greatest possible offence to people of faith. Such a protest in St Peter’s in the same situation would have caused great offence even if the protest had been about Berlusconi. When British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell interrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter service some years ago, he was widely thought of as having done his cause more harm than good because it offended so many and was subsequently convicted [ii] . This is no different, it was blasphemous and, under Russian law, there are punishments for blasphemy.  [i] Whitmore, Brian, ‘Pussy Riot: The Punk Band That Isn't And The Concert That Wasn't’, Radio Free Europe, 30 July 2012  [ii] BBC News Website. Tatchell fined £18.60 for pulpit protest.

The protest was certainly intended to be noticed – there’s little point in protesting something if it isn’t. The very fact that they were willing to risk imprisonment suggests that this was something more than a media stunt. It’s also difficult to see how this is different from earlier generations of artists who have protested tyranny – the only significant difference seems to be that this tyrant gets on rather better with leaders of the West.

This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available [i] . China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN” [ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies.  [i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011.  [ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.

Foundational Myths  Nations come from somewhere, or at least we tend to believe they do [i] . The fact that these foundational myths are usually either partially or completely untrue is mostly irrelevant. These myths – be they of glorious revolutions or long histories reaching back into antiquity are projections of the modern nation. However, they are only the most obvious example of national mythologies, we project our current-day identities onto all sorts of more recent histories as well. To take one fairly flippant example of this, ask a national of any country involved on the victorious side in WWII and ask them who won the war.  States have an interest in perpetuating these myths, not for particular or personal motives but because they add to a sense of national identity and the homogeneity of the whole. To that extent they are, quite literally, a matter of national security they confer and justify the notion of the nation as an entity or the concept of the nation state as a possibility. As national historian Spyridon Lambros said “next to military power, the pen of the historian is the most powerful weapon of national ambitions.” [ii]  [i] Tambini, D. Ethnic and Racial studies, Vol 24 No. 2 March 2001 pp. 195 – 217. Post-national citizenship.  [ii] Berger, Stefan, ‘History and national identity: why they should remain divorced’, History &amp; Policy, December 2007

In such instances, clearly nations will pursue their national interest but, just to take Prop’s example, the ICJ [i] spends most of its time dealing with disputes about maritime law, mostly ownership issues. They work on the basis of investigation and fact. Suppressing information would clearly only be an attempt to reduce the information available so as to prevent an unbiased judgement. To take the Senkaku/Daioyu example yes the China’s may have some documents conceding Japanese sovereignty but that does not end the dispute. Nor would losing the case in such a dispute be a real threat to the national security of either side; the territory and resources would be nice to have but are not vital for either’s economy or security. So Proposition has yet to give an example of where there would be a clear issue of national security – or even national interest in hiding history.  [i] International Criminal Court of Justice website. Contentious Cases

Protecting the past  There is a simple case of natural justice in protecting the decisions and reputations of those who have served the state and can no longer speak for themselves [i] . The same applies to events, for better or worse political or military disputes that were settled fifty or a hundred years ago are best left like that, settled.  All nations have moments in their histories that are unlikely to reflect that country at its best but we judge our own nations and others on a balance of the broad sweep of history rather than the grubby minutiae of particular events.  By its nature the historical record will always be incomplete – silent on motivations of those involved or the particularities of individual decisions as we can never know everything and not all decision making processes are recorded. We already know the overall outcomes of, for example, wars or elections. It would be impossible to change those results by discovering that they were not handled as one might have wished. Neither is their much to be gained in despoiling the characters of those involved – national psyches need their heroes and villains, making either of them more human in both senses of the phrase adds little and could distract much. For example do we really need to know that Churchill opposed the Nuremburg trials instead favouring execution without trial for senior Nazi leaders? Does it diminish Churchill’s greatness or undermine the results of the Nuremburg trials? No. [ii]  [i] BBC News Website. Secret papers face faster release. 29 January 2009.  [ii] Cobain, Ian, ‘Britain favoured execution over Nuremberg trials for Nazi leaders’, The Guardian, 26 October 2012

There is rarely anything to do with protecting the past in these decisions. It is all to do with the present and either manufacturing an image of a previous decision or covering up corruption or incompetence on the part of the party, faction or individual that happens to be in charge at the time. What Proposition so cheerily describes as ‘grubby minutiae’ would be more generally referred to as ‘facts’, proposition seems to think that history shouldn’t let these ‘grubby minutiae’ get in the way of a good story. If proposition is correct in its view that “It would be impossible to change those results” then there is no reason why historians should not be free to investigate and reinterpret the record as to how these results were arrived at.

Predicting and protecting the future nation  In a much more practical sense historical data may well breach national security. They may well be instances, such as in the case given in the introduction, where governments may even be unaware that there were issues of national security involved until they are brought to light. Data that was not significant fifty years ago may become of great significance later on.  To take a simple, hypothetical example. Laws relating to the ownership of the sea are relatively obscure and often based on ancient negotiations or treaties that are mostly about something else. They frequently involve custom and precedent and, for the most part, nobody really makes a fuss about the exact details. Until, of course, someone finds an oil field underneath that stretch of ocean or the fish supplies of a neighboring area become depleted [i] . At his point, the exact details of those negotiations and treaties become a source of great interest. Thus for example documents relating the Senkaku/Daioyu islets may have been uncontentious and irrelevant in the 1950 may now be of vital importance in an international dispute between China and Japan over the islands. [ii] [iii]  In a scenario such as this, there may well be vital national issues that were not predicted at the time of the negotiation or ratification of a treaty. Disputes of this nature – justifying industrial scale claims to mineral and fishing rights on the basis of historical claims are likely to boom over the next few years in relation to the poles as the icecaps recede [iv] .  [i] There are islands around the world under disputed ownership for this reason. Senkaku /Diaoyu (China/Japan) and Dokdo/Takeshima (Japan/Korea)are two obvious examples.  [ii] Lee, Joyman, ‘Senkaku/Diaoyu: Islands of Conflict’, History Today, Vol. 61 no.5, 2011  [iii] Gertz, Bill, ‘China-Japan tensions’, The Washington Times, 15 September 2010  [iv] Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Captain Paul Watson. The Birth of a New Manchuria. 25 January 2008.

By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.

Opposition is living in a fantasy world. They forget that people do not always have rational responses to history, while the outcome of the event in question may not be changed revealing awkward truths could have unpleasant results, so for example if the Chinese government were to suddenly accept responsibility for the killing of millions during the great leap forward riots or even revolution could very well occur. Governments regularly suppress information on the basis of national security and their citizens accept that as a reality. Indeed most accept it as a benefit.  It seems likely that the only reason Dr Xu’s case has achieved notoriety is that he studied in the west (Oxford) for ten years. The same is true of Dr. Gao Zhan (Syracuese) and Dr. Li Shaomin (Princeton) – the other two high-profile academic detainees. It does rather suggest that the spotlight on their cases has less to do with a genuine concern with free speech and more to do with having friends in the West who don’t think their associates should be treated under the same rules as other Chinese citizens. Western nations have their own rules on secrecy which can be used to prosecute those who break them. [i] It is hypocrisy to deny China the right to do the same.  [i] ‘Official Secrets Act 1989’, legislation.gov.uk, 11 May 1989,

Popular history  Who owns a nation’s history? The current government? Those living today? Scholars?  There’s not really a satisfying answer as every group is interested in and uses different parts of history. It doesn’t sit happily into the usual structures, a defeated power may not get to write the history but it certainly has an interest in it. Within a relatively short period of time the nation that featured in historical events has ceased to exist regardless of what happens with borders and names. China may be the best example of all here; which nation is being protected. The China of the revolution? Of the Korean War? Of the Cultural Revolution? Of the Economic reforms of the seventies or the Economic super power of today? What about the Imperial China? Which dynasty? For any nation, the question can be asked, which class, which race, which generation, gender, political creed and so on have a claim to the collective history of the nation. [i]  History must therefore be in the open so that everyone can investigate it and can build their own historical narratives. Secrecy by the government is an attempt to claim ownership of shared events that cannot be owned. As history is an essential part of the creation of an identity government attempts at ownership are a direct attack on an individual’s right to decide their own identity.  [i] Berger, Stefan, ‘History and national identity: why they should remain divorced’, History &amp; Policy, December 2007,

‘It will come out eventually’  Journalism is sometimes called the first draft of history. That does, of course, raise the issue of who writes the final draft. On the basis that historians still argue about the events of centuries and millennia ago, the notion of a final draft may be absurd; however conclusions will be drawn at some point. Politicians trying to hold back historical judgement is a little like trying to hold back the tide, even if the facts are not all available the void will be filled with speculation to explain the gap.  Ultimately information will emerge and will be assessed. The question seems to be when that should take place. Those states that make use of a ‘thirty year rule’ or something similar to protect particular documents such as cabinet minutes do so to allow the free exchange of ideas in the present. [i] Such a length of time seems sufficient to let politicians and civil servants operate without endlessly focussing on their legacies.  However, beyond that trying to control the assessment of history seems to be an exercise in futility. Even the deepest, darkest secrets tend to be extrapolated when they’re not demonstrated. Imprisoning historians and banning things only tends to confirm the view that they were right and there is something damning being hidden. Ultimately, it’s self-defeating.  [i] BBC News, ‘Secret papers face faster release’, 29 January 2009,

Open expression  If ever there were a situation where free expression should be assumed, this is surely it. Where no harm can come of knowing something (Prop appears to accept this by saying the outcome can’t be changed) what possible reason could there be suppressing the information? [i] The only possible reason would seem to be that it is more convenient for that small group of people, those currently both living and powerful, that the true details of past events not emerge.  If this is the case then the other arguments for free speech come into play, particularly its role in holding the powerful to account.  Either way, proposition loses; if it’s just the minutiae of bygone times, then why not release it, if it’s the stuff of modern day political discourse then the failure to publish it is tantamount to tyranny. To take oppositions own example will learning that Churchill wanted Hitler’s lieutenants executed without trial will this really affect people’s opinions of Churchill? It seems unlikely, many would have similar opinions in the same situation and will be able to understand Churchill’s position.  [i] This principle – that all things being equal there should be a presumption in favour of publication – has been argued in different ways in different countries. A useful example is the US Supreme Court Ruling in the matter of the New York Times vs The United States.

Ownership of the past, for the purposes of this debate, would seem all too evident. Governments determine what information is legitimate to publish both domestically and internationally and do so in the interests of the state. The recent outcry from Western governments about the Wikileaks publication of diplomatic cables dating back to the mid-sixties suggests that Western governments take a somewhat different attitude when it is their historical national security being broadcast. The ongoing detention of Bradley Manning in solitary confinement further suggests that they take a rather more supra-judicial approach than the Chinese [i] .  [i] One of many sites to notice this double standard between the West commenting on other nations’ dissidents and dealing with its own is: Lankaweb. Hameed Abdul Karim. If Bradley Manning were Chinese... 16 June 2012.

Raising taxes for individuals with income over $250,000 will have a hugely detrimental outcome. This is because a huge number of small businesses are legally taxed as individuals. Raising taxes may be manageable for wealthy individuals, but small firms will be crushed by such huge tax increases proposed by Obama. The effects of this will be hard felt across the country, since small firms employ half of all private sector employees in the USA. [1] These small companies will see their investing and spending power vastly reduced and will lead to thousands of redundancies that will ensure the American economy remains stagnant! Low taxes are the key to economic growth, not high taxes and government spending.  [1] US Small Business Administration, FAQs,  , accessed 8/10/2012

A progressive tax policy and a cut in military spending are what America needs.  To pay for his government programs, Obama supports a progressive tax system, with higher taxes for the rich, and lower taxes for the middle class. The need for such a system of taxing the rich to pay for government services has grown since 1980, when income gains between the rich and the poor began to diverge at a faster pace. [1] Recent data shows this trend continuing: in 2011 the wealthiest Americans got richer while median income fell by 4%. [2] Despite these trends, the top marginal tax rate is at nearly an all-time low! [3]  Increasing tax on individuals who earn more than $250,000 and even more for multi-millionaires because the marginal utility of wealth is lower for the super-rich than it is for the poorer. In other words, a millionaire is not particularly worse off if he or she is worth $10 million instead of $15 million. $5 million when spent on welfare programs such as pensions, education, healthcare or housing produces vastly greater utility. We thus see how a progressive tax system ensures a more efficient management of wealth across the economy.  Obama proposes to rake in more government revenue by raising the top marginal tax rate and instituting the Buffet Rule (a stipulation in President Obama’s plan which would apply a minimum tax rate of 30% to individuals making over $1 million per year). Crucially, Obama plans to continue to cut taxes for the middle classes in order to increase their purchasing power and stimulate the economy. [5]  As the 2012 presidential election approaches, President Obama’s long-term focus has been primarily on decreasing the federal debt, estimated at about $15 trillion. Specifically, Obama’s plan, detailed on his website, targets tax loopholes for households with annual incomes over $250,000, via efforts such as the Buffet Rule, while simultaneously reducing taxes for middle-class families and small business owners. [6] In September, President Obama revealed a plan to reduce the deficit by about $3.2 trillion in the next ten years. [7] This will be achieved through an increase in taxation of the nation’s wealthiest, and cuts in spending to the armed forces – as Obama plans to end American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  [1] Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities: “A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality”, March 5 2012,   [2] Nocera, Joe: “Romney and the Forbes 400”, The New York Times, September 24 2012,   [3] Tax Policy Centre,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [4] The White House,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [5] Politifact: “Barack Obama said he’s cut taxes for ‘middle-class families, small businesses’”,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [6] Barack Obama Website,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [7] The White House,  , accessed 8/10/2012

An active, “big” federal government is best for the American people  President Obama believes in an activist government’s role in improving society. Without public intervention, private markets will not sufficiently address inequality or several other public needs, such as environmental preservation and public transportation. Financial returns from investments in such areas are often insufficient to incentivise private sector investment. However such schemes generate high levels of welfare benefits that are desirable from a societal perspective.  Obama’s economic policy draws on Keynesian economic theory, which is the belief that a mixed economy of public and private enterprise, bolstered by a strong welfare state, can jumpstart the economy. In order to create public enterprise, the government needs to spend, either by building a deficit or from tax revenue.[1] This is the policy he has pursued in his first term with a successful stimulus of $787 billion.[2]  Obama’s tax policy boils down to the empirical belief that taxing the rich will help the economy grow, because the revenue can be used on important government programs that can spur growth, and the philosophical argument that the American economy should be more equal and that the U.S. government can and should do more to directly address inequality. It should therefore not be a surprise that Obama wants the Bush era tax cuts for the richest reversed arguing "I just believe that anybody making over $250,000 should go back to the income tax rates we were paying under Bill Clinton."[3]  [1] Blinder, Alan S., “Keynesian Economics”, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd Ed., 2008, Library of Economics and Liberty,   [2] Grunwald, Michael, “Think Again: Obama’s New Deal”, Foreign Policy, Sept/Oct 2012,   [3] Bendery, Jennifer, “Obama Calls For One-Year Extension Of Bush-Era Tax Cuts For First $250,000 Of Income”, Huffington Post, 9th July 2012,

Government spending of the level advocated by Obama will only lead to a handicapped economy riddled with inefficiencies.  The figures alone suggest that the Keynesian theory of increased spending stimulates growth and reduces unemployment is a myth. Despite trillions of dollars of spending from Obama, the US economy is stagnant and unemployment is higher than it was in 2008. [1] This happens for two reasons. First and foremost because high spending levels must be funded by high taxation levels that stifle individuals’ purchasing power and the private sector as a whole. Secondly, government spending generally causes higher inflation, meaning that the net effect of government spending in real terms is negligible, and only makes the system more inefficient! [2]  [1] Powell, Jim: “Why Government Spending Is Bad For Our Economy”, Forbes, 10/13/2011,   [2] ibid

The private sector has indeed been the source of much innovation that has led to improvements in standards of living. However the problem with relying solely on the private sector for social welfare, is that it can only improve the lives of those who can pay for it! It may well be the case that healthcare is better under the private sector, but if only the top 60% (say) of the country can afford it, there is a big problem! Moreover, as has already been mentioned, there is often insufficient financial incentive for the private sector to invest in certain areas, like pharmaceutical development or green energy research. Here, the government must step in and in the interest of public welfare provide the investment needed.  High level-taxation on wealthy individuals may be hard on them, but ultimately is desirable. Ethically speaking, we need to balance the harm of a millionaire losing a small portion of his or her wealth, with the enormous social good that can arise if that wealth was spent on social welfare programs. An extent of “redistribution” of wealth is thus fair and just.

Tax cuts and spending cuts are necessary for growth.  With a national unemployment rate of 8.1% as of September 2012 [1], the United States economy has not recovered from the global financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed it. Governor Mitt Romney’s plan to cut taxes would lessen the burden on American citizens, and spur businesses and entrepreneurs to create more jobs.  Governor Romney advocates a Reagan-esque devotion to laissez-faire economics, arguing that with substantial tax cuts and limited regulation on private businesses, the economy will naturally grow. Mr Romney states on his website that he would reduce government spending from its current level, around $33,000 per household, to around $25,000, while maintaining individual tax rates but decreasing rates for private corporations. [2]  Regarding government programs, Governor Romney opposes President Obama’s spending, vowing to repeal Mr Obama’s healthcare act, saving the country around $95 billion, according to his website. He also has advocated cutting spending on social programs by 5 % (without touching national security spending) and pulling funding from the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation. Furthermore, he plans to save up to $100 million by reducing foreign aid.  The budget deficit will be reduced despite the proposed tax-cuts. This is because tax cuts will have a positive effect on growth, while the spending cuts and clamp down on loopholes and inefficiencies will also help cut the deficit.  Overall, Mitt Romney’s economic policies boil down to taxing less and spending less, allowing the free market to work uninhibited. As with Obama, Romney’s position on this issue reflects his broader beliefs about the problems facing America. His plan to eliminate Title X Family Planning funding, for example, draws quite publicly from his opposition to abortion rights. While, also like Obama, his main concern is lowering the national deficit and paying back the national debt, the ways he would go about it are very different from those of his opponent, and realistically would benefit very different types of Americans.  [1] Google Public Data,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [2] Mitt Romney Website,  , accessed 8/10/2012

A minimalist state enables a fairer and more competitive economy.  Romney believes the best way to improve society is not to spend huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on inefficient government programs, but rather to tax citizens less and allow free-market innovation to improve the quality of life in America. Low taxes are necessary to stimulate innovation and the growth of business because people and businesses are self-interested; they will only invest when they believe they will get the profits from their investment and lowering taxes mean that they will get more of the profit from their investment.[1] At the same time government is a poor manager of the economy because small numbers of people cannot calculate all the effects of central planning and the impact it will have on individuals choices, essentially the market is simply too complex for the government to master so the best option is to reduce government interference as much as possible.[2] For this reason, Romney’s policy preference of lower taxes is coupled with a proposal to cut spending on a wide range of social programs.  Romney also outright rejects the idea of “redistribution” of wealth [3], believing it is unfair to those who have worked hard to build businesses and establish their own well-being. The protection of private property is central to the American political system, and taking from one group of citizens to give to another violates the right of private property. [4] In addition to being unfair, it is impractical, as it creates a disincentive for business people to further increase their wealth by working and investing in businesses that would grow the economy and create more jobs.[5]  [1] Thurow, Lester C., “Profits”, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd Ed., 2008, Library of Economics and Liberty,   [2] "Friedrich August Hayek." The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 2nd ed., 2008. Library of Economics and Liberty.   [3] Becker, Kyle: “Mitt Romney: We believe in free markets and free people, not wealth “redistribution””, Independent Journal Review, September 19 2012,   [4] Dorn, James A.: “Ending Tax Socialism” September 16 1996,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [5] Li, Wenli &amp; Satre, Pierre-Daniel: “Growth Effects of Progressive Taxes”, US Federal Reserve, November 2001,

Deregulating the market is precisely what is not required at the moment. The financial crisis of 2008 caused by irresponsible banking has shown that more than ever, regulation is necessary to ensure that corporations act responsibly and recognise the significance of social good, not just financial profit.  Cutting Medicare will lead to huge numbers of people no longer having access to affordable healthcare. Romney talks of this scenario as if a market without Medicare would be better because people would be able to choose one of the more competitive, more efficient private insurance companies for their health care. Once more however, this is only applicable for those who can afford such a choice! Not providing a safety net and preventing millions of people from attaining treatment for illnesses or chronic conditions is a huge failing from the part of the government.  Lastly, it is not true that cutting spending and taxes reduces the budget deficit. This was exactly the policy tried by George W. Bush and only led to a widening of the budget deficit and an increase of the total federal debt. By contrast, Obama’s plan of cutting inefficiencies and increasing tax on the country’s wealthiest has already been tried and tested under President Clinton and it resulted in a budget surplus.

There is the world of difference between establishing basic rights and interfering in matters that are best agreed at a community or state level. That is the reason why the states collectively agree to constitutional amendments that can be considered to affect all citizens.  However, different communities regulate themselves in different ways depending on both practical needs and the principles they consider to be important. Having the opinions of city-dwellers, who have never got closer to rural life than a nineteenth landscape in a gallery instruct farming communities that they cannot work the land to save a rare frog is absurd.  Trying to establish policies such as a minimum wage or the details of environmental protection at a federal level simply makes no sense, as the implications of these things vary wildly between different areas of the country.  Equally local attitudes towards issues such as religion, marriage, sexuality, pornography and other issues of personal conscience differ between communities and the federal government has no more business banning prayer in Tennessee than it would have mandating it in New York. These are matters for the states and sometimes for individual communities.  The nation was founded on the principle that individual states should agree, where possible, on matters of great import but are otherwise free to go their separate ways.  In addition to which, pretending that the hands of politicians and bureaucrats are free of blood in any of these matters is simply untrue – more than untrue, it is absurd.  If the markets are driven by profit- a gross generalisation - then politics is driven by the hunger for power and the campaign funds that deliver it. Business at least has the good grace to earn, and risk, its own money whereas government feels free to use other peoples for whatever is likely to buy the most votes. Likewise business makes its money by providing products and services that people need or want. Government, by contrast, uses other people’s money to enforce decisions regardless of whether they are wanted or needed by anyone.  Ultimately it is the initiative and industry of working Americans that has provided the funds for the great wars against oppression as well as the ingenuity to solve environmental and other technical solutions to the problems faced by humankind.  Pharmaceutical companies produce medicines – not the DHHS; engineering companies produce clean energy solutions – not the EPA; farmers put food on families’ tables – not the Department of Agriculture.

Government was required to drive through major changes such as drives for equality within society, universal education, and preservation of the environment. Mostly in the teeth of big business  Nobody would deny the role that remarkable individuals have played in the major social changes of history. They have, however, ultimately required the actions of government. Many of these have been achieved despite, rather than because of, the interests of business. Critically they have tended to be to the benefit of the weak, the vulnerable and the neglected.  Governments have been responsible for social reforms ranging from the abolition of slavery and child labor to the removal of conditions in factories and on farms that lead to injury and death, in addition to minimum wage regulations that meant that families could feed themselves. By contrast, the market was quite happy with cheap cotton sown by nimble young fingers.  In turn profit was given preference over any notion of job security or the right to a family life, the market was quite happy to see water poisoned and the air polluted – and in many cases is still happy with it. The logic of the market panders to slave-labor wages to migrant workers or exporting jobs where migrants are not available. Either way it costs the jobs of American citizens, pandering to racism and impoverishing workers at home and abroad. Although the prophets of the market suggest that the only thing standing between the average American and a suburban home - with a pool, 4x4 and an overflowing college-fund is the government, the reality could not be further from the truth.  The simple reality of the market is this: the profit motive that drives the system is the difference between the price of labor, plant and materials on one hand and the price that can be charged on the other. It makes sense to find the workers who demand the lowest wages, suppliers who can provide the cheapest materials and communities desperate enough to sell their air, water and family time. Whether those are at home or abroad. The market, by its nature has no compassion, no patriotism and no loyalty.  The only organization that can act as a restraint on that is, in the final reckoning, government which has legislative power to ensure that standards are maintained. It is easy to point to individual acts that have been beneficial but the reality is that the untrammeled market without government oversight has had a depressing tendency to chase the easiest buck, ditch the weakest, exploit where it can, pollute at will, corrupt where necessary and bend, break or ignore the rules.  It requires government as the agent of what the people consider acceptable to constrain the profit motive.

The primary difficulty with governments retaining surpluses is that the government has no proprietary right to the funds in its coffers. The taxpayer effectively subsidizes the government, on the understanding that it will undertake functions necessary for the defence, continued operation and normative improvement of the state and society.  Clearly defense has to be one of the core functions of government and there are a few others, such as maintaining law and order. For government to say that the only way of securing its own finances is running a small surplus in its current account budget is palpably not true when there is astonishing waste in government expenditure, which is in turn already bloated and intervenes into areas of public life where it simply does not belong.  In terms of using government expenditure as a tool to respond to recessions, there may well be a role in terms of how government uses its own purchasing power and it makes sense that should be used for domestic purchasing wherever possible, however there is little to be gained by government creating imaginary jobs undertaking roles that simply don’t produce anything.  Instead the most useful role that government can play during a recession is not expanding its own size and, therefore, the final cost to the taxpayer, but reducing it. Cutting the size of government reduces the tax burden on business and individuals and cuts back on regulatory pressure. Both actions free up money for expenditure which creates real jobs in the real economy, producing real wealth, in turn spent on real products, which in turn create jobs. This beneficial cycle is the basis of economics, creating imaginary jobs simply takes skills out of the real economy and reduces the pressure on individuals to take jobs that they might not see as ideal.  The most sensible response to a government surplus is not to hoard it on the basis that it might come in useful at some undefined point in the future but to give it back to the people who earned it in the first place. Doing so means that it is spent in the real economy, creating real wealth and real jobs and thereby avoiding the prospect of recession in the first place.  Ultimately it comes down to a simple divide as to whether you believe governments or people are better at spending money. The evidence of waste and incompetence in government expenditure is compelling and it seems an absurd solution to governments mismanaging the money they already have to give them more.

Ultimately government has a responsible to provide a level playing field to ensure that everybody gets a far start in life and can at least survive throughout it  Government, especially in a developed nation and even more so in the wealthiest nation in the world, should be able to ensure that children are not hungry, the mentally ill are not living on the streets, borders are policed, veterans don’t live in squalor, the population can read, crime is controlled, the elderly don’t freeze to death and a million other markers of a civilized society.  This is particularly true of children but most people need a helping hand at one time or another in life. However, the obscenity of children destined to fail before their lives have even started- condemned to schools that offer no hope and communities that offer no safety- would be disturbing anywhere in the world.  In a nation that prides itself as having the highest standard of living on the planet- and is unquestionably the richest and most powerful- levels of poverty and despair that are seen nowhere else in the developed world are simply obscene. By every measure, infant mortality, life expectancy, educational standards, child poverty, percentage of incarcerated adults, homicides per thousand deaths and many more, America lags considerably behind Japan, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and the rest of the developed world [i] .  All of the indicators mentioned above have been adversely affect during the thirty year obsession with pushing the government back in the name of handing unfettered control over to big business and the vicissitudes of the market.  Americans pay lower taxes than Western Europe and get, as a result, a much worse return on their money [ii] .  [i] Newsweeks Interactive Graphic of the World’s Best Countries. Hosted on the Daily Beast and elsewhere.  [ii] Jeffrey Sachs. "The Case for Bigger Government." Time. January 8th, 2009

No country can pay its bills or increase the prosperity of its citizens if it is wasting money on unnecessary programmes. The principle problem with government funding is that it is not addressing any of the problems that Proposition raises. In many countries, The ideology of state intervention is has made government ever larger, building ever more excessive and bloated bureaucratic empires with fiefdoms and sinecures for every busybody and apparatchik more interested in monitoring change than making it, and more concerned with process than people.  It is not uncommon – indeed it is not even unusual - for private sector organisations to shed ten percent of their workforce when the judge themselves to have become uncompetitive, unprofitable or administratively unwieldy. Both the governments of France and Canada have done that in recent years and yet maintain high standards of government support [i] .  For average public sector wages to be out stripping those of the private sector (who ultimately pay them) is ridiculous. It becomes more worrying when preferential health and pension plans – where the public sector outstrips the private by nearly four to one are taken into account [ii] .  There is no question that it would be great if everybody could earn more, have more lucrative and more secure pensions, the world would be a nicer place. However, to penalise those who are making the money to subsidise those who aren’t simply makes no sense.  Typically a government’s solution to an issue like child poverty is to establish a commission to discuss it – when it reports several years later it informs the waiting nation who paid for it that the solution might well be if their parents had a job. Most people could have figured this out in two minutes and at no cost [iii] .  [i] "Big government: Stop!" The Economist. January 21st, 2010  [ii] Dan Arnall. ABC News. Working in America: Public vs. Private Sector. 18 February 2011.  [iii] Michael Cloud. “Why Not Big Government. Five Iron Laws.” The Centre for Small Government.

Big government can provide the stimulus the economy needs in the bad years as long as surpluses are not squandered during the boom years  Government expenditure is the single biggest tool in times of economic difficulty. Those that are the quickest to complain about taxation and regulation during the good times are also the fastest to rush for a bailout during the lean times. Likewise, those that call for tax cuts in a boom also tend to be the first to criticize a deficit or public expenditure during a recession.  There is in all of this one simple economic reality: the government acts as the banker of last resort.  This only works, as Keynes understood, if the government holds on to reserves in the good years so that it can spend them in the tough ones to stimulate jobs and growth. On the other hand, where surpluses are blown on tax cuts- or expensive wars for that matter- then will be nothing left in the bank and government cannot fulfill its most useful role of using its own financial clout to balance the economy over the course of a financial cycle.  So-called small government Conservatives have been consistently profligate in recent history and have tended to leave fiscally cautious liberals to pick up the pieces. The party of small government never seems to find itself short of billions of dollars for expensive white elephants like the SDI missile shield or asserting American military power overseas in pursuit of yet another doomed cause – whether that’s’ propping up Latin American dictators or settling familial grudge matches in the Middle East.  The military adventurism of the Reagan presidency as well as those of both Bush senior and junior were conducted not just at the cost of domestic social stability, but also fiscal security.  Instead of preserving a budget surplus from the Clinton presidency, the Bush administration spent it recklessly – not, as is widely declared, on the War Against Terror – on tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. As a result Bush, his cabinet and his backers robbed the country of the possibility of reserves when the economy was in a less positive situation.  As far as the War On Terror is concerned, the total cost of two international wars, $1.283tn, stands in stark contrast to the relatively cheap police-style operation that actually caught Osama Bin Laden. It is also worth noting that of that huge sum an entire 2%, according to the Congressional Research service, has been spent homeland security – anti-terror surveillance and enforcement within the USA’s borders [i] .  So called ‘Big Government’, withholding surpluses for a rainy day, provides financial security for American businesses and workers. So-called ‘small-government’ presidents spend trillions of dollars on free money to the super-rich and on military adventurism in other countries and, apparently, in space.  [i] Amy Belasco. “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11”. Congressional Research Service. March 29 2011.

The myth of the greater efficiency in the private sector is one of the enduring fallacies of the politics of the right. Even the slightest glance at those areas where governments routinely outsource capital projects- defense procurement, major infrastructural projects and IT projects- there is astonishing inefficiency and it seems questionable as to how the public sector could be any less efficient.  It is an innate aspect of private companies that they need to make a profit, which is by nature an inefficiency, in that it takes resources out of any system. It is a strange thing that those who most passionately support the efficiency and effectiveness of the private sector become meek when it comes to the most important elements of public life- defense of the nation, policing the streets, educating the young. Equally when the astonishing levels of inefficiency and, frequently, incompetence that exist within the private sector come to light in the collapse of companies, be those banks or auto-giants, apparently it becomes fine for state to intervene to pick up the pieces and put things back together again.  It is equally wrong to suggest that the lack of culpability of senior managers has an impact on efficiency: the ultimate senior manager of a public service is a minister- either elected or appointed by someone who is- and is therefore accountable at the ballot box for the services provided. By contrast senior managers, in the shape of boards of directors, in the private sector seem relaxed about paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses even when their companies are running huge losses and shedding jobs: this scarcely suggests a high level of personal responsibility for success or failure.

Were the theory put forward true, and that is debatable, it would require tax cuts to benefit the lowest paid individuals and the smallest companies. However the political reality is that it never does. Poor people and small companies do indeed spend money which has a stimulating effect on the economy, but spending only stimulates the economy if it is spent in the right way. It is not possible to guarantee that the funds that flow into a state’s economy as a result of tax cuts will benefit that economy exclusively. Most forms of good and commodity now exist within a global market; manufacturing and production have become concentrated within states such as China. Useful and productive business activity will always require that a proportion of a business’s funds be spent overseas.  The advantage of government funding is that it can be directed into the weakest areas of the domestic economy, with a degree of dynamism and control that the markets will never be able to achieve. However, recent history has suggested that tax cuts have tended to be directed to the wealthy and to large corporations who are under no obligation to spend or invest either domestically or immediately.  There is little benefit to any economy in allowing wealthy individual and organizations to further expand stagnant wealth or to invest in high end products bought internationally.  There is also a matter of scale, government has a capacity for borrowing against its own security of wealth that is simply not matched by any private individual or corporation. Equally government is uniquely placed to undertake infrastructural investment such as house building projects which directly supports sectors that are otherwise the hardest hit during times or economic downturn.  Even where tax cuts are directed or fall evenly across all income ranges there is still no control over the areas of probable expenditure and are also unlikely to stimulate sectors such as construction.  Most importantly tax cuts have no direct benefit for the unemployed which, of course, the creation of jobs by government itself does.

Excessive regulation on the private sector puts burdens on free enterprise both in terms of administration and cost. By doing so it reduces consumer choice and acts as a drag on innovation and growth  Government regulation assumes not only irresponsible companies but also stupid consumers. Although, realistically, very little regulation has any direct impact on the consumer but tends to involve time-consuming paperwork demonstrating compliance so that some civil servant can tick a box to prove that something that was already being done can be shown to have been be done.  The effect of this tends to fall hardest on smaller businesses that don’t have large financial or legal departments. As a result it not only takes up valuable time that could be spent developing the business itself but more importantly acts to discourage people from starting in the first place. This is particularly so when it’s considered that many people who start up a new company do so after many years of working for someone else within the same sector. As a result they see the pressure that needless and time-consuming regulation puts upon that company.

Government has a tendency to be inefficient as it has no need to compete in an open marketplace, and jobs in state institutions are safe because of the guarantees both of the tax base and government’s greater borrowing capacity.  Governments both as a whole and in terms of individual employees have a tendency towards astonishing inefficiency, because state institutions are not subject to any meaningful competitive pressures. Indeed, many government employees earn as much or more than those in comparable jobs in the private sector, have preferential pension and benefit plans, lower hours and longer vacations. It is of course unsurprising that anyone in possession of such a job would be reluctant to give it up but also suggests a lower level of competition for keeping it. In the private sector such preferential returns would suggest that a worker would be likely to work longer hours to keep them.  Equally, because senior managers are not spending their own money and rarely have their salaries indexed to efficiency and effectiveness- in a way that is automatic for most companies- there is little pressure to find cost and operational efficiencies. As a result it is usually cheaper and more effective for services to be provided by the private sector wherever possible and appropriate. Although there are some areas which must be managed by the public sector, such as elections and the criminal justice system, it is difficult to see the benefits in other areas.

Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs  Government costs money. That’s an indisputable fact. So that raises the question of whether that’s the best way of spending it. It is clear that money could be spent in other ways and so if this is the choice there is an opportunity cost in that decision as there is in any other.  There is compelling evidence that reducing the government’s take of total GDP stimulates the economy through freeing up funds to create jobs especially in manufacturing.  There is compelling evidence [i] that reducing the tax burden and unleashing the dynamism of the market by cutting regulation has a far greater effect than government massaging unemployment figures by expanding its own employment base. Indeed it also appears to be the case that the relatively high level of government salaries in fact just puts greater pressure on employers in the private sector to compete the resulting wage inflation has a dampening effect on the economy as a whole at a time when it can least afford it.  It’s further worth noting that jobs created during a recession tend to morph into permanent positions thereby building in an ever-continuing expansion in the size of the state unless it is periodically and deliberately culled.  Conversely the investment directly into the private sector creates wealth producing jobs that are paid at a level that is sustainable and is responsive to the health of the wider economy.  [i] Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti, Schiantarelli. “Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investments”. National Bureau of Economic Research. 1999

This again is a myth routinely put forward by the right. Governments already distinguish between regulations that should apply to all companies and those, more onerous ones, that apply to larger companies only. There are certain standards in terms of health and safety of foodstuffs, products and so forth. However, there is clearly a different role when it comes to regulating larger companies such as banks, insurance companies and major employers.  There are particular sectors that require more regulation than others but the bulk of regulation is there to protect both staff and customers and it is part of the reality of doing business.  The idea that regulation harms small business is simply absurd as they benefit from the regulation of larger businesses who may be either their suppliers or customers are also regulated.  Equally start-up companies benefit from the fact that regulation evens up the playing field with more established competitors. If nobody is allowed to cut corners or perform other mildly criminal acts it is clearly an advantage to the new starters.

It is nonsense to compare aid with the west’s actions during the nineteenth century. Yes the west with aid sometimes wants to encourage its own values but this is a long way from forcing those values on the other state. The IMF may demand certain changes and liberalisation but regardless of how much India needed the help it could have said no.

“White Man’s Burden”  Aid is simply a continuation of the “white man’s burden” and is therefore demeaning to the countries where it is meant to help. It implies that western countries have to provide money to those who are less ‘developed’ in order to develop them. This sounds very similar to westerners having to go out into the world in order to civilize the other countries and civilizations around the world. This similarity is made even closer when western aid has strings and institutions like the IMF impose ‘liberalisation’ of markets as it did for India at the end of the 1980s. [1] Far from providing help it is imposing western ideas and values on others.  [1] Weinraub, Bernard, ‘Economic Crisis Forcing Once Self-Reliant India to Seek Aid’, The New York Times, 29 June 1991

It is likely true that people on the ground sometimes see aid as ‘free money’. But the existence of corruption shows a need for greater accountability and more pressure from donors to ensure that occurs rather than less. Leaving a country because of corruption would simply show unwillingness to tackle one of the major issues that need to be tackled in order to ensure development.  Development aid is sometimes spent on implementing schemes that may be the result of a new idea that may not work that becomes a ‘fad’. But to object to this is to object to innovation; new ideas must be tried out on the ground before the development community knows for sure they won’t work. Development thinking is moving towards just handing out cash rather than subsidies; will this work? We don’t know, but won’t know for sure until it is tried more comprehensively than it has been so far. [1]  [1] See Helling, Alex, ‘This House would give cash to the poor to reduce poverty’, Debatabase, 24 January 2013

Too many strings  India is a booming economy with GDP growth of 7% over most of the last twenty years, and it is likely to overtake the UK economy within a decade. [1] As a result development aid today to India is small by comparison to what India itself can and does spend on its poorest citizens. The UK gives just £280 million per year, less than 0.04% of India’s GDP [2] and only enough to provide £1 per year for every one of India’s poorest.  This foreign aid is therefore not essential for poverty reduction in India. Indeed China has been the country most successful at reducing poverty and it has done it through economic growth not large amounts of development aid. [3] Aid money should therefore go to countries that really do need the money for development rather than those who are already succeeding at financing it themselves.  [1] Gilligan, Andrew, ‘India tells Britain: We don’t want your aid’, The Telegraph, 4 February 2012  [2] Ghosh, Jayati, ‘Yes: Should rich countries stop sending development aid to India?’, BMJ, Vol.346, No. 7891, pp.1-42, p.20  [3] Data and Research, ‘New Estimates Reveal Drop In Extreme Poverty 2005-2010’, The World Bank, 29 February 2012

The geography of poverty has changed; in 1990 94% of those in poverty lived in ‘low income countries’ today that is down to 28%. The rest live in ‘middle income countries’ that are often fast growing and able to provide much of their own poverty reduction funding. [1] Should all money go to those few countries that are still classed as ‘low income’? Instead it must be recognised that the impact of aid is on individuals not the nation as a whole. Aid that builds a school and provides for teachers will have little impact on the whole of the nation but a large impact on those who are able to attend school where they would not have had the chance before.  [1] Ravillion, Martin, ‘Should we care equally about poor people wherever they may live?’, 8 November 2012

The west does not know best  It is clear that the donor countries do not know how best to spend the money they give as aid. Instead they want their money spent on the latest development fad whether this is the privatisation of basic services, microcredit, conditional cash, or particular infrastructure projects. [1]  Development can also be misspent as a result of corruption and a lack of oversight, for example the UK suspended its aid to Uganda as a result of indications it was being misused by the Ugandan government and not “going towards helping the poorest people lift themselves out of poverty”. [2] The Lords Economic Affairs select committee explained why this is the case; “aid is essentially seen by those entrusted with it as "free money", whose loss will go unnoticed by the giver and whose appropriation is nothing like as morally reprehensible as appropriating local tax revenue”. [3]  [1] Ghosh, Jayati, ‘Yes: Should rich countries stop sending development aid to India?’, BMJ, Vol.346, No. 7891, pp.1-42, p.20  [2] Tran, Mark, and Ford, Liz, ‘UK suspends aid to Uganda as concern grows over misuse of funds’, The Guardian global development, 16 November 2012  [3] Economic Affairs Select Committee, ‘Chapter 4: The Impact of Aid’, Parliament.uk, 2012

Clearly it is good where aid makes a difference to someone’s life but we are not advocating ending aid. That aid would instead be spent in a poorer country that is more in need than India. The country that is more in need clearly needs more aid to provide that infrastructure that helps multiply the value of aid. It is therefore clearly the place where more funding should go.

It does not make sense that India should receive aid simply because it still has poor people. Aid is used to help when the government cannot provide for its own people and India clearly already provides the vast majority of help for its own people and will provide more and more as the economy grows. The absolute numbers make very little difference because aid at current levels will never pull all 1.4 billion out of poverty at once. The government of India is improving he conditions of its poor so aid should be used somewhere where the government is less capable.

India cannot end poverty on its own  Clearly if India could end poverty within the country it would do so, however at the moment it cannot. If those in India who are not poor (considering this to mean earn more than $13 a day, the US poverty line) were to give 100% of their income above this level to those who live on less than $1.25 per day they would still not eliminate poverty in the country. “Indeed, appropriating all of the incomes of those living in India above the US poverty line would cover only a modest fraction of the country’s aggregate poverty gap.” So India does not yet have the domestic capacity to eliminate poverty on its own. [1]  [1] Ravillion, Martin, ‘Should we care equally about poor people wherever they may live?’, 8 November 2012

The money makes no difference  India is a booming economy with GDP growth of 7% over most of the last twenty years, and it is likely to overtake the UK economy within a decade. [1] As a result development aid today to India is small by comparison to what India itself can and does spend on its poorest citizens. The UK gives just £280 million per year, less than 0.04% of India’s GDP [2] and only enough to provide £1 per year for every one of India’s poorest.  This foreign aid is therefore not essential for poverty reduction in India. Indeed China has been the country most successful at reducing poverty and it has done it through economic growth not large amounts of development aid. [3] Aid money should therefore go to countries that really do need the money for development rather than those who are already succeeding at financing it themselves.  [1] Gilligan, Andrew, ‘India tells Britain: We don’t want your aid’, The Telegraph, 4 February 2012  [2] Ghosh, Jayati, ‘Yes: Should rich countries stop sending development aid to India?’, BMJ, Vol.346, No. 7891, pp.1-42, p.20  [3] Data and Research, ‘New Estimates Reveal Drop In Extreme Poverty 2005-2010’, The World Bank, 29 February 2012

Pressure from international donors is essential  Currently the culture of giving in India is not mature enough to enable India to fight poverty on its own. Aid to India therefore provides more than one role. It does not just provide the money and supplies that the poorest need, it also encourages India to do more. When aid is needed to put primary children into school as a result of the mere 3% of national income spent on education it encourages the Indian government and people to spend more on alleviating their own compatriot’s poverty. [1]  [1] Agrawal, Nisha, ‘India needs to do more for its people but cutting foreign aid now won’t help – Oxfam’, Alertnet, 13 November 2012

Development aid still makes a difference  Clearly someone earning $1 a day in India is as worthy of aid as someone earning the same amount in Burkina Faso. Equally the same amount of development aid can still make a similar amount of difference to the individuals it is targeted. It may potentially make even more of a difference in the richer country because that country has the infrastructure to ensure that the aid is sustainable and effective. [1] For example an aid program may help poor farmers to grow more food but that aid is much more sustainable and valuable if there is a road network so that they can sell some of their produce. In India UK aid has helped 1.2 million children go to school in the past 10 years [2] and this investment is potentially made more effective by India having universities these children could go on to attend if they wish.  [1] Economic Affairs Select Committee, ‘Chapter 4: The Impact of Aid’, Parliament.uk, 2012  [2] Agrawal, Nisha, ‘No: Should rich countries stop sending development aid to India?’, BMJ, Vol.346, No. 7891, pp.1-42, p.21

India still has the most people in poverty  Aid should go to those who need it most around the world regardless of which country they live in. India still has the largest concentration of people in poverty in the world, according to the world bank there are “240 million rural poor and 72 million urban poor”. [1] So still almost a quarter of the world’s 1.4billion people in poverty. [2] With so many of the world’s poor people it is clear that India should be receiving a significant portion of the world’s development aid to end their poverty.  [1] Poverty Reduction &amp; Equity, ‘India: Achievements and Challenges in Reducing Poverty’, The World Bank, 2011  [2] Poverty Reduction &amp; Equity, ‘Overview’, The World Bank, August 2008

The opposite is true; aid results in less Indian spending on poverty not more. In a few rare cases there may be sufficient media coverage of an aid program to shame the government into action but most of the time if others are spending that simply means the Indian government will save its own money. This was the assessment of House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee when it said “British development aid to the poorest Indian states may provide a perverse incentive to the Indian government to use less of its own revenue to alleviate poverty.” [1]  [1] Economic Affairs Select Committee, ‘Abstract’, Parliament.uk, 2012

Clearly this is taking a double standard; India cannot immediately eliminate poverty using only its domestic capacity, but the aid from other nations at the current level cannot currently do this either. India can be reducing poverty and as the economy grows will eventually be able to eliminate poverty entirely.

The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides. [I1] In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance. [1]  Although the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work. [2]  [1] Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011,   [2] “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u.

Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector  The public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government. [1]  The reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.  Further, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.  [1] Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011

Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.  Given that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]  [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011

Collective Bargaining is Not a Right  Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.  Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy. [1] The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.  Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred. [2]  [1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011,   [2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011

Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.  Collective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily. [1]  Further, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.  [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011

Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process  The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.  Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]  [1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011

Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion  The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.  Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]  [1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011

The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.  Even if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]  [1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College.

Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.  Further, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.  Further, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem. [1]  [1] Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390

Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies  Many public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.  In the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]  [1] “Monopoly Power.”

Collective Bargaining is a Right.  Collective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.  This is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1]  [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011

Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion  Collective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.  In this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.  Specifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.  In order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain. [1]  [1] “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations.

As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead. [1]  [1] Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011,

If school is so expensive, than shouldn't the government be subsidizing school costs instead of forcing parents to send kids to school when they can't afford the books and clothes? It is also unfair to assume that parents on welfare on neglectful and do not value education. Supporting meal programs in schools and subsidizing other costs are much more likely to draw children than forcing parents to send children to school when the kids are hungry and embarrassed1. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011].

Parents on welfare are more likely to need the incentives to take on the costs of sending children to school.  Parents on welfare benefits are the most likely to need the extra inducements. They generally tend to be less educated and oftentimes be less appreciative of the long-term value of education. In the late 90's, 42% of people on welfare had less than a high school education, and another 42% had finished high school, but had not attended college in the US. Therefore they need the additional and more tangible, financial reasons to send their children to school. Children living in poverty in the US are 6.8 times more likely to have experienced child abuse and neglect1. While attendance might not be a sufficient condition for academic success, it is certainly a necessary one, and the very first step toward it. Some parents might be tempted to look at the short-term costs and benefits. Sending a child to school might be an opportunity cost for the parents as lost labor inside or outside the homes (especially in the third world) the household, or as an actual cost, as paying for things like supplies, uniforms or transportation can be expensive. Around the world there are an estimated 158 million working children, who often need to work to contribute to their family's livelihood2. In the UK it is estimated that sending a child to public school costs up to 1,200 pounds a year. If they lose money by not sending children to school, this would tilt the cost-benefits balance in favor of school attendance. 1 Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011] 2  [Accessed July 13, 2011].

The purpose of welfare is not to better society per se; it is to support those who have fallen into bad times and need extra help. Expecting people to render a service in exchange for help is demeaning and it undermines the purpose of welfare which is to help people get back on their feet versus tell them what they have to do to be considered beneficial to society.

The policy has been effective in the past  The main goal of this program is increasing school enrollment overall. If it was too much to expect from families, then the program would have failed in the cases that it was instituted. However, the opposite has been the case. 12.4 million families in Brazil are enrolled in a program called Bolsa Familia where children’s attendance in school is rewarded with $12 a month per child. The number of Brazilians with incomes below $440 a month has decreased by 8% year since 2003, and 1/6 of the poverty reduction in the country is attributed to this program [1] . Additionally it is much less expensive than other programs, costing only about .5% of the country’s GDP [2] . Considering that this program has been affordable and successful in both reducing poverty and increasing school enrollment it is worth using as an incentive in more programs around the world.  [1] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist, 29 July 2010,   [2] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist​, 29 July 2010,

But the program in Brazil is biased towards rural communities versus cities. In the two largest cities in only 10% of families are enrolled versus 41% in the rural areas of Brazil [1] . To consider the program effective it needs to work equally with all members of the poor, which it does not.  [1] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist​, 29 July 2010,

Just because students attend school does not mean that they are going to receive a quality education. The best educated children are those whose parents are involved heavily in their school, helping them with their homework, and pushing them to excel1. Without involved parents, students can become just as easily discouraged. There really need to be programs to involve parents more in school, and provide good mentors and role models for students who don't have them. Schools also need to be improved. Just sending kids to school doesn't mean that they are going to learn and be determined to better themselves. Additionally particularly in the third world if children don't have good schools and qualified teachers, then what is the point of going to school? 1 Chavkin, Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), "Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011].

It is morally acceptable to make welfare conditional.  When society has to step in and provide for those who've proved themselves unable to provide for themselves that should reasonably create certain expectations on the part of those being helped. In almost every aspect of life, money is given in return for a product, service or behavior. It is the same with welfare payments; money in exchange for children being put in school. We expect parents to do a good job in their role as parents. Ensuring that their children attend school is a crucial part of parental responsibility. Children on welfare in the US are 2 times more likely to drop out of school, however studies have shown that children who are part of early childhood education are more likely to finish school and remain independent of welfare1. Thus, when a parent is a welfare recipient, it is entirely reasonable to make it conditional on sending their kids to school. If tax payers' dollars are being spent on those who cannot provide for themselves, there needs to be a societal return. One of the greatest complaints about welfare is that people work hard for the money that they earn, which is then handed to others with no direct benefit to society. If children of people on welfare are in school it increases the likelihood that they will finish high school, maybe get a scholarship and go to college, and have the necessary tools to contribute to the work force and better society.  1 Heckman, James (2000), "Invest in the Very Young", Ounce of Prevention and the University of Chicago, [Accessed July 25, 2011]. and Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]

Requiring school attendance allows welfare to be the hand-up that it is meant to be, and keep children out of crime.  In the US, girls who grow up in families receiving welfare handouts are 3 times more likely to receive welfare themselves within three years of having their first child than girls who's families were never on welfare1. Children living in poverty were 2 times more likely to have grade repetition and drop out of high school and 3.1 times more likely to have children out of wedlock as teenagers2. They are 2.2 times more likely to experience violent crimes. Children of welfare recipients are more likely to end up on welfare themselves. Welfare should be a hand up, not a handout that leads to dependency on the state. It is the latter if we are only leading people to fall into the same trap as their parents. Education is the way to break the vicious cycle. Through education, children will acquire the skills and qualifications they need in order to obtain gainful employment once they reach adulthood, and overcome their condition. In the developing world, primary education has proven to reduce AIDS incidences, improve health, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth3. School can empower children, and give them guidance and hope that they may not receive at home. Getting kids in school is the first step to equipping them with the skills to better their situations, and if encouraged by their parents they might consider scholarships to college or vocational school. The program does not guarantee this for all, but it is likely more effective than the leaving parents with no incentive to push their children. Benefits are supposed to promote the welfare of both parents and children. One of the best ways to ensure that welfare payments are actually benefiting children is to make sure they're going to school. This is simply providing parents with an extra incentive to do the right thing for their children and become more vested in their kids' education. 1 Family Facts, "A Closer Look at Welfare", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Duncan , Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011] 3http World Bank, "Facts about Primary Education",[Accessed July 21, 2011].

Yet if kids aren't going to school anyway it doesn't matter if the schools are inadequate. Getting kids in schools is the first step to improving the education situation and the dropout rate. As long as we look at the education system in the US and around the world as dismal and overwhelming, nothing will change.

There is nothing that says the two are mutually exclusive. Linking welfare to school attendance could be instituted next to other reforms that overall would create greater incentives for children to do well in school.

Connecting welfare to failure of parents is unfair.  This policy requires that parents be held accountable and punished for the actions of their children. It suggests that their failure in instilling good values is because they care less than middle-class, educated parents. That is a broad and stereotypical assumption. Such parents, many of whom are single mothers, find it harder to instill good values in their children because they live in corrupt environments, surrounded by negative influences[1]. They should be aided and supported, not punished for an alleged failure. Just encouraging putting children in schools does not recognize the larger problems. Some families cannot control their children, who would rather make money than go to school. And caps on the number of children these programs can apply to, as is the case in Brazil, creates problems as well for the families[2]. People are doing their best, but the environment is difficult. Providing safer and more low income housing could be a solution versus punishing people for what is sometimes out of their control. 1 Cawthorne, Alexandra (2008), "The Straight Facts on Women in Poverty", Center for American Progress, [Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2

It is unjust to make welfare conditional  Welfare should not be used as a tool of social engineering. These are people who cannot provide even basic necessities for their families. Asking them to take on obligations by threatening to take away their food is not requiring them to be responsible, it's extortion. It is not treating them as stakeholders and equal partners in a discussion about benefits and responsibilities, but trying to condition them into doing what the rest of society thinks is good for them and their families. There is a difference between an incentive and coercion. An incentive functions on the premise that the person targeted is able to refuse it. These people have no meaningful choice between 'the incentive' or going hungry. This policy does not respect people's basic dignity. There is no condition attached to healthcare and Medicaid that says people have to eat healthily or stop smoking, so why should welfare be conditional? Allowing them and their children to go without food if they refuse is callous. Making welfare conditional is taking advantage of people's situation and telling them what they need to do to be considered valuable to society; it is inherently wrong. It impedes on people's rights to free choice and demeans them as worthless.

School does not an education make  School attendance is not a positive outcome in and of itself. It should be encouraged only if it is conducive to learning and acquiring the meaningful education needed to break out of the poverty trap. Blaming the poverty cycle on kids failing to attend school ignores the fact that schools are failing children. Public schools are often overcrowded, with poor facilities and lacking the resources necessary to teach children with challenging backgrounds. In 2011, 80% of America's schools could be considered failing according to Arne Duncan who is the secretary of education1. Schools in developing countries often lack qualified teachers, and can suffer from very high staff absenteeism rates2. A more effective school system would result in fewer kids dropping out, not the other way around. Additionally, involved parents are integral to effective education3. Simply blackmailing them with money to do the right thing will not work. In fact, you might actually experience backlash from parents and kids, who'll see school as a burdensome requirement that is met just so you can keep the electricity on. Throwing kids into school where they do not have confidence, support, and the necessary facilities is not productive. 1 Dillon , Sam (2011), "Most Public Schools May Miss Targets, Education Secretary Says", New York Times, [Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 World Bank, "Facts about Primary Education",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 3 Chavkin , Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), "Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011].

There should be rewards for success in school, versus punishment for failure to attend.  This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Feeding America (2010), "Hunger in America: Key Facts", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, "Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger", [Accessed July 21, 2011].

It is perfectly just to ask people to adjust behavior in exchange for funds. In fact, if the tax payers' dollars were being poured into an unchanging situation that would be unfair and unproductive. For a long time the US, and countries around the world, have struggled with making welfare a program that can lift people up. Connecting it to schools can help children.

If families have incentives to send their children to school, and raise their children with a value of education, stressing the need for them to go to school they are more likely to finish high school and lift themselves out of these environments. The reason why some children would rather work then go to school is because they have been raised in an atmosphere that does not stress education and the necessity to finish high school. This type of program would push parents to change their children's values as they grow up. Additionally, a child's sense of duty to their family because of welfare payments being connected to their school attendance would give them further reason not to drop out, even if they do not like or value school.

One needs to differentiate between mature, developed, but indebted economies like the US, the UK, and developing, cash-rich economies like the BRICs. Their share of the world economy might be increasing, but they would be better served investing their money in infrastructure and development, not in the IMF. Only then they might be on par with the developed nations and comparing quotas might become appropriate.

Under representation of emerging economies  Claims that power within the IMF is distributed according to the reality of the members’ weight in the global financial system are inaccurate. The IMF reflects the financial system as it was 50 years ago and has done little to acknowledge the growth of countries like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRICs), which have far fewer votes than their economic heft merits, while Western countries like Belgium are actually overrepresented [1] . Significant reforms to the voting quotas need to be implemented in order to create an IMF that is true to the reality of the world financial system.  [1] -- “Wanted: a French Revolution”. The Economist. June 30, 2011.

That is an argument for reforming the economic foundations and philosophy of the IMF, not necessarily its governance. One cannot simply conflate the leadership of Western nations with neoliberal policies. Keynesianism is also a western economic doctrine. Maybe the IMF should be encouraged to adopt it in some cases.

Unbalanced decision making  The decisions taken by the IMF have a deep impact on the entire global financial system and on developing countries in particular, whose economies are especially sensitive to global changes. Yet, the Western, developed countries have the greatest sway in the decision-making process, with developing countries having little influence over the process. It creates an unjust financial world order, where rich and powerful countries call the shots and smaller, poorer ones bear the consequences [1] .  [1] Foot, Rosemary; Mcfarlane Neil; Mastadundo Michael. US Hegemony in International Organizations. Oxford Publishing Online, November 2003.

The primary function of the IMF has now become that of a lender of last resort [1] . It keeps governments that are on the cusps of a default, solvent. Membership in the IMF is optional, as is borrowing from the fund. Countries only have to do what the IMF tells them when they take its money. Western countries get to have more sway because they bring in the greatest financial contributions to the Fund. It’s not unfair, therefore, for them to be allowed to place conditions on how their money will be used by those who choose to borrow it.  [1] Bihide Amar; Phelps Edmund. “More Harm than Good”. The Daily Beast. July 11, 2011.

You don’t need to experience food shortages to understand the importance of food. The IMF position, however, is that financial stability is a precursor for long-term growth and prosperity. Therefore, in the short term, balancing budgets might take precedence over any other legitimate concerns countries might have, like subsidising farming to maintain low food prices.

Neoliberal foreign policy  Western dominance leads to economic policies and loan conditions rooted in neoliberal economic principles, like austerity measures, which overemphasize cutting public spending. These often actually end up badly hurting developing economies, increasing inequalities and poverty (Malawi is a prominent example) [1] . Argentina’s economic collapse attests to that [2] .  [1] Hari, Johann. “It’s not just Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The IMF itself should be on trial”. The Independent. June 3, 2011.   [2] -- “Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again”.

IMF-led policies' Impact on access to food and healthcare  Since Western countries do not suffer from food shortages, they do not understand how vital food and access to healthcare is for survival in the developing world. The IMF treats food and healthcare in its policies just like any other commodity on the market, sometimes with disastrous humanitarian consequences [1] .  [1] Oxfam. “Death on the Doorstep of the Summit”. Oxfam Briefing Paper. 2002

Member countries can not unilaterally increase their quotas8. So even if a country, like the BRICs became rich enough to afford buying a bigger share, it would be in the interest of Western nations to block such a move to retain the power under the status quo.  Western countries are still, rightfully, dominant players. But they hold disproportionate sway over the Fund. Important decisions within the IMF require an 85% supermajority of the total voting quota. The US alone holds 17%, while EU members hold 32% [1] . Effectively, the US is the only country in the world with veto rights at the IMF. Even if all the other countries were in agreement over a certain proposal, the US could unilaterally block it. That is a clear example of just how dominated the IMF is by the West.  [1] Wikipedia. “IMF Article. Memers’ quotas and voting powers”.

As vocal as developing countries have been about the need for a change in leadership at the IMF, they have often failed to come up with viable alternatives to European candidates and recently, when given the opportunity, they failed to rally around Christine Lagarde’s (the new MD) only serious competitor: Mexico’s Agustín Carstens3.

Capitalism and a guiding principle of IMF policy making  Capitalism as guiding principle: At its core, the IMF is a capitalist, financial institution, not an exercise in proportional representation and democracy, and it has to function on that premise. Drastic changes in the quota systems that would see the West ceding control of the institution, would not be based on the reality of the financial system, but on a political desire to make the institution more representative. Such a move would hurt its efficiency.

Gradual and abrupt change  To paint the IMF as western dominated and unresponsive to shifts in the global financial order is inaccurate. The IMF is gradually accommodating the growing stance of emerging economies like China through reforms to its quota system [1] . Also, among the countries with the 10 biggest quotas are Japan (no 2), China, Saudi Arabia and Russia8. The reality is that Western economies still represent the biggest players in the world financial system and any change in their leadership of the IMF should come gradually, with the potential change in status within the world economy. There is no reason why they should abruptly relinquish leadership of the Fund.  [1] Arnott, Sarah. “Emerging Economies Battle for More Voting Rights at the IMF”. The Independent. September 28, 2009.

Western states as large scale shareholders  Western countries are the biggest contributors to the IMF. They bring in the most money and, until recently, have rarely required loans from the institution themselves. In any business, the biggest shareholders get to have the most say in the decision-making process. The IMF should not be different.

The role of managing director  For its entire existence, the managing director of the IMF has always been European. This has created considerable discontent within the developing world, with developing countries feeling disenfranchised and, therefore, less likely to trust and cooperate with the Fund [1] .  [1] Musoko, Chipo. “Why IMF boss will not come from the Continent”. All Africa. May 23, 2011.

Precisely because Europe is now the IMF’s biggest client, its MD should not come from Europe. Questions about the independence a European in such a position are already being raised, with some pointing to the fact that the fund has been much more generous with the European PIGS than with any of its previous clients. A non-European MD would maintain the Fund’s credibility and integrity [1] .  [1] -- “Time For a Change: While a euro-zone finance minister, even a talented one, should not lead the IMF”. The Economist. May 26, 2011.

Unbridled capitalism is not a viable response. A balance has to be struck between economic interests and political imperatives. The IMF is also a political institution, not a private bank. Its money comes from countries, and therefore the IMF should be accountable to its member states that pay for its very existence. That means a more representative balance of power within the governance of the institution.

There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.  Cities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.  Further, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.  [1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.

Forced evictions are a natural path of development.  Forced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.  Secondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.  [1] Temple, 2008

Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.

Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.  A key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.  Recently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.

Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.  Western media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.  In 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .  [1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.

It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.  The Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.  [1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).

Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.  [1] COHRE, 2008.

The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.  On another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.  Furthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.  [1] See further readings.

Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.  Africa is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.  Mega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.  [1] Worldstat info, 2013  [2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).

Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.  Slums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.  This has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).  [1] Fox, 2013.  [2] Tibaijuka, 2004  [3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.

Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.

Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.  [1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.

Forced evictions are political land grabbing.  Politics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.  Further, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.  [1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.  [2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.

The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.  Across African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.  Alternatives need to be introduced and considered.  [1] Agutamba, 2013

Denying individuals rights to the city commons.  Forced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.  For example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .  [1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.

Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.  Forced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.  [1] Amnesty International Campaign.  [2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.

Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.  Take the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.  [1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.

African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.  There is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.  African cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?  [1] Potts, 2009.

Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .  [1] UN MDGs, 2013.

Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.  The media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .  [1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.

The change to remittances may or may not benefit the countries themselves. It is likely that remittances will go directly to individuals. Rwanda may have managed to persuade Rwandans in foreign countries to put money into its sovereign wealth fund but this will often not be an option or individuals will not want to give to their government rather than their families. Most of the time the government will be less well off.

Provides autonomy for developing countries  Rwanda has been trying to increase the size of remittances in order to increase its autonomy. The President Paul Kagame has said “aid is never enough and we need to complement it with homegrown schemes to accelerate growth.” He wants “a higher level of direct ownership in the nation’s projects” and wants it because western donors had suspended aid. [1] A change to remittances would reduce this vulnerability; it would be much more difficult for ‘donors’ to suspend the tax breaks they provide for remittances to individual countries than it is to cut aid. Indeed remittances are noticeably stable with money still being sent home during recessions and can even be countercyclical as migrants will send more if they know things are bad back home. [2] This then takes the issue out of the hands of the politicians and puts it into the hands of the people.  [1] Procost, Claire, ‘Rwanda seeks diaspora investment to cut reliance on foreign aid’, global development guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2012  [2] Ratha, Dilip, ‘Remittances: Funds for the Folks Back Home’, International Monetary Fund

Remittances are of course an excellent way of reducing poverty for those who receive them; more broadly however they are unlikely to be successful. Money sent back as remittances are unlikely to be used to target the development needs of the nation so it will not be creating the basis of sustainable growth in the future.

Remittances creates freedom of choice for individuals  Changing from ODA to Remittances is good for freedom of choice in two ways.  First tax breaks and other incentives will mean that migrants have more money. It will clearly be up to the migrant to decide if they want to or can afford to send their money home; they can decide how much they want to send, when they want to end it, how they want to send it etc. At the other end it will be up to the individual recipient to decide how they want to spend the money received.  Secondly it is good for the freedom of choice of the taxpayer. At the moment they are having their choice taken away from them as they have their own money being spent by the government on someone else; foreign countries. The individual taxpayer sees none of the benefit of this money and often they don’t like paying so much aid, 59% of Americans support cutting aid. [1]  [1] Newport, Frank, and Saad, Lydia, ‘Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense’, Gallup Politics, 26 January 2011

This creates freedom of choice for the donor, but at the same time takes it away from the recipient. Recipients, whether governments or NGOs, will no longer have the money to spend. They will no longer be able to target that funding towards those areas that need it most instead the money will bypass them.

Remittances reduce poverty  There has been a lot of concern that aid, particularly from governments and international organisations, does not always help reduce poverty; it might simply create dependence, or it prevents local enterprise. Dambisa Moyo points out that “Between 1970 and 1998, when aid flows to Africa were at their peak, poverty in Africa rose from 11% to a staggering 66%”. [1] Remittances on the other hand can be very beneficial; they provide the money needed to start enterprises, and they are showing that the community is not dependent as its members have taken the initiative to go and find work.  Remittances have a statistically significant impact on reducing poverty. In 2005 the World Bank suggested that a 10% increase in per capita international remittances will lead to a 3.5% decline in the share of people living in poverty. [2] Governments should therefore change from the method that is failing to one that is more successful at reducing poverty.  [1] Edemariam, Aida, ‘Everybody knows it doesn’t work’, The Guardian, 19 February 2009  [2] Adams, Richard H., Pagem John, ‘Do International Migration and Remittances Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries?’, World Development, Vol.33 No.10, 2005, pp.1645-1669, p.1660

While developed countries may be making it more financially attractive to come to them to work and send back remittances in practice they are unlikely to actually allow more immigrants into their countries.  Secondly the brain drain is not all negative for the countries concerned; migrants may return home with new skills, and considerably more money to invest and create new businesses. It is also likely that many of those who go abroad would not have found jobs at home, particularly if highly skilled as the developing country has few jobs available for people with their skills, so would have been a drain rather than a benefit to the economy no matter their skill level. It should also be remembered that the costs of educating these skilled workers will be paid all the faster due to increases in remittances – a study of Ghanaian migrants found that the cost of education of emigrants was paid 5.6 times over by remittances. [1]  [1] Economics focus, ‘Drain or gain’, The Economist, 26 May 2011

Of course not all aid is ending, it will simply fall to aid agencies and charities to provide for the very poorest rather than governments. These aid agencies will no longer need to help out those who are getting remittances so will have more to spend on the poorest. There may even be an increase in individual donations in rich countries to provide aid when individuals realise their tax dollars are no longer being spend on aid so they may feel the responsibility to do something themselves, something that giving through the government shields us from.

Remittances won’t be focused on development work  Official development aid is spent on projects that will help encourage long term growth for poor countries, for example building schools and hospitals. These benefit the education and health of the recipient country. Remittances on the other hand are most likely to be spent on day to day needs such as food and clothing. [1] The money may also be spent on schooling and health but it would be on the individual level rather than infrastructure so does not increase the overall capacity of the country.  [1] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.8

Encourages a brain drain  Any change from aid to remittances is going to create a brain drain because it will encourage working abroad. If developed countries governments are going to provide tax breaks or top up money for remittances then it becomes more attractive to work abroad and send back remittances because they can earn and send back more.  The brain drain is the migration of skilled workers from developing countries to more developed countries. This happens because the more skilled the worker the more in demand their skills are and the more likely they are to know about and have the ability to move to work elsewhere. This is a concerns developing countries because it means their investment in the future; through education often benefits developed countries rather than themselves. Africa for example lost 60,000 professionals between 1985 and 1990. [1] In total Africa has lost a third of its human capital. This loss of human capital will mean that the countries affected do not have the capacity to take advantage of the increase in remittances by building new businesses.  [1] Oyelere, Ruth Uwaifo, ‘Brain Drain, Waste or Gain? What We Know About The Kenyan Case’, Journal of Global Initiatives, Vol.2 No.2, 2007, pp.113-129, pp.113-114

Money won’t go to where it is needed most.  Aid goes where it is needed, remittances don’t. Development aid is able to be focused on those who need it most, the poorest, those who are unable to grow their own crops etc. Sub-Saharan Africa gets $28bln in ODA or 20.9% of aid [1] whereas only $60bln or 11.5% of remittances goes to Africa. [2] Clearly therefore Africa would be proportionally losing out. It is notable that it is middle income countries that get most remittances, the per capital level of remittances received tends to increase until that country has an income of about $2200 before falling back. [3]  There would be a similar problem with directing aid within nations. Remittances will go to the family of the person who is sending the money regardless of whether they really need this extra money. It is likely that many of the very poorest will be those who do not have family members who have been able to migrate for work and send back money, these people would be left in a much worse position without ODA.  [1] ‘Development: Aid to developing countries falls because of global recession’, OECD  [2] ‘African Migrants Could Save US$4 Billion Annually On Remittance Fees, Finds World Bank’, The World Bank, 28 January 2013  [3] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.11

This is to ignore the influence of remittances on the market. Of course ODA may build a school, but it is just as likely to make something that the donor country believes the recipient needs when it does not in fact need that investment. Money being sent home and then invested in an individual’s information will help signal to the market that there is greater need for educational facilities and so someone will build a school when there is enough demand.

Employers’ reluctance to hire older staff and attempts to remove aging staff from payrolls can both be addressed more efficiently via the free market.  It is true that employer-provided pension plans are beginning to falter under the burden of an increasingly long-lived work force. However, this only serves to illustrate the flaws in employee benefit schemes of this type.  The state should not attempt to prop up a method of social welfare provision that is clearly ill suited to current trends in the labour market. Long term employment with particular firms, and especially jobs-for-life, are dwindling.  If individual workers were incentivised or obliged to obtain their own health insurance, and to set up their own pension plans, the burden of doing so would be shifted away from employers. Demand and consumer preference would dictate the price at which these services were delivered, reducing the overall cost of obtaining health insurance or paying into a pension pot.  Employers would no longer be required to assess potential employees in terms of the sums of money they are likely to draw from health insurance and pension funds. Businesses could once again focus on selecting new employees by merit.  Under the status quo, the increasing inaccessibility of employer-led pension schemes has left young adults stranded in a pension market where lack of demand has led to individual retirement plans becoming massively over-priced. Under the resolution, although the financial burden presented by a corporate pension scheme would be more predictable, it would still impact massively on businesses’ profits and artificially restrict the size of the pensions market.  Rather than bear the transaction costs inherent in continual renegotiation of pension schemes and employee benefit plans, rather than accept that worries about healthcare and pension liabilities will cause employers to avoid employing older people, side proposition should trust that the market will be as competent at providing fairly priced pensions as it is at providing fairly priced commodities.

Maintaining access to pension and healthcare plans  Creating a mandatory retirement age ensures that businesses will be able to maintain employees’ pension plans and healthcare schemes.  In many liberal democracies that operate without centralised, government sponsored welfare systems, the support provided by employers’ insurance systems is the only means of obtaining hospital care or a retirement income for a large number of working age individuals.  Many firms also offer so-called defined benefit pension plans to their workers. Pensions of this type guarantee that a worker will receive a certain, regular level of income on retirement – an amount calculated according to a fixed formula that takes account of an employee’s salary and the length of their service with a company.  As the Ford motor company attempted to do in 2010, many firms will attempt to remove older employees who show no desire to retire of their own volition. The older an employee is at the point of retirement, the more money- under a defined benefit plan- a firm will have to pay out in the form of pension contributions.  Further, as individuals age they will represent more of a risk in terms of healthcare liabilities. As an individual ages, the likelihood that she will develop chronic diseases such as cancer increases. The greater the aggregate age of a company’s workforce, the more likely it is that the company will, at some point, have to cover the costs of treating a serious illness.  Two specific harms result from this situation. First, employers will become reluctant to hire older individuals, aware of the increased risk that their productivity may be affected by an illness that will be treated at their firm’s expense. Second, as employees age, their retirement settlements will constitute an ever increasing burden on their employer. Life spans across the western world are collectively increasing. The longer an employee remains in work, the larger their pension, the greater the liability they represent to a business.  As a consequence, between the cost of maintaining a previous generation’s pension settlements and the cost of treating the afflictions of longer-lived workers, it is highly likely that some employee support schemes will collapse. Other schemes, as has occurred in many UK businesses, will be closed off to new employees. Either way, the obstacle presented by an aging workforce will deny a younger generation the chance to benefit from schemes and subsidies that their employer provided to their fathers and grandfathers.

Dismantling gerontocracies  A mandatory retirement age creates increased opportunities for younger workers, especially in higher ranking jobs.  There is no need to apply a universal retirement age will across every sector of the economy. Different retirement ages can reflect the differing demands of particular jobs. The job performance of fighter pilots or surgeons may suffer as a result of the creeping debility uniformly associated with aging – a process known as senescence. Individuals in these occupations are usually compelled to retire earlier than the general population.  However, there is one factor that justifies both collective adjustment of existing mandatory retirement ages, and the imposition of mandatory retirement ages on jobs that do not become significantly harder or riskier as workers age. The absence of mandatory retirement may create gerontocracies – businesses that promote employees according to their seniority. The leadership of gerontocratic businesses and organisations are usually dominated by older individuals [i] .  Where retirement ages are high, or a culture of absolute deference to seniority is entrenched- as in Japan- a gerontocracy can emerge. An aging class of executives and directors can engage in patrimonial practices that ensure only other, older workers are able to access senior management positions. This has the effect of suppressing pay rates among younger employees and discouraging innovation and independent thought [ii] . After all, why would a young employee engage in the extra labour and learning necessary to solve intractable problems or develop new products if they will gain no recognition for their efforts?  Requiring skilled or semi-skilled workers to retire at a particular age will also assist in reducing unemployment figures among the young. Retirees will vacate jobs for individuals who are approaching an age where financial independence and building a family become significant life-objectives. This approach is also economically efficient – it makes more sense for the state to pay out on a larger number of pensions- supported by private pension schemes- than to support the young unemployed. If young adults miss opportunities to build careers for themselves, or to become established in a particular trade, the costs associated with joining the labour force begin to rise. Skill sets decay or become outmoded; lack of personal funds reduces workers’ mobility. Thus, it can prove costly for the state to facilitate entry into the labour market for the chronically unemployed. The resolution is necessary for the long-term health of the workforce as a whole.  [i] “Poorer, yes. But by how much?” The Economist, 09 January 2003.   [ii] “Corporate governance in Japan: Bring it on.” The Economist, 29 May 2008.

It is justifiable, in the interests of public safety and the reputation of key professions, to compel individuals to retire from jobs that are dependent on high levels of physical or mental health. However, proposition’s attempt to depart from the status quo is deeply flawed. The proposition side seem to be presenting an argument in favour of a better regulated wage market and a better constructed corpus of employment law. Neither of these flaws in the status quo would be adequately addressed by the resolution. Moreover, forcibly excluding older individuals from the labour market could harm productivity of the state’s economy by increasing the time and cost of training new workers, and reducing the breadth of skills and expertise available to employers.  Japan is frequently cited as an example of the harm that a “seniority-wage system” can do to both corporate accountability and innovation. The flaws of this approach to remuneration are not causally linked to the age of the individuals that a firm chooses to employ, but to a widespread refusal to assess their productivity and suitability for promotion according to other criteria. As a report published in the Economist notes, the Japanese gerontocracy “has few legal underpinnings; rather, it has to do with culture and tradition. A few business leaders have condemned it, but… politicians have largely kept [silent].” [i]  A full merit based system of pay and promotion would allow older employees to continue to participate, without having to permanently bar them from the workforce. This approach would resemble the status quo to a degree. Employees would be sought according their ability to fulfil the specific needs of the employer; irrespective of their age, the ability of an employee to successfully and efficiently carry out tasks assigned to her would be basic the indicator used to make decisions on pay and promotion.  Even where age and seniority assume a wider, more ingrained cultural significance, as in Italy and Japan, it would be grossly disproportionate to address an apparent bias in favour of promoting senior citizens by excluding them from the workforce entirely.  [i] “Corporate governance in Japan: Bring it on.” The Economist, 29 May 2008.

It is equally naïve to assume that professional education can only be delivered effectively by an age-based hierarchy.  A more dynamic approach to the division of labour within the professions could eliminate an overreliance on seniority-led training and professional development.  For example, both the UK and the USA draw members of their respective judiciaries from the ranks of lawyers and barristers. These individuals receive relatively little formal training, with the state relying on legal professionals’ prolonged contact and interaction with other judges to provide aspirant members of the judiciary with an understanding of their role and duties. Consequently, barristers and advocates may practice for decades before they are regarded as having accumulated sufficient experience to take up a place on the bench. This reduces the total number of judges able to oversee cases and, consequently, reduces the number of cases that a court system can process.  Many European jurisdictions, by contrast, do not require judges to have practiced as lawyers. Instead, specific training is offered to law students considering a career in the judiciary, in a similar fashion to the specialised training offered to medical students. Focussed education of this type, delivered by academic institutions, produces a more consistent, predictable standard of legal reasoning across the judiciary. It also enable judges to begin sitting at a younger age, ensuring that there are more judges available within the court system, thereby allowing more cases to be heard. Danute Jociene, Lithuania’s judicial representative in the European Court of Human Rights was only 33 years old when appointed. Rosalie Silberman Abella, the youngest justice of the Canadian Supreme Court was 59 years old when she was admitted to the superior bench.

As stated in side proposition’s first argument, the age at which retirement becomes mandatory can be flexible. The state will always be able to raise or lower the retirement age in response to demographic factors, such as the rate at which diseases of senescence begin to appear in the general population. Spain [i] and France [ii] have already passed laws raising the age at which individuals can qualify for a state pension. Proposition side’s arguments do not run contrary to this type of action.  If the general fitness, wellbeing and life expectancy of the population increases, the age of retirement can be raised in response. An increase in the retirement age can be made relative to a population’s average lifespan.  If an adult’s working life is extended, then the amount of time that they spend paying tax will also be extended. This increase in tax income will offset some of the financial burden associated with an increasingly long-lived population. Moreover, as opposition point out, advances in treatments for diseases linked to senescence have effectively reduced the amount of time that individuals reaching the ends of their lives will spend as dependents.  The late entry into the labour market of many young adults can be blamed on an ill-advised attempt by the UK and other European states, to use universities to deliver courses unsuited to being taught in a free-form academic context. Many subjects, especially those based on engineering, mechanics and construction require immediate engagement with real-world Apprenticeships and training schemes that emphasise placements within industry and hands-on teaching of core skills will do more to address the needs of the young adult work force than current forms of post-eighteen education. Concerns raised by both state and industry about late entry into the work force can be adequately addressed by bringing the world of work into the classroom at a much earlier stage.  [i] “Spain to raise retirement age to 67.” The New York Times, 27 January 2011.   [ii] “Pension rallies hit French cities.” BBC News online, 7 September 2010.

Maintain the diversity of the labour market  Compelling retirement at a set age reduces the diversity of the labour market. The advantages of employing older workers are increasingly being recognised. Higher levels of experience, training and education make for a more adept, reliable employee and lower training costs. Loyalty is increasingly becoming a characteristic of older workers; a well-known study conducted by Warwick University in 1989 observed the effect of staffing a branch of a large British retailer exclusively with individuals aged fifty or over. The study’s supervisors noted that staff turnover at the store was six times lower than- accounting for statistical controls- than the study’s chosen comparator. Profits, meanwhile, increased by 18% and the store staff were found to have a much wider skill base than average. [i]  These trends are a marked contrast to the behaviours that are coming to dominate the rest of the working age population. Indeed, given the increasing uptake of university degrees and other forms of higher education, it is now the case that many young Europeans are entering the labour market later than their parents and grandparents. This imbalance at the entry point to the labour market is easily corrected by avoiding any form of compulsory retirement age. However, the resolution would inhibit this process of automatic adjustment, restricting the age range from which new workers can be drawn and restricting the total pool of workers available to the economy.  It cannot be denied that there are advantages to employing younger workers. However, businesses will function more efficiently if they are able to choose, on an open labour market free of artificial restriction, the right hire for the right job. Under certain circumstances, this may mean a young graduate, familiar with information technology and with greater geographic flexibility. Under other circumstances, it may mean seeking out a more experience, older worker and making arrangements to allow for part time working while he cares for grandchildren, addresses reduced mobility or simply enjoys the freedom that comes with being able to afford to work less. Both classes of employee are suited to differing tasks and needs within contemporary businesses.  [i] “B&amp;Q, Ireland: Comprehensive approach’, Eurofound, 28 March 2007,

Professional roles and professional knowledge  It is naïve to assume- as side proposition do in their opening argument- that standards of innovation, knowledge and insight will improve within a business simply because it is compelled to hire younger workers. This is especially true of the professions – jobs and businesses that service pressing social needs tightly regulate the knowledge and conduct of their members and, typically, require them to continually maintain, revise and update their knowledge and skills.  In many professional roles expertise and mastery of the skills underlying the job itself take an unavoidably long time to achieve. Judges in the UK have to have held legal qualifications for five to seven years, [i] consulting physicians for which it takes twelve years to get the relevant qualifications and training, [ii] architects and master craftsmen are all as much a product of experience and practice as they are education and investment. Implicit in the cost advantage of hiring a young professional is the knowledge that they will have to work under the supervision and tutelage of older colleagues for most of their lives. Professionals are also a product of knowledge sharing and mentorship.  Put simply, arbitrarily using age to exclude older professionals from their fields of expertise will have a material impact upon the training and development of younger professionals. Western liberal democracies’ professional classes are based partly on communitarian principles of a carefully curated shared culture. Removing senior practitioners in law, medicine and civil administration severs a link with the collective knowledge of that professional culture – a link that cannot easily be replicated in the classroom environment.  [i] “Becoming a Judge”, Judiciary of England and Wales,   [ii] “The length of training involved in becoming a doctor”, Medical Careers,

Western workers are remaining healthier for longer  The populations of almost all wealthy western liberal democracies are aging. Quite simply, individual citizens are living longer. Throughout the EU the number of individuals of working age is likely to drop from the 2010 figure of 305m to 286m in 2030. Concurrently, the number of EU citizens aged over 65 will rise to 142m [i] . Compelling retirement simply increases the economic burden that pensioners place on the state. An aging population increases the ratio of dependent individuals to working individuals within a state. A mandatory retirement age is an arbitrary and unnecessary measure which exacerbates this problem.  The resolution also fails to take account of the fact that life expectancies throughout most of the western world are rising. The life expectancy of a 65 year old American male is now 17.52 years. The life expectancy of a 70 Japanese female has reached 19 years [ii] . Advances and health care and improvements in living standards have extended the average male life span in some areas of the world to 83. As citizens grow ever older, their dependence on their families and on the state for medical care and economic support grows too. Although this observation might seem to go against side opposition’s case, it should be pointed out that the same advances in medical care that extend our life spans also extend our productive lives. [iii]  We may live longer, but improvements in diagnosis and treatment for diseases of aging mean that we stay can healthier for longer. This being the case, mandatory retirement would only serve to expropriate the labour of otherwise active, productive members of society. It would create a class of financial dependents (“young” retirees in their sixties), with no means of securing themselves against the physical and medical dependence that characterises senescence.  Increasing the age at which retirement becomes mandatory will not adequately offset these dual phenomena. As has been seen in Greece, Spain and France, an attempt to alter an entrenched retirement age- even if it is not linked to mandatory retirement- can provoke substantial opposition among youth and labour movements [iv] . These groups are likely to see such a move as a direct political attack, and will respond accordingly. Secondly, demographers’ predictions about the future habits, health and behaviour of a population are infamously broad and inaccurate.  In short, an upward trend in human life spans correlates strongly with a downward trend in the frequency and immediacy with which older people are affected by diseases of aging. Citizens of western liberal democracies are staying healthier for longer. Requiring these otherwise productive, engaged individuals to withdraw from the work force would burden the pension system with a disproportionate number of financial dependents.  [i] “Special report: Pensions.” The Economist, 7 April 2011.   [ii] “Special report: Pensions.” The Economist, 7 April 2011.   [iii] “Active and Healthy Aging – A Long-term View up to 2050”, Miriam Leis, and Govert Gijsbers, European Foresight Platform, 31 January 2011,  pp.11-12  [iv] “France burns as strike descends into violence.” The Independent, 20 October 2010.

Diversity within the labour market is less important than inclusiveness. States are less likely to implement schemes that will allow individuals from disadvantaged socio economic backgrounds to obtain expensive forms of vocational or higher education if those individuals will be prevented from putting their skills to use by an obstructive gerontocracy.  The existence of subsidised university places, school vouchers and government sponsored internships and apprenticeships depend on economic demand for skilled workers. Without a mandatory retirement age providing a predictable degree of attrition within a workforce, there is no guarantee that socially inclusive education policies will increase the number of young adults entering the workplace. Correspondingly, it will become increasingly unlikely that governments will be willing to continue funding inclusive education. Why should the state continue to subsidise the teaching of skills that will go unused and eventually atrophy?  Older workers are more likely to have built up pension plans, and to have substantial personal savings. It is also more probable that they will have met their mortgage liabilities (that is, they will be in full possession of their own homes) and paid off any student debt that they have incurred. In general, older workers will suffer little if they are compelled to leave the workforce at a certain age. We can contrast this situation with that of younger workers who, if they are excluded for the work place due to a lack of demand for fresh labour, will be unable to build up the assets and capital that will provide them with a safety net and a comfortable standard of living later in life.  The efficient operation of businesses must be balanced against the financial freedom and quality of life of a state’s citizens.

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it." [1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society.  Privatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010. [2] Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues. [3]  It is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization.  [1] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004.   [2] Wihbey, John, ‘2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees’, Journalist’s Resource, 9 June 2011,   [3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005.

Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on  Private accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments. [1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice. [2]  As Andrew Roth argues, "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option." [3  Social Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account. [4]  Secondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need.  The current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs. [5]  Privatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream. [6]  Moreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them. [7]  This would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on. [8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments.  [1] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.   [2] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010.   [3] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010.   [4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.   [5] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.   [6] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.   [7] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010.   [8] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.

Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion.  Proposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better. [1]  Furthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately.  [1] Roosevelt, James."Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010.

Privatising social security would improve economic growth  Privatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: "If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future." [1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: "Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor." [2]  Currently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA’s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents. [3]  Change could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.” [4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere.  Put simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized.  [1] Schibuola, Alex. "Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security." Open Markets. 16 November 2010.   [2] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.   [3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. "Privatizing social security the right way". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998.   [4] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010.  ?

Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments.  Privatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition’s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would – and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.

The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo  Social Security is in Crisis. Social Security in the United States, as in most western liberal democracies, is a pay-as-you-go system and has always been so. As such, it is an intergenerational wealth transfer. The solvency of the system therefore relies on favourable demographics; particularly birth rate and longevity. In the United States the birth rate when Social Security was created was 2.3 children per woman but had risen to 3.0 by 1950. Today it is 2.06. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 63 and today it is 75. While this may be representative of an improvement in quality-of-life for many Americans, these demographic changes also indicate the increasing burden that social security systems are being put under. [1]  As a result of changing demographic factors, the number of workers paying Social Security payroll taxes has gone from 16 for every retiree in 1950 to just 3.3 in 1997. This ration will continue to decline to just 2 to 1 by 2025. This has meant the tax has been increased thirty times in sixty-two years to compensate. Originally it was just 2 percent on a maximum taxable income of $300, now it is 12.4 percent of a maximum income of $65,400. This will have to be raised to 18 percent to pay for all promised current benefits, and if Medicare is included the tax will have to go to nearly 28 percent. [2]  Social Security is an unsuitable approach to protecting the welfare of a retiring workforce. The social security system as it stands is unsustainable, and will place an excessive tax burden on the current working population of the USA, who will be expected to pay for the impending retirement of almost 70 million members of the “baby boomer” generation. This crisis is likely to begin in 2016 when- according to experts- more money will be paid out by the federal government in social security benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. [3]  In many ways Social Security has now just become a giant ponzi scheme. As the Cato Institute has argued: “Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later 'investors' or taxpayers, to pay benefits to the scheme’s earlier, now retired, entrants. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new "investors" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme.” [4]  Faced with this impending crisis, privatizing is at worst the best of the 'bad' options. It provides an opportunity to make the system sustainable and to make it fair to all generations by having everyone pay for their own retirement rather than someone else’s. [5]  [1] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997.   [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997.   [3] San Diego Union Tribune. "Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea." San Diego Union Tribune.   [4] Cato Institute. “Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?”. Cato Institute. 11 May 1999.  ;  [5] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. "Privatizing social security the right way". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998.

The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36. [1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea. [2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check.  Even more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts. [3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today’s generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.'  The alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits. [4]  [1] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010.   [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997.   [3] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997.   [4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.

Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged.  Those who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: " Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.” [1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security.  [1] Roosevelt, James."Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010.

Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth  Creating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings.  An analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade. [1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers." [2]  The deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions. [3]  Contrary to side proposition’s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system.  Thus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero. [4]  While four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion. [5]  [1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005.   [2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005.   [3] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009.   [4] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009.   [5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005.

The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent  Social security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11)  Side opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts. [1]  Budget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition’s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: " has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one." [2]  Krugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: “My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government… the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.” [3]  There are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: "You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both." These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security. [4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations.  [1] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004.   [2] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004.   [3] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004.   [4] Dick, Stephen. "Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone." CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010.

Privatising social security will harm retirees  As Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: "Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But… research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.” [1] Most people don’t have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don’t know what a stock market is, half don’t understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides “a guarantee that [their] portfolio won’t suffer if the stock market falls” [2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average.  The private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks. [3]  The economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today. [4]  If returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree’s pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection. Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues. Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker’s annual pay out of the collective fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster. [5]  It is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: "Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”” [6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so Social Security should not be privatized.  [1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005.   [2] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘The Facts on Saving and Investing’, April 1999,  pp.16-19  [3] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009.   [4] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009.   [5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005.   [6] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005.

Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system.  By contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent. [1]  Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth. [2]  [1] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997.   [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997.

While it is of course socially desirable that everyone be able to find gainful employment and pursue happiness, this is not accomplished even remotely by the existence of a minimum wage. In fact, it denies more people the ability to pursue happiness because the minimum wage forces unemployment up as it becomes more expensive to hire workers. The choice to work should belong to the individual, whether his decisions have an effect on the wages of others or not. Individuals can only have control of their destinies when they are not limited in the range of their potential actions, which must include the right to sell their labor at whatever rate they find acceptable, be it at some arbitrary minimum or lower.

The minimum wage provides a baseline minimum allowing people to embark freely in the pursuit of happiness  Without a minimum wage, the lowest paid members of society are relegated to effective serfdom, and their decisions of these members often force others to follow suit, accepting similarly low wages. There is no real freedom of choice for people at this lowest level of the social structure, since they must accept whatever wage is offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Their poverty and desperation for work makes it much more difficult for them to act collectively to bargain for better wages. The minimum wage frees people from this bondage and guarantees them resources with which to make meaningful choices. [1] Without resources there can be no true choice, as all choices would be coerced by necessity. Because people’s choices are intrinsically interconnected, and wages tend to reflect the prevailing pressures of demand and supply, when an individual makes the choice to work for less than anyone else, he necessarily lowers the wage that others can ask, leading to a downward spiral of wages as workers undercut one another, each competing to prove he is worth the least. A minimum wage ensures workers do not harm each other through self-destructive wage competition. [2] What the minimum wage does to alleviate these problems is that it gives individuals the ability to pursue the good life, something that has become a global ideal. People want to be happy, and find that only way to obtain the resources necessary to attain comfort and security is through employment. Fundamentally, the minimum wage grants the freedom not to be exploited, giving individuals the freedom to control their own destinies.  [1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000  [2] Hillman, Public Finance and Public Policy: Responsibilities and Limitations of Government, 2009

Employers are not stupid. Many do see the value of higher paid workers and appreciate their harder work and dedication. That is exactly why a minimum wage is unnecessary; firms in pursuit of their own self-interest will pay workers competitive wages. Furthermore, social welfare payments will not decrease with the advent of a minimum wage since while some workers will not require income supplements from the state, the higher numbers of unemployed workers will look to the state exclusively as their source of income, raising the cost to the state and the taxpayer.

The minimum wage aids in the propagation of social justice and the fair treatment of workers  Businesses operating in a free market are concerned principally with their bottom lines. In order to increase profits, firms will seek to exploit workers, to lower wages as far as possible. This exploitation will continue indefinitely, unless the state intervenes. The state does so by implementing a minimum wage. The lowest paid workers tend to be less educated, less skilled, and less organized than higher-paid employees. This makes them the easiest to manipulate and the easiest to replace. [1] In order to stop this outright exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society, the power of wage setting must fall to some extent within the purview of the state. Certainly, it is far better for state, which has citizens’ best interest at heart, to weigh in on the issue of setting wages than businesses, which tend not to care about their workers’ welfare or have competing interests. Furthermore, a minimum wage sends a social signal of valuation; it affirms that all people have worth, cannot be exploited, and are owed by dint of their humanity a certain level of treatment in the workforce, i.e. a minimum wage. This is important as a means to assist the self-empowerment of the poorest members of society, by encouraging them to value themselves. Also, the minimum wage aids in promoting social justice and equality by lowering wage disparities. [2] Citizens of more equal societies tend to have more in common and can share more in the construction of societal goals and aims. This form of social justice is certainly preferable to the class divisions propagated in the absence of a minimum wage, in which a part of society is relegated to permanent wage slavery.  [1] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009  [2] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000

There is no social justice in denying people the ability to work. The minimum wage serves to benefit insiders who are employed and harm outsiders who do not have jobs and cannot get them due to the dearth of jobs created by the wage laws. [1] The state may have the best interests of its citizens at heart when it institutes a minimum wage, but it accomplishes little when it leaves more of its citizens without work, and thus dependent upon the state for survival.  [1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010

The incentive to enter the illicit market is actually higher when there is a minimum wage. While the relative advantage of entering the black market might be diminished for some who can enter the legitimate workforce and find employment, the higher numbers of people now unemployed would find it necessary either to seek welfare payments from the government or find alternative employment. Such employment could be readily found in the illegal market.

Higher wages boost economic growth  Employees work harder when they are paid more, but employers can often be more concerned with the short-term bottom line and will not treat workers in the lowest echelons of their firms with much consideration, viewing them instead as disposable and replaceable economic units. [1] Mandating a minimum wage can thus benefit firms, even if they do not recognize it, by making workers more productive and also fostering a general work ethic. [2] As workers feel more valued in the economic system, the more likely they are to work loyally and diligently for their employers. Furthermore, better pay means more disposable income in the hands of employees, which leads to greater demand by them for goods and services. This demand-induced economic growth is a very important part of economic growth. The more people are able to spend, the more money flows into the economy, leading to more business and higher employment. Without the minimum wage, a downward spiral of spending can ensue, proving deleterious to firms and the economy generally. Additionally, the minimum wage decreases expensive social welfare payments, since workers no longer need as many supplements to their wages from the state in order to make up for the shortfall created by too-low wages.  [1] Freeman, Minimum Wages – Again!, 1994  [2] Filion, EPI’s Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2009

The minimum wage encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing income through illegal channels  When wages are extremely low the incentive to enter alternative markets is increased. This is particularly harmful in the case of illegal markets, such as those for drugs or prostitution. [1] When there is little to be gained from obtaining a legitimate job, no matter how plentiful they might be in the absence of a minimum wage, they would be undesirable by comparison to potentially highly lucrative black market opportunities. The minimum wage is essential for keeping the opportunity cost of entering the black market sufficiently high that people opt always to enter the mainstream, legal market. Furthermore, when the possibility of work in the legitimate market exists, even if work is harder to find due to a minimum wage, the very possibility of getting such a job will serve as a disincentive to pursuing illegal employment.  [1] Kallem, Youth Crime and the Minimum Wage, 2004

While economies may bounce back somewhat less quickly from downturns if wages are prevented from falling beneath a set minimum, it is a worthwhile sacrifice for the sake of preventing the exploitation of workers. The minimum wage is particularly important to uphold in times of recession, since increased unemployment encourages employers to slash wages unmercifully. Such reductions can severely harm individuals and families that often suffer from reductions in real wealth as a result of recessions. Furthermore, in the case of competitiveness, companies do not make their decisions of where to locate based solely on prevailing wage rates. Rather, they value educated, socially stable populations. A minimum wage ensures that working individuals have the resources to provide for the necessities of their families and tends to promote social stability and contentment by engendering feelings of social buy-in that are absent in the presence of exploitation and meager wages. [1] Furthermore, it is not clear that the minimum wage has a significantly detrimental impact on employment. [2]  [1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000  [2] Allegretto et al, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, 2011

The state has an obligation to protect people from making bad decisions. Just as it tries to protect people from the harms of drugs by making them illegal, the state protects people from exploitation by setting wages at a baseline minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, but they will not get this if there is no minimum wage. Businesses ruthlessly seeking to increase profit margins will always seek to reduce wages. This behavior is particularly harmful to those who receive the lowest wages. Upholding the right to work for any wage does not give people on the lowest wages a real choice, since it means people must work for what they are given, resulting in terrible exploitation. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is a necessary safeguard for the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, and to guard people from unconscionable choices that an absolute right to work would force. Furthermore, the right to work does not mean much if an individual can only find employment in jobs which pay so lowly that they cannot support themselves. Thus, there is little difference between being employed below the minimum wage and being unemployed at the minimum wage. When employed, a person is no longer on unemployment statistics and the government has less pressure to act. When unemployed, they have the incentive and time to campaign for government action.  [1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000

Individuals gain a sense of dignity from employment, as well as develop human capital, that can be denied them by a minimum wage  The ability to provide for oneself, to not be dependent on handouts, either from the state in the form of welfare or from citizens’ charity, provides individuals with a sense of psychological fulfillment. Having a job is key to many people’s self worth, and most capitalist-based societies place great store in an individual’s employment. Because the minimum wage denies some people the right to work, it necessarily leaves some people unable to gain that sense of fulfillment. [1] When people are unemployed for long stretches of time, they often become discouraged, leaving the workforce entirely. When this happens in communities, people often lose understanding of work entirely. This has occurred in parts of the United States, for example, where a cycle of poverty created by a lack of job opportunities has generated a culture of dependence on the state for welfare handouts. This occurrence, particularly in inner cities has a seriously corrosive effect on society. People who do not work and are not motivated to work have no buy-in with society. This results in crime and social disorder. Furthermore, the minimum wage harms new entrants to the workforce who do not have work experience and thus may be willing to work for less than the prevailing rate. This was once prevalent in many countries, often taking the form of apprenticeship systems. When a minimum wage is enforced, it becomes more difficult for young and inexperienced workers to find employment, as they are comparatively less desirable than more experienced workers who could be employed for the same wage. [2] The result is that young people do not have the opportunity to develop their human capital for the future, permanently disadvantaging them in the workforce. The minimum wage takes workers’ dignity and denies them valuable development for the future.  [1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010  [2] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010

The free market tends to treat workers fairly  In the absence of a minimum wage the free market will not tend toward the exploitation of workers. Rather, wages will reflect the economic situation of a country, guaranteeing that employment will be at the highest possible rate, and not be hampered by an artificial minimum. Some incomes may fall, but overall employment will rise, increasing the general prosperity of the country. [1] Employers understand that high pay promotes hard work. Businesses will not simply slash wages in the absence of a minimum wage, but will rather compete with one another to coax the best and most dedicated workers into their employ. This extends even into the lowest and least-skilled lines of work, as although workers may be largely interchangeable in terms of skill, they are distinct in their level of dedication and honesty. There is thus a premium at all levels of a business to hire workers at competitive wages. Furthermore, employers also take into account that there is a social safety net in virtually every Western country that prevents unemployed workers from starving or losing the barest standard of living. For this reason, wages can never fall below the level of welfare payments, as individuals will necessarily withhold their labor if they can receive the same or better benefit from not working at all than from being employed. Clearly, businesses will seek to employ the best workers and will thus offer competitive wages.  [1] Newmark and Wascher, Minimum Wages, 2010

The minimum wage is little more than a political tool that ultimately harms the overall economy by raising the unemployment rate and driving businesses elsewhere  Politicians have transformed the minimum wage into an indicator of social development. Governments often cite their raising of the minimum wage as an example of their commitment to fostering social justice and equality. This is all nonsense. The minimum wage is nothing more than a useful, simple tool that politicians can exploit without addressing underlying social and economic ills in society. [1] During times of economic expansion wages are generally rising as new businesses are formed and existing firms take on more capacity and workers. During such times, raising the minimum wage has no effect other than being a useful political move. In times of economic contraction, firms close and lay off workers and unemployment rates rise. In such times, the minimum wage hampers the market from clearing, keeping more people out of work than necessary. For markets to function efficiently, wages must be allowed to fluctuate freely, equilibrating with demand for labor and reflecting the macroeconomic situation. Minimum wages tend to lock in wages at pre-recession levels making countries less competitive and less quick to recover when economic downturns occur. Furthermore, minimum wages can often make countries unattractive for businesses to invest in, as the cost of hiring workers can serve as a serious disincentive. For this reason, businesses tend to locate in countries with no minimum wage laws, such as Germany, or where they are comparably low. In order to stay competitive, to bolster economic dynamism and gain global competitiveness, countries should treat labor like the commodity it is and allow the labor market to self-correct, and not institute minimum wage laws.  [1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010

The minimum wage restricts an individual’s fundamental right to work  Individuals are autonomous beings, capable of making decisions for themselves. This includes the ability to make a value judgment about the value of one’s time and ability. If an individual wishes to sell his labor for a certain price, then he should not be restricted from doing so by the state. A minimum wage is in effect the government saying it can place an appropriate value on an individual, but an individual cannot value himself, which is an absurdity as the individual, who knows himself better than the state ever could, has a better grasp of the value of his own labor. At the most basic level, people should have their right to choice maximized, not circumscribed by arbitrary government impositions. When the state denies individuals the right to choose to work for low wages, it fails in its duty of protection, taking from individuals the right to work while giving them nothing in return other than the chimerical gift of a decent wage, should they ever be able to find a job. [1] Clearly, the minimum wage is an assault on the right to free choice.  [1] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010

Businesses are concerned with their bottom line. They will pay workers as little as possible in order to maximize profits. Certainly in some businesses employers require highly skilled workers for which they will be willing to pay competitive wages. However, the people who most require worker protection, those on minimum wage, are generally unskilled and interchangeable with a large body of potential employees. For this reason there is little impetus to pay workers at the lowest echelons of firms anything but the lowest possible wages. Even if some firms are willing to offer comparatively higher wages to entice honest and diligent non-skilled workers, the overall wage schedule will be depressed as far as is economically possible.

An individual can maintain little dignity when he is subjected to outright exploitation from employers who are unconcerned about their welfare and who have no incentive to pay them anything but the lowest possible wages. A minimum wage ensures that people who find employment can feel real self-worth. Furthermore, if people do indeed only feel self-fulfilled when they are employed, people will be all the more likely to accept poor working conditions and low wages for sake of their self-image. Also, young workers do have means of gaining experience, such as through unpaid internship programs. The minimum wage serves to protect workers of all ages and skill-levels, as no one deserves to be exploited.

There are some assumptions made in the construction of this argument. First of all, you can’t hide the risk from the economic community. There is no guarantee that when issuing Eurobonds, the interest rates will drop. This is happening for two main reasons.  Firstly, according to the proposition model, the bonds will still be issued at a national level, showing investors if the money is going to Spain, Italy or Germany, France. While these should in theory have the same interest rates will investors really buy Eurobonds where the money is destined for Greece if not getting much interest? Perception still matters to the markets; will Greece and Germany really suddenly be perceived in the same way.  Secondly, even if the European Union decides to borrow money as a whole, its image is not a good one. Everybody knows the major problems that the union is facing right now so it is possible that concerns about the stability of the Euro as a whole will mean Eurobonds drive interest rates up, not down. Greece was still downgraded after its first bailout from CCC to C by the Fitch Financial Service even if the money were backed up by the ECB, being backed by the whole zone did not change the local fundamentals. [1]  [1] AP/AFP, ‘Greek Credit Downgraded Even With Bailout’, Voice of America, 21 February 2012,

Eurobonds even up interest rates within the Union  Introducing Eurobonds will lower interest rates for bonds issued by national governments so making the loans affordable. The most recent example of this problem is the need of recapitalization of banks in Cyprus. Although government debt and interest rates were not the direct problem if the government had been able to borrow at low interest rates to recapitalize its own banks then it would have not needed a bailout from the rest of the Eurozone. [1] In order to avoid these kinds of solutions and put people back to work in countries like Portugal, Italy or Spain, national governments need a bigger demand for their bonds so that interest rates go down.  Right now, sovereign-bonds are not affordable for the government as their interest rates are extremely high. Greece has an interest rate of 9.01%, Portugal 6.23%, and Italy and Spain near 4.30%. [2] If we choose to bundle the bonds together we will obtain a single interest rate that will lower the price of bonds and permit countries to borrow more, the price would be closer to Germany’s than Greece’s as the Eurozone as a whole is not more risky than other big economies. More than that, the markets won’t be worry anymore of the possible default of countries like Greece; as the bonds are backed up by the ECB and indirectly by other countries in the union, the debtors will know that their loans will be repaid because in the last resort more financially solvent countries take on the burden. When the risk of default is eliminated, the demand for government bonds will rise and the interest rates will go down. It is estimated that Italy could save up to 4% of its GDP [3] and Portugal would see annual repayments fall by 15bn euros, or 8% of its GDP. [4]  [1] Soros, George, ‘How to save the European Union’, theguardian.com, 9 April 2013,   [2] Bloomberg, ‘Rates &amp; Bonds’, accessed 15 October 2013,   [3] Soros, George, ‘How to save the European Union’, theguardian.com, 9 April 2013,   [4] Soros, George, ‘How to save the European Union’, theguardian.com, 9 April 2013,

The problem with long-term regulations is not that they do not exist but rather the fact that they are not imposed. There is no need for further control and regulation when the European Union already has a mechanism that will prevent economic crisis if it is stuck to. The Maastricht Treaty clearly states that countries in the European Union shall not have a government deficit that exceeds 3% of the GDP and the government debt was limited to be no larger than 60% of the GDP. [1] These measures should be enough to prevent any country in the union to collapse. The major problem was that the Maastricht Treaty was not respected by the member states and little or no sanctions were imposed to ensure compliance. Even comparatively stable countries have deficits above 3%, France had a deficit of 4.8% in last year. [2] The simple solution would be keeping the regulation of the already existing treaty and sanction countries that exceed their deficits and not impose new rules.  [1] Euro economics, ‘Maastricht Treaty’,   [2] The World Factbook, ‘Budget surplus (+) or Deficit (-)’, cia.gov, 2013,

Eurobonds help European integration  One of the most important European Union principles is solidarity and mutual respect among European citizens [1] and this can only be achieved by more integration and stronger connections between states. The economic crisis has clearly shown that more integration is necessary if Europe is to prevent suffering and economic hardship.  From the economic perspective, unemployment rates reached disastrous levels in 2012 with Greece at 24,3% and Spain 25%. [2] There is a lack of leadership and connection between countries in the European Union that is not allowing them to help one-another and solve the economic crisis.  From the political point of view the result of this is that extremist parties are on the rise with the best example of Golden Dawn in Greece. [3] While in 1996 and 2009 the party didn’t win any seats in the Greek Parliament, after the crisis hit in June 2012 they won 18 seats. [4] In time of distress, the logical solution is not that every country should fight for itself but rather the willingness to invest and integrate more in the union to provide a solution for all.  Eurobonds provides the integration that will help prevent these problems, it will both halt the current crisis of government debts because governments will have lower interest repayments and not have the threat of default, and it will show solidarity between members. This in turn will help any future integration as showing that Europe cares for those in difficulty will make everyone more willing to invest in the project.  [1] Europa, ‘The founding principles of the Union’, Europa.eu,   [2] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment rate, 2001-2012 (%)’, European Commission, 27 June 2013,   [3] ‘Golden Dawn party’, The Guardian,   [4] Henley, Jon, and Davies, Lizzy, ‘Greece’s far-right Golden Dawn party maintains share of vote’, theguardian.com, 18 June 2012

Integration cannot happen on the hoof. The euro crisis and the political and social distress in the European Union have created negative sentiments when talking about the Union. The European citizens do not want these kinds of measures and there is a general sentiment of euro skepticism. Countries like Germany are no longer interested in paying for Greek mistakes and Angela Merkel is strongly opposing the idea of Eurobonds, saying that Germany might leave the union. [1] Clearly this is not the time to be forcing through more integration against the will of the people.  More than that extremist parties are on the rise. An anti-Muslim, anti-immigration and anti-integration party, France’s National Front has come out top in a poll of how French people will vote European Union Parliament elections. [2] In contrary to the false connection between poor economy and extremism, it comes in hand the fact that the National Front reached the runoff in the 2002 French presidential elections. [3] In conclusion, people are not willing to invest more in the union but rather wanted to take a step back from integration even before the crisis.  [1] Cgh, ‘The Coming EU Summit Clash: Merkel Vows ‘No Euro Bonds as Long as I Live’, Spiegel Online, 27 June 2012,   [2] Mahony, Honor, ‘France’s National Front tops EU election survey’, euobserver.com, 9 October 2013,   [3] Oakley, Robin, and Bitterman, Jim, ‘Le Pen upset causes major shock’, CNN World, 21 April 2002,

The long term benefits of Eurobonds  The European Union should not only focus on the present but also try to find a permanent solution in resolving and preventing economic crisis. The solution that is implemented right now through the European Stability Mechanism is a temporary one and has no power in preventing further crisis. First of all, the failure of the European Union to agree on banks bailout is a good example. [1] As economic affairs commissioner Olli Rehn admitted the bailout negotiations have been "a long and difficult process" [2] because of the many institutions and ministers that have a say in making the decision. More than that, it sometimes takes weeks and even months until Germany and other leaders in the union can convince national parliaments to give money in order for us to be able to help those in need.  Issuing bonds as a union of countries will provide more control to the ECB that will be able to approve or deny a loan – one option would be that after a certain limit countries would have to borrow on their own. [3] This will prevent countries from borrowing and spending irrationally like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy did in the past. The unsustainable economic approach can be easily seen in the fact that public sector wages in Greece rose 50% between 1999 and 2007 - far faster than in most other Eurozone countries. [4] Clearly Greece could make the choice to go separately to the market to fund this kind of spending but it would be unlikely to do so.  [1] Spiegel, Peter, ‘EU fails to agree on bank bailout rules’, The Financial Times, 22 June 2013,   [2] Fox, Benjamin, ‘Ministers finalise €10 billion Cyprus bailout’, euobserver.com, 13 April 2013,   [3] Plumer, Brad, ‘Can “Eurobonds” fix Europe?’, The Washington Post, 29 May 2012,   [4] BBC News, ‘Eurozone crisis explained’, 27 November 2012,

There is a common responsibility in the European Union for helping countries that are hit harder by economic crises than the others. If Eurobonds create winners and losers, the same thing can be said about the economic crisis. Germany was one of the winners and therefore has the duty to help the others. The Eurozone crisis has created a bigger demand for German bonds and lowered the interest rate they have to pay. Germany has such low interest rates because Spain, Italy and Greece are incapable of sustaining their debt, it is therefore a safe haven for people who want to buy government bonds. It is estimated that Germany gained 41 billion euros [1] in ‘profit’ from these lower interest rates as a result of the crisis and therefore has the ability and the moral duty to help countries that are worse-off. More than that, every prudent creditor has a profligate debtor. French and German banks could risk loosing a few hundred millions each if Greece defaults, the creditor accepted the risk when they lent the money. [2] We should remember that the core of the economic success of countries such as Germany has been the Euro helping to increase exports; these exports were what Greeks were buying with the credit they were getting from foreign banks.  [1] SPIEGEL/cro, ‘Profiteering: Crisis Has Saved Germany 40 Billion Euros’, Spiegel Online, 19 August 2013,   [2] Slater, Steve, and Laurent, Lionel, ‘Analysis: Greek debt shadow looms over European banks’, Reuters, 20 April 2011,

Sometimes, a leap of faith is what needs to be taken in order to fix such big problems. First of all the willingness of the union to do more in helping countries that having difficulties will improve its image both in these countries and abroad because it will show the EU sticking to its core principles. Even if we agree that Eurobonds might be a risky idea, something needs to be done to fix the economy. We have clearly seen how bailouts do not work and are not providing a permanent solution. The Eurozone is likely to decide on a third bailout for Greece in November 2013 and little proof that this will make the situation better for the Greeks. [1] Furthermore, the temporary solution of bailouts is taken without the consent of the electorate so the problem of a democratic deficit exists in both cases. Acting now to end the crisis will mean a possible end to such sticking plasters being applied without democratic consent. The EU will then be able to concentrate on demonstrating the advantages of the solution it has taken.  [1] Strupczwski, Jan, ‘Decision on third Greek bailout set for November: officials’, Reuters, 5 September 2013,

Eurobonds create moral hazard  The policy proposed will shift responsibility for bad economic decisions and create moral hazard due to the lack of accountability. If the European Union decides to introduce bonds with the same interest rate for all countries, everyone in the union will have to suffer for the mistakes made by Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy or Portugal (or any other state that may make them in the future). The burden will be shifted to the whole union in the form of higher interest rates for the prudent and countries that made mistakes in the past will pay no price for their economic instability and poor decision-making. This situation will happen if the Eurobonds indeed function as they are planned to and the interest rates will be kept low by comparison to the current rates for Greece, Italy etc. More than that, this situation will lead to what economist call the moral hazard. Moral hazard appears where a person, institution or national government in this case is not made responsible for past actions and so does not change their ways in response; insulating someone from the consequences of their actions takes the learning out of their actions. If countries in distress are not made responsible for their irrational spending made in the past (not just governments but also having trade deficits, banks too willing to lend etc.), there is no reason why these countries should alter their approach to the economy. Accountability to the market is what will resolve the economic crisis and prevent another. This can only be done without Eurobonds.

Eurobonds would create problems for Germany  The situation that is implemented in the Status Quo, with the Economic Stability Mechanism trying to save countries in collapse will no longer be an option after introducing Eurobonds. Previous arguments have explained how interest rates will not be lowered enough to make countries stable again but another problem is that they will inhibit any chance of a plan B.  First of all, Germany has low interest rates for its government bonds and had it this way in the last few years through the crisis. [1] This is allows them to take loans cheaply helping to sustain their manufacturing industry and government spending, and allowing Germany to finance bailouts. If Germany's borrowing costs rose to the Eurozone average, it could cost Berlin an extra €50bn a year in repayments – almost 2% of its GDP. [2] This will clearly impact on Berlin’s ability and willingness to contribute to the European Stability Mechanism with the knock on effect that if despite Eurobonds another bailout is needed it may not be possible to raise the funds to actually carry out that bailout.  Secondly, the Eurobonds create obvious winners and losers; Germany and other prudent nations such as Austria and Finland, as well as the slightly more profligate France will have to suffer the consequences of the economic crisis caused by other countries in the union; Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal. With higher interest rates they will need to engage in their own austerity campaigns to compensate which will affect economic growth and create discontent. Why should we punish Germany for the wrongdoing of other states?  [1] Bloomberg, ‘Rates &amp; Bonds’, accessed 15 October 2013,   [2] Inman, Philip, ‘Eurobonds: an essential guide’, theguardian.com, 24 May 2012,

Eurobonds create a long term burden  Introducing Eurobonds will increase the burden for the European Union as a whole and change the responsibility in the long-term. Right now, countries are willing to help one-another and the best example is the European Stability Mechanism, a program designed to help countries in distress with major economic potential. [1] This is happening because the European Union is not fully responsible for the mistakes of the countries in the Eurozone. Of course, Eurobonds is just taking a step further but it also promotes a bigger burden for the union. Such a long term burden should not be decided and imposed in a time of crisis. If we let the European Union and the ECB decide to back national loans and approve Eurobonds it will effectively be imposed upon the people. The idea is not popular with many national electorates and such a decision will have to be taken without their consent. Germany is the clearest example, in a ZDF television poll, 79% said that they are opposing the idea of Eurobonds. [2] The real problem is that this is a one way street, it would be very difficult to reverse course as interest rates would immediately shoot up again thus immediately recreating the crisis if there were such an attempt. Any attempt at imposition without a clear democratic mandate throughout the union could seriously damage the EU by creating a popular backlash.  [1] European Stability Mechanism, ‘About the ESM’, esm.europa.eu,   [2] AP, ‘Poll: Germans strongly against eurobonds’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 25 November 2011,

Moral hazard is not going to happen in the European Union because alongside the benefits of the Eurobonds comes the control from the European Central Bank or other measures imposed by the rest of the members. This is already happening in the status quo, where countries are forced to impose austerity measures in order to receive bailout founds. [1] Under the model proposed where the ECB can control the lending ability of any country in the union, by allowing the loan or denying it at a certain limit. Countries will most certainly be held accountable if they fail to pay back their loans by not giving them access to further bond issuing. Eurobonds are not a tap governments can use for spending recklessly.  [1] Garofalo, Pat, ‘Greek Austerity, the Sequel’, U.S.News, 9 July 2013,

The Brexit can’t have it both ways that it will both deregulate promoting the free market and enable an industrial policy that allows subsidies. In practice unshackling the economy means damaging workers’ rights that are protected by EU legislation of which the Working Time Directive is just the best known. Leaving would also damage just those sectors the Brexit side says it will help; finance needs access to Europe, as do many other creative industries.

We need to unshackle the economy  The UK needs to unshackle the economy from the restrictions the EU places upon it. EU bureaucracy and red tape holds back Britain’s service industries. Regulations on employment rights, hiring, and firing restrict the supply of workers pushing up costs to businesses. To take one example Britain is facing a curry crisis; curry houses are closing due to an inability to secure skilled chefs from the Indian subcontinent. [1] Being able to set the UK’s own migration system would enable the UK to hire people with the skills we need.  [1] Robinson, Nick, ‘Who will cook your Indian curry?’, BBC News, 26 May 2016,

Most of the claimed £350 million per week either is accounted for by the British rebate, £4.8billion in 2015 [1] – which never actually leaves the UK – or is money the EU spends in the UK. The £120 million remainder is however buys access to the EU’s market. Norway pays €340 million per year – about £63 million per week if it had a comparable population to the UK – to get access to the EU market but does not have any chance to influence that market. [2]  [1] 94.4million per week, HM Treasury, ‘European Union Finances 2015: statement on the 2015 EU Budget and measures to counter fraud and financial mismanagement’, gov.uk, December 2015,   [2] Solberg, Erna, ‘The ‘Norwegian model’ would be a poor alternative to EU membership for the UK’, LSE, 19th April 2013,

Leaving would take back power to control the economy  Voting to leave would take back the power over the British economy that the European Union currently has and give it back to the sovereign British Parliament. EU common fisheries and agriculture (CAP) policies control how many fish we can catch and what is commercially farmable. If the UK were to leave the British government would be once more able to shape an industrial policy; for example under EU rules it did not have the power to save Port Talbot as it is not allowed to provide subsidies to support the failing plant. [1]  [1] Rankin, Jennifer, ‘EU sets tone as it cracks down on subsidies for struggling steelworks’, theguardian.com, 20 January 2016,

British government policy has been against state intervention in industry for decades. Rather since the Thatcher government the free market has been considered to know best and so companies or factories that make a loss should be allowed to go bust.

The UK is already insulated from the Euro crisis by not being a member of the Eurozone. With the pound sterling the UK is no more exposed in the EU than it would be outside of the EU. Finance is globally interconnected. Leaving the EU will make no difference to this. The UK has already negotiated, in 2015, a deal which ensures that the UK will not be liable for any bailouts in the Eurozone. [1] However Britain could cause such a Eurozone crisis, by leaving as the UK leaving would have an impact on the EU economies just as it would on the UK’s own.  [1] BBC News, ‘UK ‘strikes deal’ over Greek bailout’, 16 July 2015,

There will be £350 million more to spend a week  Through leaving the EU Britain will no longer send £350million per week to Europe so can spend it at home. [1] Of course much of this sum comes back to the UK but the UK will gain greater control over how and where the money is spent. Thus for example some money comes back in the form of CAP. We would however be able to decide how this money is used on farming rather than being dictated to by the EU or take the money out of farming all together. Even taking in to account money that comes back to the UK, and the rebate, the UK still sends £120million per week to Europe. [2] Money which would be freed up to spend on helping the NHS or building more affordable houses upon leaving.  [1] ‘A vote to remain is the riskier option’, Vote Leave,   [2] Ashworth-Hayes, Sam, ‘UK doesn’t sent EU £350m a week or £55m a day’, infacts.org, 25 February 2016,

A step away from a failing Eurozone  The Euro is failing as has been demonstrated by the years’ long slow motion crisis involving Greece and other peripheral countries Ireland, Spain, and Portugal. The chancellor George Osborne has in the past said that a Eurozone recession is the biggest economic risk to the UK. [1] This is still true. The UK will be safer taking a step away from integration with Europe by leaving the EU.  [1] Chan, Szu Ping, ‘Eurozone recession is biggest risk to UK, says George Osborne’, The Telegraph, 10 October 2014,

While it is almost certain that there will be a brief short term shock caused by uncertainty no one knows for sure what will happen in the long term. A Britain that is out of Europe will be better able to run its economy to encourage growth so will likely do better than it does under the status quo.

Britain can have free trade without all the baggage of political decisions being made in Brussels. Just as the EU accounts for a high portion of UK trade so the UK is a high proportion of EU trade; around 16% of EU exports go to the UK, [1] so the EU would want to have a deal with the UK to allow this trade to continue.  [1] Portes, J., ‘After Brexit: how important would UK trade be to the EU?’, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 2 November 2015,

Britain is needed to create a more business friendly Europe  The UK is a leader among the countries in the EU that is in favour of greater deregulation, privatisation, and free trade. As such the UK has been a strong positive influence on the EU in favour of these things. In the same way the UK played a strong role in encouraging the EU’s expansion to create a bigger market. The UK needs to remain in the EU to ensure the organisation flourishes. Prime Minister Cameron’s deal with Europe prior to the referendum for example included a promise by the EU to engage in “lowering administrative burdens and compliance costs on economic operators, especially small and medium enterprises, and repealing unnecessary legislation” something that benefits not just the UK but the EU as a whole. [1]  [1] Reuters, ‘Full text of EU's special status deal for Britain’, 19 February 2016,

Leaving may increase British unemployment  Alongside this likely shock to the economy will most likely be a loss in jobs as a result in a loss in trade. Some big employers, such as many car makers, are located in the UK in large part as a result of the access to the EU market. It is estimated that three million UK jobs are linked to trade with the EU. [1] Estimates of the number of jobs lost vary considerably; the CBI has suggested 950,000 [2] while the Treasury thinks 500,000. [3] The number may turn out to be less but clearly a large number of livelihoods will be damaged.  [1] Ashworth-Hayes, Sam, ‘Will 3 million jobs be lost if we quit EU?’, infacts.org, 15 March 2016,   [2] Kollewe, Julia, ‘ Brexit could cost £100bn and nearly 1m jobs, CBI warns’, theguardian.com, 21 March 2016,   [3] HM Treasury, ‘Britain to enter recession with 500,000 UK jobs lost if it left EU, new Treasury analysis shows’, gov.uk, 23 May 2016,

Leaving will cause a shock to the British economy  The UK leaving the EU would likely be damaging not just to the British economy but globally with the G7 saying it would be “a further serious risk to growth.” [1] The damage to the UK economy would come for several reasons. First there would be uncertainty about what comes next; no one is quite sure what kind of deal the UK will get with the EU, or what will happen to EU migrants in the UK. Additionally businesses that trade with the EU will have uncertainty over that trading relationship and the UK will be a less favourable investment prospect because it is no longer a bridge to 500milion EU consumers. The treasury has estimated that GDP will be lower by 6.2% by 2030 as a result so many people will be considerably worse off. [2]  [1] Asthana, Anushka, ‘Brexit would pose ‘serious risk’ to global growth, say G7 leaders’, theguardian.co.uk, 27 May 2015,   [2] HM Treasury, ‘HM Treasury analysis shows leaving EU would cost British households £4,300 per year’, gov.uk, 18 April 2016,

Economic growth comes with closer integration with your neighbours  Economic integration with neighbours is the best way to economic growth. Neighbouring countries are almost always the countries a nation trades most with; in the UK’s case the EU accounts for 44.6% of exports and 53.2% of imports. [1] It is therefore in the UK’s interest to increase integration to encourage this trade. Throughout the world the trend is towards regional integration rather than away from it with regional organisations from Mercosur in South America to ASEAN in South East Asia encouraging integration.  [1] Office for National Statistics, ‘How important is the European Union to UK trade and investment?’, 26 June 2015,

There is considerable churn in the jobs market already; with 3.7 million jobs lost a year already but simply being replaced by new jobs. [1] Leaving the EU would therefore make little difference.  [1] Bourne, Ryan, ‘The EU Jobs Myth’, Institute of Economic Affairs, March 2015,  p.9.

There is no guarantee that the EU will actually implement anything in the agreement with David Cameron. The wording is clear enough but with no specifics about how or when the administrative burden will be lowered. Yes the UK may be fighting to create a more business friendly Europe but more important however is the way that the EU increases the regulatory burden on the UK. This regulatory burden can be much easier done away with by leaving the EU than by negotiating reductions with the rest of the Union.

Education is a crossover point; migrating for education may be about a sense of belonging but it is also an opportunity. A conservative culture that does not educate young women is not providing them with an opportunity that is available elsewhere.

Intellectual women migrants outnumber intellectual men migrants  The need of belonging is greater for women than for men – Bardo and Bardo found that they miss home much more (5). On the other hand, unequal and discriminatory norms can be strong drivers of intellectual female migration (1). More young women than men now migrate for education and, in several European countries today, highly skilled migrant women outnumber highly skilled migrant men (1). Between 2000 and 2011, the number of tertiary-educated migrant women in OECD countries rose by 80%, which exceeded the 60% increase in the number of tertiary-educated migrant men. In Africa for example, the average emigration rates of tertiary-educated women are considerably higher than those of tertiary-educated men (27.7% for women and 17.1% for men).

Intellectual migrants do not necessarily discard a traditional value to replace it with a corresponding western value. For example, they seldom renounce their religion in favor of a western one (3).  A weaker sense of nationalism does not have to mean greater internationalism. Instead there may be greater ties to traditional culture, to a region or village. There may be fewer ties to nation, but throughout much of the developing world religion has a far greater adherence than in the west. Thus with a couple of exceptions (Communist states such as China and North Korea) it is more developed countries that are mostly non religious.(12)

The inferiority complex within older generations in the developing countries affects intellectuals’ sense of belonging while in their countries  An inferiority complex still exists among the older generations in the developing countries as regards the western technical know-how and organisation. A persisting attitude to place more confidence in the experts and specialists belonging to the developed countries than the educated nationals of the country (3) could foster a feeling of underestimation amongst intellectuals while in their countries, and becomes an additional driver of the continuous intellectual migration.

Some intellectual migrants already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their country  Intellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments.  Family ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.

If there is really no freedom then these migrants will be asylum seekers and refugees not true intellectual migrants by choice.  Even if there is some alienation from their own native culture these migrants are still travelling to a much more alien culture. This being the case it seems unlikely that alienation is the main cause. Rather they are travelling to a culture that is more alien because they believe there are better opportunities there.

It seems hardly likely that feeling undervalued for their skills is a main reason for moving. When moving abroad many will instead encounter racism and concern about increasing numbers of migrants which would at least balance against being undervalued at home. They go instead because the ‘value’ of their skills is monetary – therefore about opportunities – not in terms of reputation and confidence or belonging.

If these young intellectuals really are politically conscious then they should desire to stay in their native country and change its system of government. It is the intellectuals who are needed to create, and then grow a democracy so that it represents the whole spectrum of opinion within the country and respects intellectual freedoms.

Intellectual migrants are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism  The concept of nationalism as developed in Europe during the 19th century did not undergo the same evolution in the developing countries. Intellectuals do not identify themselves with their countries the way Europeans do. They are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism than the western nationalist – for example Mohsin Hamid argues our views of liberal values should be extended beyond nation states with their often unnatural borders. Thus, if they stay abroad after having adhered to the western way of life, they consider themselves part of the great human lot, value free movement as a basic human right, and do not necessarily suffer from complexes of disloyalty towards their home country (3).

Most young intellectuals from developing countries are politically conscious and want to be "actors" in policy making  Young intellectuals from developing countries are to a very large extent politically conscious and active. They want to be "actors" and not "spectators" in policy making, all the more so when their specialism is impacted by government policy. Those who grow up in an autocratic, or not very democratic state are likely to want to go where they can use their voice. Even in many democracies intellectuals often largely liberal views both for government and teaching are not readily approved by the conservative regimes of their countries where usually the older generation is in power and constitutes a barrier against their progress.

Making a start in encouraging entrepreneurship and gender identity is not likely to be enough to make a county attractive when compared against countries that are much further down the path. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2016 Tunisia is still in the bottom quartile of the rankings on gender equality.(15)

Most job vacancies in African countries ask for a university degree even if a degree is ultimately not the most important attribute for the job. (13) So the opportunities are there for those who would be considered to be intellectuals, it is everyone else for whom opportunities in their native land are lacking.

Many migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging  Many migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging, national identities, and political consciousness. For instance, they are European migrants, and in 2016, they were 19.3 million residing in a different EU Member State from the one where they were born (7). With migration an issue even from countries with strong national identities it is clear that that identity is not the major driver of movement.

Many developing countries support entrepreneurship and gender equality  In many developing countries, entrepreneurship is supported to create jobs and dynamic work conditions, and women are empowered and politically represented reducing any concerns of feeling as if they don’t belong.  For example in Tunisia, many initiatives are being introduced to promote the entrepreneurship ecosystem including angel investing and attempts to reduce administrative barriers (9). Moreover, regarding gender equality, Tunisia’s Parliament has approved an amendment ensuring that women have greater representation in local politics. This amendment includes a proposal for gender parity in electoral law. (10)

Developing countries have high unemployment rates and need to invest in job creation  Developing countries invest in education and job creation because they have high unemployment rates (6). They need to address the lack of opportunities in order to improve their economy and reduce migration. This is as much the case for those at graduate level as for those who have less of an education. Africa’s 668 universities produce almost 10 million graduates a year, but only half find work.(14) It should therefore be no surprise that many migrate overseas for opportunities.

A strong national identity does not necessarily result in a strong sense of belonging. That national identity may have precluded other senses of belonging such as religion, or even close community ties and interactions.

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .  [1] Davenport, 2004  [2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012,

Economic benefits  While hosting a major sporting event is relatively expensive (although Cape Town and Johannesburg already have a number of appropriate venues for some of the events already), hosting major sporting events creates major economic benefits. London got a £10bn economic boost from hosting the 2012 Olympics [1] . This may be higher – many of these benefits are difficult to calculate; how much of a tourism boost is a result of a successful games? Barcelona however just like London had a large boost of tourism following the 1992 Barcelona Games [2] . It raises awareness of the city, and the country, and what it offers as a tourist destination.  [1] Flanders, Stephanie, ‘London 2012 Olympics ‘have boosted UK economy by £9.9bn’’, BBC News, 19 July 2013,   [2] Davenport, Coral, ‘A post-Olympic hurdle for Greece: the whopping bill’, CSMonitor, 1 September 2004,

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

Showcase for a nation and continent  A key reason why countries host the Olympic games is in order to boost their image abroad – China held the 2008 Games in Beijing as part of an exercise in national promotion [1] .  This would also be an opportunity to change the perceptions of Africa amongst some elements in the outside world, from an inaccurate picture of a “third world” continent with no features other than poverty and violence to a more accurate depiction of a continent which, while having challenges, is having economic growth and advancing human development. South Africa is the best nation to showcase the development of Africa; it is Africa’s biggest economy and one of its most developed.  [1] Rabkin, April, ‘Olympic Games all about China, Chinese’, SFGate, 1 August 2008,

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]  Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.  [1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010,

National “feel-good factor”  Hosting very large sporting events is a great way to advertise a nation, and create a national feel-good factor. When London hosted the games in 2012, a successful event with a successful home team, there was a significant national “feel good factor” [1] . This can bring the benefit of bringing a nation together; particularly important for multi-ethnic countries such as South Africa, it will bring all ethnicities together in a shared experience helping to justify the label of ‘rainbow nation’. As Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula argues “Sport is said to be a national religion in South Africa. In recent years it transcends race, class, language and geographical location.” [2]  [1] Hart, Simon, ‘Feelgood factor at London’s Anniversary Games next weekend as a new start for drug-tainted athletics’, The Telegraph, 20 July 2013,   [2] Mabalula, Fikile, ‘South Africa: Remarks By the Minister of Sport and Recreation, Honourable Mr Fikile Mbalula At the National Press Club Briefing On the 2013 Afcon At the Csir International Convention Centre’, AllAfrica, 16 January 2013,

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

Some Olympic events are held outside the main city. The football tournament uses venues across other cities (in the London 2012 games, Coventry, Cardiff and Manchester were amongst the cities hosting matches), and, being landlocked, Johannesburg would have to host the sailing at another venue. Sailing being held in another city is not unusual, in 2012 the sailing was held in Weymouth and in 2008 in Qingdao.  Training camps are typically held across the whole nation, too.  The national morale boost typically permeates far wider than just the host city, including the impact in favour of a more sporting culture in the country.

Cost of hosting  The Olympic games is an expensive thing to host. The 2012 games in London cost nearly £9bn [1] . This cost largely falls on the taxpayer. These large events are notoriously difficult to budget accurately, the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics having gone vastly over budget with suggestions that it could cost up to $50 billion [2] .  It is too expensive to host for rich countries as it is – South Africa has a large problem with wealth inequality as it is, and is below the world average GDP per capita [3] . Although it is unlikely to reach such expense the $50 billion for the Sochi Olympics is twice the yearly South African health budget of ZAR 232.5bn. [4] South Africa would be better served using the money to combat HIV and poverty.  [1] Gibson, Owen, ‘London 2012 Olympics will cost a total of £8.921bn, says minister’, The Guardian, 23 October 2012,   [2] Kollmeyer, Barbara, ‘Russia’s in-perspective price tag for four-times-overbudget Sochi Olympics: 18 Oprahs’, Marketwatch, 27 November 2013,   [3] The World Bank, ‘GDP per capital, PPP (current international $)’, date.worldbank.org, accessed 24 January 2014,   [4] ‘Budget 2013’, PWC, 27 February 2013,

The Olympics are not South Africa’s ‘national sport’  South Africa in part hosted the World Cup because football is the national sport of the country. Sports Minister Fikile Mabalula has declared “In African popularity, the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) surpasses even that of a multi-sports event like the All Africa Games.” [1] While there is football in the Olympics other sports that South Africans support such as Rugby are not represented. In the 2012 Olympics South Africa was well down the medal table at 23rd. [2] While it makes sense to make a big investment for intangible benefits for a sport the country loves it makes less sense for the Olympics.  [1] Mabalula, 2013,   [2] ‘Medal Table’, BBC Sport, 13 August 2012,

Hosting only affects one city and one country  Unlike a World Cup, which spreads the benefits more evenly, an Olympic games is focused on one city, generally one which is a major international city. It was expected prior to the games that 90% of economic benefits to the UK of the 2012 games would go to London [1] .  It is dubious that there would be such big benefits for the continent. South Africa is seen by some in the outside world as somewhat aloof from the rest of Africa due to its particular history, its history of apartheid being rather different from the normal course of African decolonisation. It is doubtful that the 2010 World Cup boosted perceptions of the entire continent.  [1] Grobel, William, ‘What are the London 2012 Olympics worth?’, Brand Valuation News, April 2010,

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.  While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

The number of people defrauding the system is very small (only 0.007% of the total cost of the benefit system). The majority of people on benefits are seeking work. They will be hindered in so doing, because instead of applying for work, attending interviews and developing relevant skills they will be forced to attend their workfare scheme. Thus, people will remain on benefits for longer, costing the government more in the long term.

Workfare will eliminate scroungers, who are a financial drain on the system  Making the unemployed work for their welfare benefits calls the bluff of those claiming benefit but not really looking for jobs. Such scroungers include the incurably lazy, those who are defrauding the taxpayer by claiming welfare while holding down a paying job, and those who are working in the black economy. Furthermore, workfare schemes require applicants also search for work whilst completing the scheme1. Moving from a traditional something-for-nothing welfare scheme to a workfare system stops all these individuals from being a burden on the state, cutting welfare rolls very rapidly and allowing the government to concentrate upon assisting the truly needy.  1: Kaus, M. (2000, April 16). Now She's Done It. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from Slate

Workfares have low standards that produce poor and potentially unsafe products. Individuals forced into workfare schemes lack incentives to work to a high standard, and may be actively disaffected. The work they do is therefore unlikely to benefit anyone much and raises a number of safety issues: would you drive across a bridge built by workfare labour? Would you trust your aged parent or pre-school child to a workfare carer? Would you trust them with any job that required the handling of money? Given these constraints, it is clear that the government may be unable to find enough worthwhile things for their forced labourers to do.

Workfare provides skills to allow the unemployed to work their way out of poverty  Workfares offer the unemployed opportunities to develop skills to work their way out of poverty. Productive work raises the expectations of those involved by increasing their self-respect and provides them with more confidence in their abilities. It also develops skills associated with work, such as time keeping, taking and giving instructions, working in a team, accepting responsibility and prioritising. Such skills may seem mundane but they are very valuable to employers and their absence among the long-term unemployed is a key reason why they find it so hard to gain jobs. Individuals who are currently working are also more attractive to potential employers than those who are unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed. The evidence suggests Workfare is a success; studies of Workfare in Maryland found that 75 per cent of those who left welfare had earnings within 2.5 years1 .1: Kaus, M. (2000, April 16). Now She's Done It. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from Slate

Workfare schemes are of little use if there are no jobs out there for people to do– something which is an issue of wider economic management. Often the skills which employers are really demanding are literacy, numeracy and familiarity with modern information technology, which menial make-work tasks are unlikely to provide the unemployed with. Far better to invest in proper education and training schemes instead. Even if such skills might be developed through workfare schemes, will forcing people into such work really mean they get the benefits? Most of the long-term unemployed are older, made redundant from declining industries; they do not lack skills but suffer instead from ageist prejudices among employers. Finally, if the ‘workfare’ jobs that unemployed people are being forced into are real jobs that need doing, then they should simply be employed to do them in the normal way (either by the state or by private companies)

Workfare does not break the dependency culture. People do not seek unemployment and dependency on the state. No one voluntarily seeks to live on the very low income provided by state benefits, instead people become unemployed through no fault of their own; workfare stigmatises them as lazy and needing to be forced into work by state coercion. The schemes ignore the talents and ambitions of those involved, typically using them for menial tasks and manual labour that teach them no useful skills

Workfare schemes benefit society  Society also benefits from the work done by those on workfare schemes: These might include environmental improvement in local communities, service to assist the elderly and disabled, and work for charities or local authorities. In many cases the labour they provide would not have been available in any other way, so the addition they make to everyone's quality of life is a welcome bonus to the scheme. Furthermore, a 2011 study in Denmark found a 'strong and significant crime reducing effect of the workfare policy.'1  1: Fallesen, P., Geerdsen, L., Imai, S., &amp; Tranaes, T. (2011, March 1). The Effect of Workfare Policy on Crime. Retrieved July 19, 2011

Workfare breaks the dependency culture  Making the unemployed work for their welfare money positively breaks the dependency culture. Receiving unemployment benefit for doing nothing makes individuals too reliant on the state and encourages apathy and laziness; this is particularly true of the long-term unemployed and of those who have never had a paying job since leaving school. As President Clinton said regarding welfare reform, 'the goal is to break the culture of poverty and dependence'. Tying welfare money to productive work challenges these something-for-nothing assumptions and shows that the state has a right to ask for something in return for the generosity of its taxpayers. In New York, workfare pays slightly less than the minimum wage, preserving the incentive for the unemployed to use workfare as a stepping stone into a better-paid, long-term job1.  1: Kaus, M. (2000, April 16). Now She's Done It. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from Slate

Workfare projects can be designed so as not to displace low-paid jobs: Often workfare schemes are limited to non-profit organisations deliberately in order to avoid a negative impact upon the local job market. In any case, many workers on very low pay only do such work for a relatively short time before finding better jobs elsewhere, so this is not a rigid sector of the labour force, liable to be destroyed by workfare.

Workfare schemes are an investment in people. Spending money on workfare schemes is an investment in people, who gain the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty, and the economy, which benefits from a better supply of labour. Although such schemes might cost more per person than just handing out dole money for doing nothing, their ability to deter fraudulent claimants makes them cheaper overall. Their success in moving the unemployed into real jobs also benefits the government and the wider economy, through taxation and increased consumer spending.

Workfare does not help people get jobs  Workfare schemes are of little use if there are no jobs out there for people to do. The evidence suggests that ‘the vast majority of unemployment – over 9-10ths – has nothing to do with people not wanting work, and everything to do with a lack of demand for labour’1. As such, with few jobs on offer, it is of little use to demand welfare recipients come in for work, rather than search harder and deeper for the few jobs that are available. Regardless, often the skills which employers are really demanding are specialised and at a high level, which menial make-work tasks are unlikely to provide the unemployed with. It would be far better to invest in proper education and training schemes instead. In 2003, 60 per cent of New York’s welfare recipients did not have high school diplomas; if they want this majority to find jobs, they should be paying for them to go back to school, not clean streets2.  1 Dillow , C. (2010, November 8). Small Truths, Big Errors. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from Stumbling and Mumbling  2 New York Times. (2003, April 15). The Mayor's Mistake on Workfare. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The New York Times

Workfare schemes limit the opportunities to look for work  Putting the unemployed into workfare schemes actually limits their opportunities to look for work, by making them show up for make-work schemes when they could be job hunting. Even if the numbers of those claiming unemployment benefit are reduced by the threat of such a scheme, that does not necessarily remove them from welfare rolls – they may, for example, be pushed into claiming other benefits, such as disability allowances. Others may prefer to turn to crime for income rather than be forced into workfare projects that don’t pay enough to be an attractive option. The evidence of the Workfare program in Argentina suggests that the policy has little positive effect on finding jobs for participants; ‘for a large fraction of participants, the program generated dependency and did not increase their human capital’1.  1 Ronconi, L., Sanguinetti, J., Fachelli, S., Casazza, V., &amp; Franceschelli, I. (2006, June).Poverty and Employability Effects of Workfare Programs in Argentina. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from PEP

Workfare will damage the existing labour market  Workfare harms those already in employment but on very low pay, because their menial jobs are the kind of labour that workfare projects will provide. Why should a local authority pay people to pick up litter or lay paving, if workfare teams can be made to do it for much less? If low-paid jobs are displaced, the ultimate result may be higher unemployment. In New York, public employee unions actively opposed Workfare specifically because they feared it would put public employees out of work1. Even if workfare projects are limited to labour for charities and non-profit groups, they discourage active citizenship and volunteerism as the state is assuming responsibility for these initiatives.  1 Kaus, M. (2000, April 16). Now She's Done It. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from Slate

Workfare is more expensive than traditional benefits  Workfare is actually a more expensive option than traditional unemployment benefit. The jobless are ultimately given at least the same amount of taxpayers' money but the state also has to pay the costs of setting up the schemes, paying for materials, the wages of supervisors, transport and childcare costs, etc. In a recession, when the numbers of the unemployed rise substantially, the costs of workfare schemes could be prohibitive and lead to the collapse of the policy. Furthermore, even if the state wanted to, they couldn't enrol everyone– ‘given that most people who lose a job find another within six months, there’s no point dragging people into these schemes who will find work anyway given a little more time’1.  1 Saunders , P. (2011, July 1). Those who can work must not be paid to sit at home.Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The Australian

Workfare allows people to demonstrate both to themselves and others that a day at work will not always result in failure. This greatly benefits the self-esteem of many, who have become trapped in unemployment because their past experiences (perhaps beginning with unsuccessful schooldays) have lead them to believe that they cannot be useful and successful when doing a day at work. Workfare demonstrates that to be false by allowing them to work in a job where they can see the results of their labour, and not lose out (indeed, gain benefits) as a result.

Workfare does help people to get jobs by increasing the perception amongst employers that the unemployed nevertheless have the potential to be productive citizens – they’re willing and able to work, and have gained skills from being in a working environment. This counters one of the key barriers to employment, which is the prioritisation of younger generations who have not been tarred with the brush of having had to claim benefits. Furthermore, many schemes allow welfare recipients to satisfy work requirements by counting class rime, work-study jobs and internships – therefore, if education is what is felt to be missing, Workfare does not discourage participants from going back to school1.  1 New York Times. (2003, April 15). The Mayor's Mistake on Workfare. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The New York Times

The free market doesn’t invest in fundamental research this is research to understand fundamental principles as it does not have a commercial purpose and may never result in a commercial product, ultimately, fundamental research is the key enabler of innovation. Private companies don’t invest in fundamental research, because by its nature it is open ended and very expensive and as a result may never pay back the investment.  One example is the invention of the laser: the foundations were laid by theoretical physicists like Albert Einstein. This theoretical work wasn’t done with the purpose to invent something like a laser, but to probe deeper into the fundamentals of reality. The first actual existing lasers emerged only 40 years later, and only then did corporations begin to be interested. More examples are Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a military research lab, and CERN, the operator of the world’s largest particle accelerator. Between them, they serendipitously invented the key technologies of the internet, something that no one could have foreseen.  Governments have both the resources and the patience to invest in open-ended and long-term projects like this, whereas for corporations, this would have been too risky to be a sensible business decision.

The free market best ensures innovation  Companies in the free market not only compete on price, the also compete on innovation. This is because innovation allows companies to ‘leapfrog the competition’ by either driving their competitors out of the market by suddenly being able to provide a similar good for a fraction of the cost, or by creating a completely new market for a good or service. In the latter case, the company can expect to reap monopoly-profits for a while until the competition catches up. The corollary of this is that this innovation literally destroys older, more inefficient businesses in a process called ‘creative destruction’ (Capitalism, socialism and democracy, 2008).  Currently well-known examples of this are Apples’ iPad, which created a market for tablet computers that didn’t exist before, Microsoft’s capturing of the PC-software market or Google’s search engine, which made the competition irrelevant overnight.  These monopolies are, by their nature, temporary: the benefits of creating a new market are so large, that companies structurally and continuously dedicate resources to ‘out-innovate’ the current monopolies and create a new temporary monopoly for themselves. In this way, innovation becomes the key driver of every business (The Free Market Innovation Machine, 2004).

The procedural justice of free exchange is important, but is presumes that humans are born with equal talents and in equally enabling environments. This is obviously not true: people can be born to parents with high or low socio-economic status and the talents they are born with, like IQ, are normally distributed.  Suppose you’re born with high talents but to parents with a low socio-economic status. That means your parents do not have enough income to spend on your education: their money is all spent on the basic necessities like food and housing. Since you don’t get the education you need to further develop your talents, you will also likely remain stuck in the same socio-economic class, as will your children, and their children. At the same time, the children of rich parents get more opportunities: even when they’re moderately talented, their parents can invest in maximally developing their talents or even give them a large endowment to live from.  An example of this lack of ‘social mobility’ is the United States, where parental income is an important predictor of a child’s future (Upper Bound, 2010). This is not just a gross and unfair inequality: it is also an infringement upon the liberty of the individual, who, in a free market, is effectively and structurally constrained to develop his or her own talents.

The free market is the most efficient way to match supply and demand  In a free market, goods are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. The aggregate ‘market price’ is the result of all individual transactions and contains important information for both buyers and sellers. When there is more demand than supply, prices rise (because buyers have to ‘outbid’ each other), making it attractive for new producers to enter the market and thus adding supply. When there is more supply than demand, prices fall, causing some sellers to leave the market since their production costs are higher than the price at which they can sell. Thus, in the long run, markets settle on an ‘equilibrium price’ where demand and supply are exactly equal.  Examples of the free market actually working are all around us: take the supply of the pen and paper used to take notes on. If the price is too high at one store, anyone would move to another store where it’s cheaper. Therefore, sellers have an incentive to provide the best quality at the lowest price. [1]  Central planning can never be as efficient as myriads of individually planning buyers and sellers in reaching this equilibrium. For example, a central planner who sets a price floor will likely create excess supply in that specific market. This has happened in the European Union, where the EU set a price floor on dairy products. The result were the well-known ‘butter mountains’ and ‘milk lakes’.  [1] It is of course slightly more complicated as there are multiple layers of supply and demand. There is a free market in the sale of pen and paper from stores to consumers. The stores themselves are also in a free market when it comes to sourcing the pen and paper from wholesellers or the producers. The producers are then also in a free market to source the materials to make the pens. The price at the retailer therefore has a floor below which someone will make a loss due to the cost of the production.

It might be that under theoretical conditions, free markets match up supply and demand in the long run, but as the famous economist John Maynard Keynes said: “in the long run we are all dead”. Even if a stable equilibrium is theoretically possible, in practice, it almost never happens, with high fluctuations in price, shortages and excesses as a consequence (A Tract on Monetary Reform, 2000).  An example of a market never reaching equilibrium is the so-called, empirically observed, ‘Pork Cycle’. When prices for pork meat are high, producers flock to the market. Since it takes a while, anywhere from months to over a year, to raise pigs before slaughter, prices will continue to rise and producers continue to join – until suddenly, the new supply reaches maturity and there is a sudden excess of pork meat on the market. This excess will then last for a longer period, since many producers are ‘locked in’, waiting for their pigs to mature. The same dynamics operate in the market for skilled labour, since getting the required vocational training also takes time.  Even if equilibrium is reached, the outcome isn’t necessarily fair. An example is the Irish Great Famine: due to circumstance and bad policy, potato supply in Ireland dropped dramatically. This caused prices to rise beyond the budget of the average Irish citizen, but England could still pay the higher price. The perverse result was that even during the Great Famine, Ireland was actually still a net exporter of food (The Great Irish Famine, 1996).

The free market is morally superior because it operates on liberty  Liberty is one of the highest values human beings strive for. Liberty means that individuals ‘own’ themselves: individuals only decide for themselves what to do with their minds and bodies during their lifetime. Private property is an extension of this, because private property comes about by undertaking an activity with one’s own body or mind: when I pluck apples from a wild apple tree, they become my property through me using my own body to do the plucking. Similarly, free exchange is an extension of this, because it only comes about if both parties perceive the exchange to be beneficial to them: I will only sell the apples I plucked if I get more value in exchange than the value that continued possession of the apples gives me.  Free markets are the only system of allocating goods and wealth in society that relies on these basic notions of liberty to operate. If someone becomes rich in a free market, then that came about through free exchange: this person has provided so many goods and services of value to other people, that they gave him or her great wealth in return.  Compare this to the government redistributing wealth: that would require the government appropriating part of someone’s income via taxes. That income is private property. Appropriating private property, not voluntary exchange, amounts to theft, which means that taxes are a form of theft and therefore a significant harm to individual liberty. Free markets don’t harm liberty like this, which is why they are morally superior.

The notion that labour alienates might have looked true in Marx’s days, but nowadays, employers have learnt that if they want to get the most from their workforce, they need to make their jobs meaningful. Employers can do this by offering work that fits an employee’s ‘intrinsic motivation’ (Intrinsic motivation at work, 2009), and by designing the work process in such a way that it facilitates ‘flow’ (Beyond boredom and anxiety, 2000). Interestingly, these days, companies actually compete for labour by making their work environment more meaningful, as for example Google’s ‘Life at Google’-page shows (Life at Google).  As to the idea of allowing a market in organs: if people willingly and knowingly choose to sell their organs, what is wrong with it?  Also, consider the status quo: demand is still there, but the prohibition effectively lowers supply, leading to a significant number of deaths every year for lack of donor organs. Why is that morally more justifiable?

It’s not true that all markets naturally lead to a concentration of power. Whenever concentration of market power, even leading up to a monopoly, does happen, this is caused by the underlying cost structure of the industry, whereby a company experiences increasing returns to scale and relatively high fixed costs. This means it is most efficient for the first entrant in a market to become as big as possible, as fast as possible. An example of such a natural monopoly used to be the markets for utilities: when the distributing networks for water or energy weren’t built yet, the first company to expand would gain a natural monopoly.  Given that a natural monopoly is a consequence of the underlying cost structure of the industry, there is not much one can do to change it. Basically, one can choose between a private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, and government monopoly (Capitalism and Freedom, 2002). Of these, the private monopoly is best. A government monopoly would not just be a monopoly, but would also have the force of law to back it – the result would be the most direct form of regulatory capture, where the business interest takes over the public interest of the government agency.

The free market fails in providing public and common goods  A ‘common good’ is a resource which has finite but replenishable supply but which is by its nature ‘non-excludable’ (meaning it’s hard to exclude individuals from using the resource). One example is the stock of fish in the sea. If all fishermen would refrain from overfishing, the fish population would have time to restore itself. But each individual fisherman has an incentive to capture and sell as much as possible. Since in a free market, there is no government coordinating supply and demand, each fisherman acts on their individual incentives. The result is rapid, irreversible depletion of the common good (Tragedy of the commons, 1968).  A ‘public good’ is a resource which is also ‘non-excludable’ but is also ‘non-rivalrous’, that is a good whose consumption by one consumer still allows simultaneous consumption by other consumers. One example of this is the air we breathe: every breath I take does not prevent you from taking a breath, nor can I feasibly exclude you from breathing. Other examples of public goods are schools, roads and national defense. Public goods suffer from the ‘free rider’ problem: once the good is produced, no one has an incentive to pay for the good. Since the good is non-excludable, no one can prevent someone from using it. This also leads to what economists call ‘negative externalities’: industries can freely pollute the air we breathe and not bear the costs for it. The issues of climate change are a direct example of this: corporations aren’t forced to pay for the negative externality of emitting greenhouse gases, and so continue doing it.

The free market degrades human dignity  The free market views the human body and the human mind as a mere instrument: the only value an individual being has is the value it can sell its labour (whether it be manual or mental work) for on the market. Workers don’t work because they want to produce something they themselves find inherently valuable; they work to earn a living. And given that most people are not entrepreneurs or business owners, this means that most people will spend the most of their waking day labouring for goals set to them by others, in partial processes subdivided and defined for them by others, all to create products and services which are only valuable to others, not to themselves (Alienation, 1977).  This commodification of the human body and mind can go so far that humans actually start selling themselves: free market proponents propose to legalize the selling of one’s own organs. When humans start selling themselves, they perceive no value in themselves anymore – all they see in themselves is an instrument to satisfy other people’s desires, a product to be packaged and sold.  This becomes even more pronounced when we take into account that the free market exacerbates inequality: if someone is born into a poor family and can’t get out of it, it might seem the only way to get out of it, is to sell oneself. Thus, the proposal to legalize the selling of one’s own organs amounts to an ‘unconscionable choice’: a choice which is, given the circumstances, unreasonable to ask of someone.

The free market naturally leads to concentration of power in the hands of corporations  Many global markets are dominated by a few big firms: look, for example, to the markets in fast food, dominated by McDonald’s, or the market for drilling and selling oil, dominated by Exxon, Shell and BP. This concentration of market power is natural outcome of free markets, this is because of economies of scale – a production line can produce each individual unit faster and more cheaply than if products were made individually. Also partly because the transaction costs of markets are too high (i.e. the costs of negotiating, monitoring and managing all the exchange relations necessary for production and distribution of the good or service involved), corporations have an incentive to structurally organize themselves into large firms (The Nature of the Firm, 1937). This also creates barriers to entry; while an individual may be able to manufacture an individual unit it is much more difficult to set up a whole factory from scratch in order to compete, there is then little possibility of competitors entering the market as a result of price rises.  Being so large gives them an unfair advantage towards both their suppliers and their consumers. Large firms can collude to form oligopolies. This generates more profit for the firms involved, but raises prices above the market clearing price for consumers as the firms agree not to undercut each other, this may also be informal simply raising prices by reducing the amount of choice or supply.  Vis-à-vis their suppliers, these firms gain an equally unfair bargaining advantage. A prime example is the market for (low skilled) labour: with a surplus of (low skilled) labour, each individual worker either has to accept a very low wage or be replaced by someone who does want to work for that low wage. This unequal bargaining power keeps the price for labour very low, so low that workers have no surplus budget to invest in themselves to be able gain skills, negotiate better jobs and thereby lift themselves out of poverty.

A free market can only operate when some basic conditions have been met. One of these is the condition that exchange of private property is possible. It’s important to realize that private property is both a normative concept but also a legal reality: in everyday life, private property exists because there are contracts and title deeds that prove that something is my private property.  This legal dimension of private property is key to realizing how the government can make free markets work even for common and public goods. The key is to create private property rights that are rivalrous and excludable, and enforce them accordingly. It is these private property rights that are traded, not necessarily the good itself (The Private Production of Public Goods, 1970).  For the public good of roads, the private property right the government can create is the right to operate a toll booth on that road. For the common good of fisheries, the government can create conditional exploitation rights to private actors, and for carbon dioxide emitting industries, the government can create limited, tradable emissions rights. The most well-known example of government created private property rights is intellectual property: even though listening to music is non-rivalrous and with the internet, relatively non-excludable, the government’s enforcement of intellectual property allows a business like iTunes to survive and thrive.

Fears about national security are greatly overblown, and are often simply an attempt to justify protectionist measures. Very few companies pose a national security risk, and those that do are covered by existing regulations – so that, for example, the USA could veto Dubai Port World’s bid to take over American ports. Most SWFs do not seek full control of companies they invest in, so they are not in a position to manipulate their assets for political gain, even if they wished to. [1] In reality, countries set up SWFs for economic reasons and they represent a major national investment, the value of which would be expensively destroyed if they once tried to abuse their position. Nor are there any actual examples of a country trying to exert political influence through its sovereign wealth fund. Overall, tying a wide variety of states into the international economic and financial system is beneficial, as it gives them a stake in the peace which the global economy needs for prosperity and so makes them less likely to pursue aggressive foreign policies. Conversely, alienating the governments of other states by designating them as dangerous predators who cannot be allowed to invest in our companies is a sure way to create enemies.  [1] Rose, Paul, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Active or Passive Investors?’, 2008.

SWFs can harm national security  Sovereign wealth funds raise worrying issues about national security. Unlike mutual funds or private equity groups, which seek only to maximise their investors’ returns, SWFs must be regarded as political entities. Rather than passively holding their assets, they may seek to use their purchases to gain access to natural resources, advanced technologies, including those crucial to our defence, or other strategic sectors. [1] For example Gulf states are using their SWFs to invest in food and natural resources from Latin America. [2] They may engage in economic nationalism, shutting factories in western countries to give an unfair advantage to their own industries [3] . While it has not yet happened they may even attempt economic blackmail, threatening to turn off the lights through their control of energy companies and utilities if governments do not fall in with their foreign policy aims. Allowing countries such as China, Russia and various Gulf states to buy up western companies at will is potentially very dangerous. Even if we regard these states as friendly at the moment, there is no guarantee that they will stay that way, especially as none of them share our political values.  [1] Lyons, Gerard, ‘State Capitalism: The rise of sovereign wealth funds’, 2007, p.14   [2] Pearson, Samantha, ‘Sovereign wealth funds: Foreign cash has its drawbacks’, 2011,   [3] Balin, Bryan J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: A Critical Analysis’, 2008, p.4,

Transparency is a good thing, but it would be unfair to single out sovereign wealth funds for special punishment over this issue. Hedge funds and private equity groups are even less transparent than SWFs, and their influence in the global economy is much greater. [1] Some countries (e.g. Norway) already operate very transparent investment strategies. Many have agreed to the Santiago Principles which encourage transparency and disclosure of financial information. [2] It is likely that other countries will come over time to follow their lead voluntarily, as it is in the interest of their own citizens to see that the state is managing their money in an efficiently and honestly.  [1] Avendaño, Rolando, and Santiso, Javier, ‘Are Sovereign Wealth Funds’ Investments Politically Biased? A Comparison with Mutual Funds’, 2009, p.9.   [2] Ibid

Sovereign wealth funds must be regulated  A number of possible models of regulation have been suggested for sovereign wealth funds. Some, such as Gilson and Milhaupt, have argued that state-owned investment vehicles that buy shares abroad should not be allowed voting rights in that stock. [1] Others would put a cap on SWF investments, so that they cannot take a stake of more than, say 20% in any business without government approval within the country the SWF is investing in [2] – meaning that they can only be passive investors. Both these proposals would ensure that they are unable to abuse a dominant position while still allowing countries to benefit from cross-border investment in a globalised economy. At the same time such rules would prevent any broader protectionist backlash so the Sovereign Wealth Funds themselves could welcome the regulation.  [1] Gibson, Ronald J., and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism’, 2009.   [2] Garten, Jeffrey, ‘We need rules for sovereign funds, 2007,

Sovereign wealth funds can undermine economic independence  Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have become very important players in the global economy. The already exceed the assets controlled by hedge funds and will surpass the stock of global foreign exchange reserves. [1] They are now so big that their activities can shift markets, such as Norway’s Government Pension Fund did when short selling Iceland’s banks, leading to panic and instability when they sell assets suddenly. [2] Their purchases can mean that companies owned by other states can end up dominating the economies of smaller countries, undermining their own sovereignty and economic independence. It is also worrying that many SWFs are controlled by undemocratic states which have a questionable commitment to capitalism; should we allow such states to exercise so much power over our economies?  [1] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008,   [2] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008,

Sovereign wealth funds are not new and they are still only a tiny part of the global financial system. They represent only about 2% of global traded securities, and are dwarfed by other financial actors such as mutual funds, or private equity groups and hedge funds. [1] What is more, in comparison with these other players in the global financial system, SWFs are long-term investors looking many years, even decades into the future. This means that they are likely to bring calm, rather than irrational volatility to markets, as they will not be rushed into dumping assets based on a few months of bad data.  [1] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008,

Regulations already exist to prevent foreign investments that might compromise national security. [1] Other than this it would be unfair to discriminate against certain classes of investors. Wealth-creating capitalism relies upon investors seeking to maximise the value of their investments. Without voting rights or the possibility of exercising majority control of a company, SWFs would be unable to ensure that managers were working hard on their behalf, allocating resources efficiently and being held accountable for their decisions.  [1] Gibson, Ronald J., and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism’, 2009.

While it may be true that the state is often a bad manager of assets and businesses in this case the state is not usually involved in the management of the assets. This is being done through the wealth fund which is often in large part run by people whose background is in finance rather than in government. This use of external independent asset managers in itself should be enough to ease worries over state control. [1] Because SWFs don’t seek to have control over the majority of the businesses they invest in discredited government economic planning is not an issue. [2] Indeed SWFs are operating much more like private companies than state owned enterprises.  [1] Mezzacapo, Simone, ‘The so-called “Sovereign Wealth Funds”: regulatory issues, financial stability and prudential supervision’, 2009, p.46.   [2] Rose, Paul, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Active or Passive Investors?’, 2008.

Sovereign Wealth funds are not transparent  Sovereign wealth funds suffer from an almost total lack of transparency. Most countries maintain secrecy about the size of their funds and the extent of their holdings, their accountability to government, their investment strategies and their approach to risk management. Without knowing these things, it is impossible to gauge whether political or economic objectives will dominate the SWFs’ behaviour, or indeed whether they will make safe and responsible shareholders in any business – secrecy breeds corruption. For these reasons, Jeffrey Garten of Yale has argued that SWFs should be obliged to publish independently audited accounts twice a year. He has also pointed out that many countries operating SWFs protect their domestic economy from foreign competition and investment. We should demand reciprocity, so that countries seeking investments abroad must open up their own economies fully before they are allowed to hold significant assets elsewhere. [1]  [1] Garten, Jeffrey, ‘We need rules for sovereign funds, 2007.

State ownership is not a good way of controlling funds  The ownership of important businesses by sovereign wealth funds runs counter to the economic policy pursued by almost every government over the past 25 years. In the 1970s many states owned nationalised industries as part of an attempt at socialist economic planning that has now been discredited. State ownership distorted incentives, interfered with management and produced decades of underinvestment, poor service to consumers, and national economic failure with the most extreme example being the Soviet Union itself. Since the 1980s countries everywhere have followed the example of Thatcher’s Britain and privatised their industries, freeing them to compete efficiently and to generate more wealth and jobs than they had ever done in state hands. Going back to state ownership of business is a dangerous backward step, especially as it is now foreign governments that are doing the nationalising.

Fears about the unrestrained influence of sovereign wealth funds will likely stimulate wider protectionism anyway if effective regulation is not introduced. Protectionist politicians may exploit fears of foreigners to restrict any kind of foreign investment, and seek to build up national champions as a defensive measure. This risks losing all the economic benefits of globalisation, such as opportunities to unwind financial imbalances and to spread expertise, while directing capital to areas where it can have the greatest impact. Better to regulate SWFs now for fear of a greater backlash later.

In many cases sovereign wealth funds are not even good for the states that own them. Almost all are emerging economies with limited financial expertise available to them, and they are not equipped to invest the money wisely. This has led to SWFs paying inflated prices for dodgy western companies, whose share price has subsequently collapsed, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars of national wealth for example China Investment Corporation lost $500million on Blackstone, Qatar Investment Authority may have lost as much as $2billion in its attempt to buy Sainsburys. [1] Surely it would be better to invest the money at home, or even return it to their people in the form of lower taxes.  [1] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008.

SWFs can help the financial system in times of trouble  Sovereign wealth funds should be credited with coming to the rescue of the global financial system during the turmoil of 2008. With their long-term horizons for a return on their investments they have been willing to provide billions of dollars in new capital to distressed companies, at a time when other sources of funding have headed for the door. [1] Their money has allowed firms to continue trading and so safeguarded jobs at a time of great uncertainty. It has also helped prevent complete collapse of global equities prices, on which many people, through their pension funds, depend for a secure future. Moreover unlike some other types of funds such as hedge funds SWFs have an interest in keeping the global economy stable and reducing the impact of any downturns as their own country is bound to be affected by global economic conditions so responsible investment practices are encouraged. SWFs therefore “can play a shock-absorbing role in global financial markets”. [2]  [1] Beck, Roland, and Fidora, Michael, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds – Before and Since the Crisis’, 2009, p.363.   [2] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008.

SWFs should be welcomed for the benefits they bring rather than ostracized for doing what others do.  Developed countries are guilty of a great deal of hypocrisy in their attitude to the sovereign wealth funds of emerging economies. In the past their own companies were used as instruments of state power, for example BP’s origins lie in Britain’s attempt to dominate Iran’s (at the time known as Persia) oil wealth. [1] The developed world is always willing to buy assets on the cheap, as shown by American banks buying up Asian banks during the Asian Financial crisis at the end of the 1990s. [2] Recently SWFs have proved willing to channel a great deal of investment into poorer states, particularly in Africa, their investments have already surpassed the IMF and World bank’s, [3] boosting their economies and assisting their long-term development through the provision of infrastructure such as roads and ports. This is a much more equal relationship than that promoted by the west, with its manipulation of aid and loans to maintain political influence in former colonies.  [1] BP, ‘Our history’.   [2] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008.   [3] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘Africa and the future’.

Restricting SWFs is protectionism  Restricting the activities of sovereign wealth funds is a form of protectionism, which is itself likely to stimulate further demands for barriers against globalisation. Western countries oppose protectionism when it is from other countries preventing western companies investing so it would be hypocritical to want protectionism against those same countries buying the firms that want so much to invest in emerging markets. [1] It should be remembered that almost 40% of SWF assets are controlled by SWFs from advanced industrialised states. [2] As a result SWF investments abroad contribute to greater economic openness around the world. By exposing emerging economies and authoritarian states to developed world standards of transparency, meritocracy and corporate social responsibility, they will help to spread liberal values and raise standards. They will also give many more nations a stake in international prosperity through trade, encouraging cooperation rather than confrontation in foreign policy, and giving a boost to liberalising trade deals at the WTO. Finally as with all protectionism there is the risk that the SWFs will pull out their wealth and not invest as a result of protectionism resulting in lost jobs or jobs that would otherwise be created going somewhere more hospitable to SWFs. [3]  [1] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008.   [2] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘BRIC by BRIC: The emergent regime for sovereign wealth funds’, 2008, p.5.   [3] Ibid, p10

SWFs represent good economic management by countries with surpluses  Sovereign wealth funds are highly beneficial for states with large financial surpluses. Traditionally they have been run by resource-rich countries which wish to diversify their assets to smooth out the impact of fluctuations in commodity prices on their economies and revenues. The fund can then be drawn down then prices are low. [1] Indeed 30 of 38 SWFs in 2008 were established for such a stabilization role. [2] By holding investments abroad, oil-rich countries such as Qatar and Norway have also built up valuable national reserves against the day when their fossil fuels eventually run out. Kiribati, a pacific island country, put aside wealth from mining guano from fertilizer. Now the guano is all mined but the $400million fund boosts the island’s GDP by a sixth. [3] In any case, allowing all the income from natural resources into your domestic economy is well known to lead to wasteful investments and higher inflation – better to manage the revenues responsibly by using them to create wealth for the future. More recently many Asian countries with big current account surpluses and massive government reserves have sought higher returns than they could get through more traditional investment in US Treasury bonds. Again, this is a responsible strategy pursued by states seeking to do their best for their citizens.  [1] Ziemba, Rachel, ‘Where are the sovereign wealth funds?’, 2008,   [2] Lipsky, John, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Their Role and Significance’, 2008.   [3] The Economist, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Asset-backed insecurity’, 2008.

The amounts sovereign wealth funds invest in the poorest countries is tiny compared to their overall portfolio. In 2008 the head of the World Bank Robert Zollick was attempting to persuade sovereign wealth funds to invest just 1% of their assets in Africa. [1] Investment by SWFs in Africa is not all good. Sovereign wealth funds are guilty of bad behaviour in the developing world. Some government-backed firms from China and the Arab world (not all of the SWFs) have provided capital to maintain some of Africa’s worst rulers in power, in exchange for the opportunity to gain access to the natural resources of their misruled states. Sudan for example has sold 400,000 hectares to the United Arab Emirates. [2] This has allowed dictators to ignore the conditions (e.g. for political freedoms and economic reforms) attached to funding offered by western aid donors and international institutions such as the World Bank. It also contrasts sharply with the behaviour of western companies, who are led to act more responsibly by pressures from their own governments, investors and media.  [1] Stilwell Amy, and Chopra, Geetanjali S., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Should Invest in Africa, Zoellick Says’, 2008.   [2] The Economist, ‘Buying farmland abroad, Outsourcing’s third wave’, 2009.

Sovereign Wealth Funds could potentially help the financial system but they will only do so if it is in the national interest of their country to do so. It is this political dimension that is the reason for more regulation. Moreover regulation of SWFs will not prevent these funds from helping the global financial system. They will still be free to invest. Moreover it does not reduce the incentives for them to do so either, regulation will make no difference to a state’s motivations in a time of crisis – the national interest will remain key.

This price-lowering effect is most likely to be felt in those industries where the majority of the costs are in wages; these industries are likely to be service based industries. Individuals, especially poorer individuals, rarely buy services, so the effect on the poorest is likely to be limited.

This will distribute wealth more evenly  As a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1  1 Michael J. Haupert, "The Economic History of Major League Baseball", EH.net Encyclopedia, December 3rd 2007

It is equally likely that money is a significant motivator in productivity, and that limiting wages will therefore harm productivity.

Equality is in and of itself a good thing  Firstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3.  1 BBC News Website, 25th March 2009 2 CIA World Factbook, 20th July 2011 3 Forbes , "The World's Happiest Countries", July 14th 2010

Systems for implementation  This system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people.

Some evasion of this is inevitable; figures show $2 trillion of unreported income in the US in 20081. Furthermore, international cooperation is unlikely, as each country has a strong incentive to renege on agreements to attract more talented people to their country.  1 E . Feige, "America's Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S", January 2011

Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries.

It is likely that foreign demand will displace national demand for properties, especially in key city areas (such as New York or London). Furthermore, having a nice house is one of the strongest incentives to have a job and be a productive tax-paying member of society; loss of this incentive may decrease a society's output level and tax revenue.

This will enable people to better choose their jobs  When wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees.

This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources  Some resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society.  1 E . Belsky, “Multiple-Home Ownership and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand”, October 2006

There is still significant social prestige to being a doctor that will motivate people to take up the role; the same will be true for other high-paid jobs where there is a lot of training, such as lawyers. This prestige is often a key part of the reason people do the job in the first place; many doctors are paid far less than people working in business or financial services at similar levels of seniority. Finally, the unpleasant jobs mentioned typically are done for a salary well below the cap proposed, and they still have adequate people.

The effect of high salaries on levels of labor supply is likely to be marginal. People work in part due to the significant social pressure of having a job and advancing themselves comparatively against others. This motivation will still exist, as there will still be rewards to advancing your career; a salary closer to the salary cap, and the added responsibility and social (or business) standing such advancement provides. While there may be fewer people willing to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week, this work is being done because it is valuable – so the firm will need to employ more people to do it, and the work is spread over a larger number of people, possibly even increasing employment

This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers  Many industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income.  1 John Salt and Jane Millar, Office of National Statistics “Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends”, October 2006

High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research  Many entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society.  1 FierceBiotech , "GlaxoSmithKline: The World's Biggest R+D Spenders", March 2011

High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs  Some jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done.  1 Payscale , “Salary for People with Jobs as Physicians/Doctors”, July 2011

High salaries incentivize people to work hard  People respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation.  1 PWC , "The Total Tax Contribution of UK Financial Services", December 2010

Under this policy, companies will not be able to spend their profits on inflating their salaries, and so are more likely to have a long-term outlook to the company. The best way to advance long-term interests is through research; it is possible that all their excess profit will be spent on this. While entrepreneurs may be driven by profit, the salary proposed is sufficiently high that it can be aspired to; most entrepreneurs will still be motivated by it, as they seldom already have a job that already pays so much.

The significant difficulty of moving country, such as leaving behind friends and family, and leaving behind an area (or even language) you know well, are likely to limit emigration. As for immigration, the skill set is typically already within the country; if not, this policy may encourage a focus on an educational system to ensure it is. Finally, if the argumentation about equality leading to a better and happier society is correct, this in itself will attract immigrants to high-paying jobs.

The single biggest impact the US government, or any government, can have on the economy is what it does with its own money. By creating jobs through public expenditure it stimulates local economies and creates growth.  Proponents of the baby boomer crisis theory also ignore one very significant fact – these people did not cause a financial crisis before they started working in the late sixties. It also seems unlikely that all of them will stop work as life expectancies are now much longer than in the middle of the last century and a majority can be expected to remain economically active.

Paying off national debt via austerity measures would free-up money used for interest payments  The first of the baby boomers start retiring in 2011 and, as a result, qualify for Medicare. There are 78 million people in this generation and all of the statistics suggest that they are likely to live significantly longer than previous retiring generations [i] . As a result the US has some very big bills coming in the next few years and a decreasing base of those working and paying tax revenue to pay them.  This is really not the time to be wasting money on interest for deficits built up to support programmes that are unnecessary. Paying down the debt frees up tax revenue for much needed support, both financial and medical, for seniors as they retire.  [i] Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns. “The Coming Generational Storm.” MIT Press 2004.

The only ways to control the deficit, other than stimulating growth and the tax revenues it produces, would be either to cut services or to increase taxes. Both actions would harm the longer term objective of stimulating growth as they both take cash out of the real economy.  By contrast, focusing on domestic spending to restart the economy will produce long term stability; whether through stimulus packages or other methods.  The idea that there is no need to run at a deficit during a time of recession is absurd. In the light of the financial challenges currently faced by the US, but also in the longer term, it is vital that the government has the ability to run its expenses at a deficit to act as a stimulus.  The reality is that it is in the interests of everyone, not just Americans, for the US government to be able to spend relatively freely. Surpluses are nice but they are a luxury the world’s financial engine can rarely afford.

Governments need to live within their means  Ultimately the US Government has to pay its bill just like everyone else. Ultimately maintaining a permanent deficit harms the economy creating both inflationary pressures and effecting interest rates.  However, these pressures are not the main source of concern. Although deficits in times of plenty are a grave concern, during a recession most economist agree that deficits may be necessary. However, the US is no longer ‘mostly in debt to itself’ as has been the case in the past. [i]  Increasingly, its debt is owned by the major Asian economies; especially China. The implications should conflict arise between the two are severe as China, effectively has the capacity to bankrupt the US and the dollar at a time of its own choosing.  [i] John W. Schoen. “Just who Owns the US National Debt?” MSNBC 3 April 2007

It is incredibly unlikely that China would ever call in its debts as any damage done to the dollar would be fairly insignificant compared to the impact on China’s own economy and currency.  America can afford to service its debts and doing so is a major stimulus to the global economy. Nobody has an interest in breaking the dollar, as doing so would cause a run on every bank in the world – including the Bank of China. China holds reserves roughly equivalent to M1 – cash in circulation in the US (although it’s worth nothing this represents about four percent of the actual dollars in the world) and so a massive release of dollar-denominated assets would hurt the dollar greatly. The results would see the price of oil, and most other commodities, skyrocket as they are priced in dollars and would bring the entire global financial system to a halt. China has no interest in either of these things happening.

Many of the reasons for operating a debt have now been eliminated  At the end of the Clinton presidency the government was running at a healthy surplus following the longest sustained period of growth in US history. Bush Chose to spend that on tax cuts and two extremely expensive wars (the War in Iraq was the mostly costly war, in relative terms, in US history except for WWII). Obama was landed with the problems that Bush created, but has chosen to extend spending rather than control the deficit.As The country is no longer at war, there is no real reason to be running at a deficit.  Alan Greenspan, and many others, have pointed out that the impact of continued deficits is likely to be higher interest rates – at a time when the country can ill afford them – which will hurt the economy. [i]  [i] Mark Gongloff. “Greenspan Warns Against Deficits”. CNN. 26 February 2004.

If China moves to recall the trillion dollars or so that they are owed because they no longer trust US debt, or even just to offload it, the effect on the average American would be devastating. The benefits in increased exports would be more than compromised by increased costs for basic goods and services. Inflationary pressures would become severe and interest rates – one of the Fed’s primary tools in fighting the recession – would be forced to rise to combat it.  It simply makes no sense to run the risk of the sort of collapse that would ensue if the government loses the ability to borrow because of a lack of confidence.

This may well have been the case when a AAA credit rating could simply be taken for granted but it is no longer the case. Standard and Poor has down-graded America’s credit rating [i] and China looks set to follow suit [ii] .  A lower rating means paying higher interest on government borrowing. This is new territory for the US; an economy that has no experience of anything other than top ratings. Suddenly all that money from China doesn’t look so cheap and the engine of the world economy is running in to trouble. It’s time to stop being reliant on other people’s money.  [i] Robert Peston. “US Loses AAA Credit Rating After S&amp;P Downgrade”. BBC. 6 August 2011.  [ii] Peter Beaumont. “Chinese Ratings Agency Threatens US With New Debt Downgrade.” The Guardian. 12 November 2011.

A recession is not the point at whcih debts should be paid back. The state should focus on job creation strategies  It would be the height of irresponsibility for the US government to even think about giving anything a higher economic priority than the creation of jobs at a time when unemployment is running at 9.1%.  It is essential that the federal government uses its economic muscle to get Americans working again rather than settling fairly obscure points of economic theory.  Taking money out of the system will cost jobs and hurt business, it will also lead to redundancies in the public sector. Ultimately it would be self-defeating. Admittedly, the Bush regime should have been running the economy at a surplus but it didn’t and that is the reality that the current government needs to deal with.

The US should focus on divising ways in which to pay the medicare and medicaid bills faced by its population  The realities facing the US government are that it has two separate sets of bills to pay. On one hand there are those to central banks and overseas investors. The others are to its own citizens who have been giving the government their tax dollars over the course of a working lifetime on the understanding that they would recoup that money in healthcare and other benefits at a later stage.  The priority has to be domestic expenditure.

Nobody is going to risk financial instability in the US by calling in the principle sum on the loans that it has taken out  There really is no problem with the Federal Government running at a deficit virtually permanently – as it has for most of its history. There is no threat of a default as this would require any lender to commit financial suicide as a result.  The deficit allows the most powerful economic actor on earth to act as a stimulus to those in smaller roles. Paying down the debt reduces money supply and, ultimately, contracts the economy. By relying on the savings of nations like China, through bonds and other instruments, the US is furthering its traditional role of being the primary engine of global economic growth. [i]  [i] Rich Millar. “Democrats Rubin, Schwarz Clash on Spending Versus Deficit Cuts”. Bloomberg. 11 June 2007.

At some point the US needs to come to terms with its debts and a gradual collapse of confidence in the US’s ability to pay its debts will not help the American economy or anyone else’s. With a declining tax base – both as a result of unemployment and an increasing burden of economic inactivity through retirement, the government will increasingly have to demonstrate that it is ‘good for the money’ rather than just assuming that something will turn up.  Despite hundreds of billions poured into the economy since the start of Obama’s time in office, the economy remains stagnant. As a result it’s time for the government to demonstrate that it can use austerity as well as largesse to solve the problem.

The social problems that have taken root in America result from a number of converging causes. While many individuals may desperately want to contribute to the debate surrounding these problems, attributing the declining performance of the American economy highly visible social divisions is misleading and unproductive.  The division between rich and poor as well as the low taxes on the rich exist because a lower tax burden on the rich promotes innovation within economies. Specifically, it is often the rich that engage in enterprise, be it through their own businesses or as part of large corporations. The lower tax burden on the rich makes taking risks in order to develop new technology more profitable for the people making those risks.  Promotion of enterprise and risk during recessions should be a priority for American policy makers, because it is often new products that drive economic growth by creating new markets which drive demand and also by increasing productivity. As such, an increase on the tax burden for the rich in the American economy is problematic because it hurts this method of recovery. It should also be mentioned that simply lowering the tax burden on the poor is likely to be impossible at this time without significantly increasing a U.S. deficit that has already been downgraded by credit rating agencies. In allowing the deficit to increase further the U.S. would have to pay back significantly more in the future owing to higher interest. This approach to fiscal policy has been heavily criticised by the chairman of Forbes Inc. Steve Forbes.4  As such, it is opposition’s opinion that whilst such a change might address issues of social cohesion in the U.S, the cost to the economy from doing so is too great. Further, social cohesion could easily be encouraged through other, less economically harmful measures such as tightening up regulation on banking. Doing so helps the economy and plays against the “Greedy bankers” rhetoric that proposition mentions.

The Jobs Act Redresses the Balance Between the Wealthy and the Middle Class  One of the more divisive problems in America is the increasing inequality between the wealthy and members of other classes. The harms that could, and have resulted from this extend to the Occupy Protests in the tail end of 2011, as well as riots With the rich consistently seeming to get richer despite the poor economic climate, many of the less rich within the American economy feel that the state is playing against them, conferring advantages on those best able to lobby politicians and make large election campaign donations. This is problematic when it is state mechanisms that will enable American’s who lack access to costly universities to better educate and train themselves, thus making them more employable thus allowing them to help push the American economy out of recession.  A popular consensus has emerged amongst America’s middle class, which portrays the recession as an event triggered by the rich, with rhetoric regarding “Greedy Bankers” playing into the public discourse on the ineffectiveness of state regulation of large financial institutions.  The American Jobs Act redresses the balance between the wealthy top tier of American society and its middle and working classes. In doing so, it helps to alter the perception of the rich and their contributions to society.  The burdens currently confronted by America’s middle class are addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, payroll tax, a pay-as-you-earn tax that is withheld from employee’s wages, will be significantly reduced. As such, any families with a large number of working members will be subjected to a much lower tax burden. This would provide a tax cut of around $1,500 to a typical American family.2  Given also the higher tax burden placed on the rich with this tax, and the system that results is likely to be skewed more strongly in favour of working Americans. Further, changes in the taxation system will also be able to sure up any loopholes that have been exploited by the rich to avoid taxes.  Finally, the jobs act redresses problems where the largest subsidies go to things such as charitable giving and mortgage interest – presumably things which are paid by people who need subsidies the least. Caps will be placed on such tax breaks under the act and as such, money will be more likely to go to people who need it more – the poor or unemployed.  In bringing about these changes, better economic circumstances are created for the poor and the balance between rich and poor is likely to become smaller.3

The American Jobs Act may be projected to create a lot of jobs. However, this comes following tax cuts and a fiscal stimulus package in 2009. In the past these measures to help the economy failed, with unemployment remaining stagnant at around 25 million despite the efforts by the government in 2009.  The reason this occurred in 2009 is that despite the stimulus package there was a strong degree of uncertainty within the economy. As such, even though consumers and producers were facing a lower tax burden it became apparent that neither group was willing to take big risks in a highly uncertain economic environment. The possibility of recession was all too apparent, and this affected both business and consumer confidence.  Given the Eurozone crisis at the moment, the situation in 2011 is very similar, with much of the world economy waiting on the outcome in Europe to see whether recession or recovery awaits. Such a climate is not conducive to risk taking on the part of firms. Hiring extra workers, for example, might be a profitable activity, however, it also entails significant risk as the firm has to be able to guarantee that it will get more out of the worker than it ends up paying.  The current state of world markets is not conducive to a stimulus package and it would simply be better to wait out the Eurozone crisis and then deal with the coming problems in an environment that is more confident and that is populated by actors equipped with greater understanding of the direction of the world and American economies.6

The American Jobs Act Will Help the Long Term Unemployed  The long term unemployed in America are important to the economic recovery. Whilst those who are temporarily unemployed will eventually come back into employment and start contributing to the economy, they will often be offset by those losing work. For the U.S. economy to gain headway, spare capacity must be created in the economy for those who have not been employed for a long period of time. Should the U.S. be able to harness these workers and create extra employment capacity to keep them in employment, then the U.S. economy will see a boost as the number of people gaining work will outnumber those losing work to a more significant level than seen ordinarily in an economic recovery.  The American Jobs Act helps in this area by creating what is known as a “Bridge to Work” program which capitalises on initiatives that many states have put into place in order to deal with long term unemployment. Specifically these programmes help those without jobs take temporary or voluntary work whilst they also pursue on the job training in order to make them more employable in the long run. There is also a $4000 tax credit for employers that hire long-term unemployed workers. Further, prohibitions on discrimination based on length of unemployment will also come into place. As such the American Jobs Act is likely to stimulate the economy through the creation of a bigger and better trained work force.1

Whilst long term unemployment is an issue within America, it is not an issue to be focused on during a time of economic recovery and potential recession again. In a recession there are significantly more people who suffer from temporary unemployment because businesses that are unable to survive the hardships of the recession often shut down.  This means following a recession there are a large number of skilled workers in the work force who lack jobs. As recovery gains pace, these workers are re-employed at a greater rate than other workers are made redundant. Given that these people are already skilled and can already make a very significant contribution to the economy, it seems illogical that a bill intended to promote economic recovery should focus on the long-term unemployed at all. Presumably, most people who suffer from long term unemployment will take a few years to acquire the skills needed to meaningfully contribute to the economy. At this point, the economy will likely already be out of recession. This is indicated by the fact that in the latest recovery period, long term unemployment rose presumably because the extra employment capacity in the economy was just being retaken by those who were temporarily unemployed.2  It is more beneficial that the state concentrates entirely on bringing the country out of recession and recovery and into a period of sustainable growth more quickly. Under these circumstances, the state will have more resources to divert to the long term unemployed, as fewer people will require help due to temporary unemployment. The state can then focus on assisting these individuals, so that when the next recession comes state services will be ready to ease the damage.

The American Jobs Act Helps Small Business and Creates Jobs  The American Jobs Act helps small businesses and is also set to significantly increase the number of jobs available to people. Small enterprise is particularly important in the creation of jobs because these businesses tend to be start-up businesses. Many start-ups are entrepreneurial in character, and succeed or fail on their ability to identify and exploit new markets. Increasing investment in new and emergency markets spurs the creation of additional jobs within those markets. Thanks to the cuts in payroll tax contained in the Jobs Act, many small businesses will stand to benefit by gaining some of the money paid to the government back. The President’s plan will also eliminate payroll taxes entirely if firms add new workers or increase the wages of their current workers. As such, there will be significant incentives for small businesses to hire more workers.­1  Cuts to payroll taxes, combined with the other changes planned by the bill, are estimated to create 100,000 jobs a month for the next year, accompanied by a projected 1.25% increase in GDP. Moody’s Analytics is even more optimistic about the likely benefits to the American economy should the act pass, predicting growth rates at 2% and claiming that 1.9 million jobs will be created as a result.5

Whilst successful individuals may be confronted with an increased tax bill, the American Jobs Act also significantly reduces taxes on businesses. This is especially important with respect to innovative risk as it is businesses, not individuals, which bear the main brunt of risk following innovation.  As such, it is reasonable to assume that the effect of higher tax on the rich will often be negated, with respect to innovation by the lower tax on businesses.1

Even if the American jobs act is not deficit neutral, it will have a significant effect in the future, through spending more in the present to speed the American recovery period and prevent a double dip recession. During the boom period it will be significantly easier to pay any increased deficit back. Further, even if the American credit rating is to be downgraded further, changes in the credit rating are played to be more significant than they actually are. The Japanese for example have had their credit rating downgraded by Moody’s to Aa3, however, bond interest in Japan is 2% at its highest levels on long term Japanese bonds whereas it is 3% in the U.S.7  The change in the credit rating of Japan did very little to increase interest on its bonds. The reason is that investors still believe that Japan is a stable market despite its deficit which amounts to 233% of annual economic output. As such, even if the credit rating of the U.S. does get downgraded it is likely to do little in terms of increasing U.S. bond repayments over time. Further, financing the American Jobs Act through a greater deficit could be seen by many rating agencies as a fiscally responsible move and as such would not lead to them downgrading the rating at all.8

The American Jobs Act Encourages Risk Without Infrastructure or Results in Inaction By  The American Jobs Act is problematic because one of the main causes of the recession was excessive risk taking in certain businesses. This reckless behaviour was the result of poor regulatory infrastructure – the state and independent agencies were doing too little to monitor banks’ conduct. Whilst some spending from the act is going on the improvement of infrastructure in the form of better checks and balances on businesses such as banks which are critical to the economy, the majority of the spending is instead going on tax breaks. Whilst taking risk and encouraging risk is generally a good thing in recessions, the way in which money is put at risk must be controlled. If it is not controlled well enough then there is a significant chance that such spending could simply lead to another recession because of another crisis in another financial sector.9  Alternatively, businesses may opt to place a greater focus on debt repayments. This is what occurred during the Japanese crisis of the 90s. Companies might act in this way because they fear taking risks in such an unpredictable climate. If this is the case then the economic stimulus that the Act is meant to provide simply will not occur in the way that is intended, and much money that could have been spent on infrastructure will be wasted elsewhere.9

The American Jobs Act Will Not Help Successful Businesses  While the American Jobs Act gives help to small businesses it does nothing to help proven companies that already have a record of success as is shown by their size. Indeed these companies may even be hit by the revenue raising side of the act. It is often the wealthy- both businesses and individuals- that engage in enterprise and risky expansions into new markets. A lower tax burden on the rich makes taking risks in order to develop new technology more profitable and more appealing.  Promoting private enterprise and risk taking is a key strategy in resolving recessions. It is often new products that drive economic growth by creating new markets, which drive demand. An increase in the tax burden of America’s wealthiest citizens and corporations is problematic. It impedes this growth and innovation-led recovery strategies.  It is important to note that the risk the American economy needs to promote is risk that is well regulated and, further, is risk in non-critical and emerging industries. As such this point is distinct from the second point of opposition and must be presented as so, otherwise, it risks a misunderstanding with judges.10

The American Jobs Act is Not Deficit Neutral  One of the issues with the American Jobs Act is that while it is claimed that it will be deficit neutral this may not actually be the case as the costs are front loaded whereas the revenue is not. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will be neutral by 2021 but will increase the deficit by $288 billion in 2012,11 meaning there is a lot of scope for mistakes in the revenue increases or even higher interest rates than expected meaning it contributes to the deficit. If it contributes significantly to the deficit then the economic benefit that the jobs act might create could simply be subsumed in greater repayments on bonds in the future by the U.S.  As such, any spending under the jobs act will have to be recouped elsewhere in the American system under taxation. Logically speaking, whilst extra government spending could potentially be more efficient, such sweeping changes that are claimed to cause such a significant amount of benefit to the American economy are almost certain to require extra governmental spending.  This case is enhanced by the fact that, when addressing the affordability of the act, Obama and his administration’s officials are vague about how the act will be financed. The act states “To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reductions necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.”  If this is true, the financing of the act is dependent on a super committee finding the funding available somewhere in the American budget. If they are to significantly increase taxes they will likely find it difficult to pass such action, given how likely Republicans are to resist such an action. As such, implementing this Act is likely to end up cutting into the deficit significantly more.9

Whilst the jobs act does not fully cover infrastructure, more acts can be drafted in order to deal with this problem. Further, the financial sector is likely to now be significantly more wary of the problems that initially caused the recession. This is because the collapse of Lehman and the Sub Prime crisis as well as the following recession significantly hurt their businesses. As such, especially so soon after the global banking crisis, such companies are going to be more careful about taking unnecessary risks. Whilst this attitude might decay over time, by the time it has decayed enough that action must be taken, it is likely that America will be out of recession.  Further, it is believed that right now, the general health of the corporate sector is sound. This means that whilst there is the possibility that businesses will opt not to use tax breaks to increase wages and pay debt, it is fairly unlikely. Even if another recession hits, the current strength of the corporate sector is such that it is likely to be able to weather the storm and as such, CEOs are likely to wish to spend windfall that they do get in order to get ahead of the competition for the next boom phase.9

For countries that are dependent on their resources and lack developed industries, free trade does not promote efficiency. Free trade makes them overly dependent on their resources, which other countries are coming in and buying. This is because their domestic industries cannot compete with those of the developed world, so they have difficulty fostering sectors besides raw goods. They are forced to rely on supplying materials, rather than being able to build innovative industries. That does not offer efficiency, it just suppresses economies. For example Nigeria is dependent on oil for 95% of foreign exchange earnings and 80% of their budget money1. Trading oil is not making it a more diversified, sophisticated economy. 1 CIA World Fact Book, "Nigeria", CIA,

Free trade promotes global efficiency through specialization.  Operating at maximum productivity is one of the most important aspects of an efficient economy. The right resources and technology must be combined to produce the right amount of goods to be sold for the right price. Therefore all markets should strive for highest efficiency. In order to maximize efficiency in the international economy, countries need to utilize their comparative advantage. This means producing what you are best at making, compared to other countries. If Mary is the best carpenter and lawyer in the US, but makes more money being a lawyer, she should devote more of her time to law and pay someone for her carpentry needs. Mary has an absolute advantage in law and carpentry, but someone else has a comparative advantage in carpentry1. Comparatively it makes more sense for someone else to do the carpentry, and for Mary to be the lawyer. It is the same in the international economy. Countries can be more efficient and productive if they produce what they are best at based on their domestic resources and populations, and trade for other goods. This promotes efficiency and lower prices. Free trade enhances this. The Doha round that is currently being debated in the World Trade Organization would reduce trade barriers and promote free trade, economies of scale, and efficient production of goods. It is estimated that the Doha round would increase the global GDP by $150 billion alone just by promoting free trade2. Free trade leads to specialization and efficient production, which ultimately would increase the size of the global economy and the individual economies in it. 1 Library of Economics and Liberty, "Comparative Advantage",  2 Meltzer, Joshua (2011), "The Future of Trade", Foreign Policy Magazine,

Therefore, there is no empirical evidence that proves that poverty is reduced. If countries removed all agricultural subsidies domestic production would decrease and world food prices would increase. Poor countries that import food will suffer from increased food prices due to trade liberalization. 45 of the least-developed countries on earth imported more food than they exported in 1999, so there are many countries that could be severely harmed by increasing food prices1.  1 Panagariya, Arvind (2003), "Think Again: International Trade", Foreign Policy Magazine,

Free trade creates substantial cooperative relationships between trading partners.  There has long been a debate as to whether aid or trade is more effective in promoting development and cooperative relationships. Being interlocked through trading relationships decreases the likelihood of war. If you are engaged in a mutually beneficial relationship with other countries, then there is no incentive to jeopardize this relationship through aggression. It leads to more cooperative relationships because trading partners have incentives to consider the concerns of their trade partners since their economic health is at stake. This promotes peace, which is universal good. In 1996, Thomas Friedman famously pointed out that no two countries with a McDonalds—a sign of western liberal economic policies—have ever gone to war together.1 Academic studies have shown that this is specifically a result of free trade. In 2006 Solomon Polachek of SUNY Binghamton and Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers found that the last 30 years have shown that economic freedom is 50 times more likely to reduce violence between countries than democracy2. Erik Gartzke of Columbia University rated countries’ economic freedom on a scale of 1 (least free) to 10 (most free). He analyzed military conflicts between 1816 and 2000 and found that countries with a 2 or less on the economic freedom scale were 14 times more likely to be involved in armed conflicts than those with an 8 or higher2. Aside from war, free trade also solidifies countries’ alliances. For example, the US wants to begin a free trade relationship with South Korea to create a concrete partnership that will ultimately lead to greater cooperation3. Free trade promotes global connections and peace and therefore is a beneficial force.  1 Thomas Friedman, “Foreign Affairs Big Mac,” New York Times, December 8, 1996  2  (page)/2  3

Free trade is the economic policy that many liberal countries—who are less likely to go to war with each other—have chosen. It’s not the policy that makes them liberal. These studies show such a strong correlation, because the countries that have chosen free trade are largely a huge block of countries that already get along, particularly the EU countries and the US. These countries already have the productive relationships necessary for peace. And history has shown that those relationships can be fostered without resorting to free trade. For example, for many years after World War II, Japan protected many national industries, but it was a peaceful country with a productive relationship with the West. Therefore, the costs of free trade are not necessary to achieve that benefit since it can be fostered under different conditions.  1 Paul W. Kuznets, “An East Asian Model of Economic Development: Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 35, no. 3 (April 1988)

Although free trade may promote innovation and growth, because of issues like dumping (where rich countries sell their products very cheaply in poorer countries and make it impossible for local industry to compete), or jobs being exported to places where labor is cheaper, free trade has significant costs and does not necessarily foster benefits for all. It is necessary to grow infant industries and create jobs, and free trade hurts both.

Free trade reduces poverty.  Free trade reduces poverty for two reasons. First, it creates direct "pull up" as Columbia economist, Jagdish Bhagwati calls it because it creates demand for a country's good and industry and thus employs the poor and expands jobs1. Additionally it creates more revenue for government that can be directly targeted towards anti-poverty programs. Independent research Xavier Sala-i-Martin at Columbia University estimates that poverty has been reduced by 50 million people in the developing world during the era of free trade, since 19871. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan have been liberalizing trade for the past 40 years and have not suffered from one-dollar-per-day poverty in the last 20 years1. If agricultural subsidies were removed from developed countries, food would become more expensive as there would be fewer producers, and poor farmers would have a better shot at competing and making a living. Free trade promotes the necessary monetary flow and demand for goods to increase jobs and sustainably grow an economy to reduce poverty. Prices are lower, more products are available, and the poor are able to achieve a higher standard of living.  1 Panagariya, Arvind (2003), "Think Again: International Trade", Foreign Policy Magazine,

Free trade promotes growth in all countries.  Through global competition, specialization, and access to technology, free trade and openness allow countries to grow faster—India and China started in the 1980s with restrictive trade policies, but as they have liberalized they have also improved their growth enormously1. The International Trade Commission estimates that a free trade agreement between just Colombia and the US would increase the US GDP by $2.5 billion2. When industries have to compete with competition around the world, they are pushed towards innovation and efficiency. Entrepreneurs are more productive if they have to compete. Free trade increases access to technology which also increases overall development. Because of free trade, prices are lower for everyone. Trade offers benefits to both developed and developing nations by encouraging competition, efficiency, lower prices, and opening up new markets to tap into.  1 Panagariya , Arvind (2003), “Think Again: International Trade”, Foreign Policy Magazine  2 White House (2010), “Benefits of US-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement”

Even with tariffs the steel industry in losing jobs. Nothing can save steel. It simply does not operate as effectively as other global steel industries. Further, protectionism helps a small group of workers, the rest of American industry that is dependent on steel for their operation is hurt by high prices and inefficient production1. Protectionism puts the good of the few above the rest. Additionally, the WTO was created to ensure that dumping does not happen. The problem with infant industry is it's hard to determine when to start the transition away from protectionism, and often it never develops fully. For example, Brazil protected its computer industry and it never was able to compete even past the infant industry stage2.  1 Lindsey, Brink and Griswold, Daniel T. (1999), "Steel Quotas Will Harm US", CATO Institute,  2 Luzio, Eduardo and Greenstein, Shane (1995), "Measuring the Performance of a Protected Infant Industry: The Case of Brazilian Microcomputers", Review of Economics and Statistics,

Marian Tupy of the Center for Global Liberty and Propensity states, "In the history of the world, no country has ever suffered military defeat, or capitulated to sanctions, due to the inability to produce a domestically producible product"1. Globalization also means there are many partners to trade with, so even if a country is at war there are plenty of options of other countries from which to buy necessary products. 1 The Industrial College of the Armed Forces (2008), "Industry Study", National Defense University,

Free trade hurts the world's poor  Free trade creates demand for extremely cheap products produced by poor people in terrible conditions in third world countries. In Indonesia, there are people working in sweatshops for 60 cents an hour1. It is estimated that there are 158 million child workers around the world2. Free trade creates demand for the products produced by this modern day form of child and adult slavery. The governments of the countries where this takes place do nothing to improve the working conditions. Sweatshops are produced by free trade and demand for cheap goods, and the way that workers are treated is inherently wrong. Therefore free trade is not a force for global betterment, but instead hurts the cause of the poor and their standard of living.  1 Krugman, Paul (1997), "In Praise of Cheap Labor", Slate.com,  2 UNICEF, "Child Labor",

Implementing true free trade is unfeasible because it is unreasonable  An increasing number of countries are looking to bilateral Free Trade Agreements that will help them specifically. They are not directly open to free trade with all countries. These FTAs are undermining the position of the World Trade Organization which is meant to push countries towards economic liberalization1. Countries have no reason to start trading freely with everyone, if they already have FTAs with the most beneficial trading partners. The Doha round seeks to reduce trade barriers in industry and agriculture has been going on for ten years, but there is still no agreement. Disputes are becoming more common when it comes to trade. In 2009, there was a dispute over the US putting tariffs on Chinese tires that has created tension in the trade relationship between those two countries2. Considering that the WTO countries have been debating the Doha round for ten years, it is unreasonable to think that countries are going to adopt free trade policies with the whole world. It is much more likely they will concede to bilateral free trade agreements that specifically help themselves. Since it is unlikely for free trade to become a universal policy it is not beneficial for all countries.  1 Meltzer, Joshua (2011), "The Future of Trade", Foreign Policy Magazine,  2 Bradsher, Keith (2009), "China-US Trade Dispute Has Broad Implications", .

It is just to protect industry and jobs.  When countries dump their products in other markets without barriers, they undercut the ability for local industries to compete. If those local industries try to compete, large foreign or multinational companies can use extremely low predatory pricing to make it impossible for the smaller industries to break into the market. The fully developed industries in rich countries are almost impossible for poorer, still developing economies to compete with. If they are not given the chance and have to compete with large international industries from the beginning, domestic industry in poor countries will have a hard time. The overall economic development of the country will thus be inhibited1. Additionally, competition can cost jobs, as industries become less profitable and labor is outsourced, so there is reason to retain protectionism as countries put their economic health first. For example, America has long protected its steel industry, as in 2002 when it adopted a controversial 40% tariff, because it was thought that competition put 600,000 jobs at risk2. Since 1977, 350,000 steel jobs have been shed, so these tariffs are justified3. Countries should put their economies and jobs first and therefore protectionism is warranted.  1 Suranovic, Steven, "The Infant Industry Argument and Dynamic Comparative Advantage", International Economics,  2  "&gt; Flanders, Lauren (2002), "Unfair Trade", CommonDreams.org,  3 Wypijewski, JoAnn (2002), "Whose Steel?", The Nation,

Free trade jeopardizes countries' security.  If a country goes to war with one of its trading partners, it needs to have the capacity to produce all of the necessary tools for war domestically, and not depend on other countries for supplies and parts. Additionally there is fear that disease-causing agents and bioterrorism can enter countries through the trade of poorly inspected food1. For reasons of national security it makes sense to retain the capacity to produce what is necessary to win a war and to protect the domestic population. This is one of the reasons why countries—such as the US1—like to protect their agricultural industry. Free trade is a threat to global security. For countries to stay safe, they need to retain some protectionism in their international trade policy.  1 George W. Bush, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9: Defense of United States Agriculture and Food,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, accessed July 15, 2011

Opening up in FTAs is the first step towards liberalization in the larger sense and opening up to all free trade, so it should not be considered a failure. Additionally, free trade needs to balance international and domestic goals so coming to an agreement is difficult, but the WTO has been successful in the past. The current problems with the Doha round do not spell the end to the WTO or free trade1. 1 Meltzer, Joshua (2011), "The Future of Trade", Foreign Policy Magazine,

Sweatshops are unfortunate, but free trade can benefit from cheap labor without relying on exploiting workers. Economically, cheap labor is a step in the right direction for poor countries and their people. Making 60 cents an hour in a factory that exports goods is better than 30 cents an hour working in the field, trying to feed a family in Indonesia1. Paul Krugman explains that sweatshops allow the poor to get jobs, and manufacturing development has a ripple effect on the rest of the economy and its development. Taiwan and South Korea, and even the US, went through this type of industrial development and it is better than the alternative, which is failed farming or dependence on aid1. If workers are being exploited—which is different from being paid low wages that are actually good by the standards of the country—then that should be regulated by governments, but that in no way infringes upon free trade.  1 Krugman , Paul (1997), “In Praise of Cheap Labor”, Slate.com

Guaranteeing a temporary job for young people is a temporary solution. Having a job for a short period of time will not guarantee more permanent employment. Britain’s Mandatory Work Activity scheme does some of this proposal by having very short term unpaid job placements however a study has shown that having this placement had zero benefit when it comes to getting a job. [1] Even if it did impact on those who took part in the scheme it is no help if it does not increase the number of permanent jobs as there will be the same number of young people in the same small pool. A more long term solution is necessary. This would require more jobs, and more training to ensure that skills fit the jobs that are available.  [1] Malik, Shiv, ‘Mandatory work scheme does not improve job chances, research finds’, 13 June 2012,

This policy is necessary to avoid a lost generation  Rising youth unemployment can be considered an international timebomb. Young people are the next generation of workers and consumers in the economy. When they are unemployed, the situation can be alarming. This is because of the importance of getting a job early on so as to avoid becoming long term unemployed. The UN Secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, has called for stronger policies involving young people [1] . The ILO has warned that youth unemployment can lead to apathy towards government and political instability [2] . The lack of experience in work may cause a lost generation.  This must be averted, and the EU is one of the best placed to do this. The temporary work scheme would encourage business to change their attitude and hire more young workers. Having to hire young people, even for a short time, would help break negative stereotypes and often the employers would then offer longer term work. This would help to fill the 2million unfilled vacancies that exist in the EU with young people. [3]  [1] Youth Business International, ‘Global Youth Unemployment: a ticking timebomb’, The Guardian, 27 March 2013,   [2] Youth Business International, ‘Global Youth Unemployment: a ticking timebomb’, The Guardian, 27 March 2013,   [3] European Commission, ‘Youth Unemployment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013,

While there is a benefit to diversity it does not have to be obtained by employing younger people but instead by having racial and gender diversity.  Companies have the right to choose their own recruitment practices. It is up to them, and them alone, who they choose to recruit. If they believe in such benefits and that they outweigh any other priorities then they will already be recruiting young people. That they are not doing so shows that businesses do not believe the benefits are as high as they are made out to be. Government should not be compelling business to employ people government should only be interfering with business in order to create a level playing field between companies.

The EU should guarantee youth a job in order to equal their chances.  The EU member states should rely more on public employment services, which should be focused on finding jobs for young people. With government funding, they can work with the private sector to offer decent temporary jobs to young people. This model is common in the Nordic states [1] and other countries, such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland also have similar programs.  Youth unemployment is already far higher than for older people. Less than a third of under 25s who were looking for a job in 2010 found one in 2011 [2] – this may be due to ageist discrimination against young people, and employers seeking people with experience.  People over 25 are also considered as a high risk group. They have little experience so the employer is taking a risk in employing them. There is also a desire for stability; those who already have a family are unlikely to want large changes so employers feel they can bet on them for the long term.  If the problem is a lack of experience then this proposal solves the problem. Giving younger people a temporary job and the experience that goes with it will help give everyone an equal chance at getting a job, irrespective of age. Therefore, the EU should step in and help provide jobs for younger people.  [1] International Labour Office, ‘Youth guarantees: a response to the youth unemployment crisis?’, International Labour Organization, 2012   [2] European Commission, ‘Youth employment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013,

Age ‘discrimination’ runs both ways. Many companies operate policies of age discrimination against older workers. Older employees are often likely to have more out of date skills. According to a survey of businesses, the reasons for not hiring older workers are their lack of flexibility and unwillingness to learn new techniques, lack of foreign languages, little knowledge of technology and a dislike of change [1] . Those who are nearing the end of their career and are just as likely to be unable to find a news job because of these problems and are therefore likely to find themselves forced into early retirement.  When this happens these people will no longer be counted among the statistics for unemployment so much older unemployment is hidden. If a ‘lack’ of experience is a good reason for the government to provide a job then having the ‘wrong’ experience should be just as good a reason. Focusing just on youth would be wrong.  [1] Daskalova, Nadezhda, ‘Company attitudes towards employing older workers’, EWCO, 10 July 2009,

These placements will only be for six months. This combined with the intent not to make the program too expensive means that the benefit will be limited in terms of the fiscal boost provided. Those who are getting a salary only for six months are not likely to feel rich from getting that money so will probably try to save any they can.  Also, these roles would be most likely to be unskilled. The benefit in terms of investment would therefore not be particularly great. Yes the young people involved are getting experience but this is different from providing them with technical skills that make them competitive in a global marketplace.

Increased workforce diversity  While we often think of workplace diversity as being about having people from all over the world and both men and women a good age balance is necessary too. By bringing in this policy, younger workers will be in the same workplaces as older employees, and vice versa, making for more workplace diverse. Employees will learn from those with more experience, in addition to the other advantages of a more diverse workforce. [1] One of these is more engagement and engaged workers perform 20% better and are less likely to leave. [2] Another is that young people will contribute new and innovative ways of thinking, with different viewpoints pushing the business forward. [3] Finally a company needs to have all ages in the business to ensure that there are people with experience when older workers retire.  Diversity is also crucial for the appearance of a business. The kind of company that attracts a broader pool of individuals means a greater range of talented candidates to choose from. Businesses who create more diverse workplaces perform better.  [1] Dutta, Pallab, ‘Importance of Workplace Diversity’, the Houston Chronicle, accessed 30/09/13,   [2] Anand, Dr. Rohini, ‘How Diversity and Inclusion Drive Employee Engagement’, DiversityInc, accessed 30/09/13,   [3] Ingram, David, ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversity in Workplace, The Houston Chronicle, accessed 30/09/13,

This policy is good for EU economies.  If the government is employing people then it is going to be boosting the economy. Providing a fiscal boost by spending money is one of the most accepted ways of boosting the economy. In this case spending money on temporary workers is good in several ways.  First it is a fiscal boost to the economy. The government will be paying the temporary workers. These workers will have more money to spend and will probably mostly spend it rather than saving. This in turn boosts demand for other goods and services so meaning there needs to be more output with the result that some jobs will be made permanent. There is therefore a positive feedback loop.  The second way in which this helps the economy is that it is investment. It is investment because the government is paying for young people to gain experience and for companies to be training these temporary workers. The result of this is a more skilled workforce who in the long term will be more productive.  There is a final possible benefit. With government paying for workers they are effectively subsidizing firms. Even if they are new trainees the young temporary workers will be providing output for companies at next to no cost. This then makes that firm more competitive against its global competitors.

Training is indeed the answer but it makes sense for this to be done on the job rather than simply in lecture theatres. Where there are skills gaps these gaps should be filled by encouraging and paying for temporary jobs to help fill those roles. In this way the young people involved will gain the skills for an area of the economy where there are vacancies.

Businesses are already regulated in who they can hire and on what terms– for that reason there are child labour, minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws. These kind of regulations come both from national governments and the European Union. Governments have always had this right.  This policy is therefore not damaging freedom of choice any more than many other regulations. It will most likely not be necessary to make taking on the temporary jobs compulsory because the government is paying for it and how many companies will turn down something that is essentially a subsidy?

This policy would only serve to discriminate against unemployed people older than 25  Even though there are large numbers of young people unemployed, they only make up around a fifth of the total unemployed population. 26.654 million men and women were unemployed in July 2013 in European Union. Only 5.560 million of them are young people. [1]  The result then is clearly going to be discriminatory against those who are not among the young. This would simply mean that more qualified, equally unemployed people would be passed over due to their age.  It should be remembered that the youth will be more capable of bouncing back when the recession finally ends and there are jobs available. They are more flexible, they have more of the skills necessary for modern work such as knowledge of computers, and they are more willing to retrain to get a job. The result is that when the jobs are available they will be the ones who are able to find work. Older people on the other hand will find it much harder to find another job without government help even when the economy picks up.  Young people can wait to get their careers off to a start. Older workers can’t.  [1] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment statistics’, epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, modified 30 August 2013,

The policy is not a long term solution.  Job guarantees for young people may place them in employment for some time at a low cost, but does not offer a permanent solution. The Swedish job guarantee scheme has been criticised for this reason [1] . They will not create a solution based on skills, qualifications and economic growth because employers have little incentive to train up workers who are only temporary. If the company is not looking to expand there will be little point in wasting resources on someone they are not going to take on over the long term.  Training has to be the solution to youth unemployment. The government should be training young people to fill the gaps that do exist in the market place such as care workers. When young people have skills that are in demand then they will be able to get full time employment without having to rely on temporary employment schemes to ‘make work’ for them to do.  [1] Eurofound, ‘ Youth Guarantee: Experiences from Finland and Sweden’, Eurofound.europa.eu, EF/12/42/EN, 2012,

Temporary employment for youth acts against freedom of choice for businesses  In a free market the core concept is freedom of choice. The consumer chooses what they want to buy. And by the same measure there needs to be freedom of choice for employers. They need to be able to decide what products to make, how to market them, and who to employ. Companies should be looking for those who are best qualified for the job rather than satisfying a government quota to provide temporary contracts to young people.  Even if the government is paying for this employee they are still utilising the resources of businesses. Businesses will often have limited space so having some of that space taken up by mandated temporary workers is not the most productive use that the company could be making of that space.  It is clear that this would be a ‘make work’ scheme because there are already only around two million vacancies, compared to five and a half million unemployed under 25s, in the entire European Union [1] . Moreover that these vacancies exist shows that the real problem is with matching jobs and workers with the right skills. This is best done by training not temporary, probably unskilled, employment.  [1] European Commission, ‘Youth Unemployment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013,   Eurostat, ‘Unemployment statistics’, epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, modified 30 August 2013,

It should not be assumed that today’s unemployed youth will be the target for recruiters in the future. In four or five years’ time there will be more graduates from high schools and universities looking for work and those companies that want to employ young people will look to them rather than people who have been out of work for several years. The result then will be a generation who have never worked and never picked up the skills for a job and may never get the opportunity to do so without government help. Older people who are unemployed at least have the skills they have learned in the workplace and a past record to fall back on.

If those who are unemployed were the right people to be doing those jobs, they already would be. Employers want to maximise their bottom line and will hire the best workers they can find. Forcing them to take on lower skilled and less able employees reduces competitiveness and causes inefficiencies.  "The bell curve for worker productivity can be divided into roughly four groups. People in the top 16% who produce the most (superior), people between 84% and 51% who produce more than average, people between 50% and 17% who produce less than average, and people in the bottom 16%."1 Having to hire people from the lower 16% will cost businesses a fortune in lost productivity.  1 Dr. Wendell Williams, "The Incredible Cost of Bad Hire" October 11th, 2001

There should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours, because it creates employment.  According to the CIA World Factbook, non-industrialised countries have an average of 30% unemployment and industrialised nations have somewhere between 4-12% unemployment1. Underemployment is considered to be even higher, though precise figures are by their very nature impossible to acquire. By capping the working hours of those in employment, the unemployed stand an increased chance of entering the workforce.  With no option but to hire more staff, businesses will have no choice but to hire the currently out of work to fulfil their labour requirements. This is economically beneficial, as the costs of long term unemployment to an economy are enormous. In industrialised countries the unemployed are already being paid via taxes, with this change there can be at least some productivity from them.  1 "World unemployment figures by country" The Cia World Factbook, July 12th, 2011

Business will replace workers not with other workers, but with machines, especially in the age of robotics and other automated mass production methodologies. Businesses will replace the lost manpower not with more manpower, but with machines wherever possible. "Automation has eliminated some 10 million jobs, mostly in manufacturing" (between 1994 and 2004)1  The actual effect will be to boost productivity AND increase unemployment for the economy that implements it.  The other alternative business can choose is to outsource labour to a country which doesn't have the same stringent standards, which also increases unemployment in the economy with a cap on worker hours. In such a case, the employment, production and business all leave the capped area.  1 Gregory M. Lamb "Automation streamlines services and high-tech, but at what cost?" USA Today 30th August 2004

There must be a maximum amount of performance that people are capable of, given rest and reward. To work people too long is to waste their potential.  Human beings require downtime in the form of sleep and rest in order to maintain their peak functioning. Long working hours cut into this rest and sleep time and therefore reduce their effectiveness as workers. A cap on the amount of work that people do per week allows for proper rest periods. Tired workers are prone to making mistakes, one of the mistakes they can make is to think they can skip necessary sleep with no ill effects. "While some people may like to believe that they can train their bodies to not require as much sleep as they once did this belief is false"1  A mandatory cap on the hours they work removes the decision from them and avoids this problem.  1 Sarah Ledoux – “The effects of sleep deprivation on brain and behaviour” Biology 202 Bryn Mawr College 01/03/2008

While people do indeed need proper rest and downtime in order to perform to their maximum potential, exactly how much rest they need changes from individual to individual. A "one size fits all" approach through legislation will necessarily mean that some people who could work quite comfortably with no ill effects will be prevented from doing so.  The choice to work or not rightly belongs to them, as does even their decision to risk their health. It might be worth it to someone to take a chance on sleep deprivation in order to earn more pay.

Workers already have protection from over work. They have the ability to say "no" and they also have the ability to find themselves other, less lengthy employment.  The fact that jobs with long hours exist is proof that people are happy with the situation. A survey of people opting out of the European working time directive shows that 1 in 4 workers opt out of a limit to their working hours.  "The survey also demonstrates that working hours have not substantially changed since the introduction of the new rules because of the large-scale use of the opt-out clause."  Not only that but workers can already claim for work related injuries, stress and maltreatment via the tribunals and courts, so a deterrent already exists for businesses to overwork their employees.  1 Liza Morgan "Little option But To Opt Out under Working hour Rules"

Introducing a cap on working hours would reduce unemployment.  One of the most fundamental principles of economics is that of supply and demand. By artificially reducing the supply (of hours) then demand must increase for other labour, ceteris paribus.  The only question once that is realised is what limit should there be on working hours to ensure full employment. (Or employment at maximum practical capacity.) The purpose of the economy is to serve people, and having a large percentage of people excluded when there is an easy and obvious fix is to fail in the economies mission.

A maximum working week provides protection for workers.  In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 23 “Everyone has the right to work… to just and favourable conditions of work” and article 24 “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”1 both relate to a fundamental freedom from being forced to work too hard. Working for too many hours per week can affect health, wellbeing and productivity over the medium to longer term. In extremis, as we can see in the “karoshi” phenomenon in Japan, people can work themselves to an early grave.2  Even in less extreme examples, we can see health issues affecting productivity and causing medical problems which require paying to treat. The WHO estimates that work related stress costs $300bn p.a. in the US, to take one example.3  It goes without saying that all this avoidable stress and medical trouble needs paying for. That the businesses themselves manage to push those costs onto wider society or the state doesn’t make those costs go anywhere from the point of view of an economy as a whole. Therefore a maximum working week prevents business from externalising costs to others.  1 United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

It isn't actually being suggested that we reduce the total amount of work done. What is being suggested is that we have some of the unemployed be allowed to get access to the labour that is required via limiting the hours existing workers can put in. GDP growth can still be achieved as the amount of work remains unchanged.  In fact, as more of the population become involved in the workforce a lot of other problems and costs will disappear from the economy and society that imposes a maximum working week." two economists argue that a drop of two percentage points in unemployment would mean a 9% decline in burglary, 14% in rape and robbery and 30% in assault."1  1 Prof. Rudolph Winter-Ebmer ""Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime" CEPR Discussion paper, 2001

That's right, even more jobs would be created by hiring people to check on procedures, workplaces and hours worked. When there are literally millions of displaced potential workers and all the social and economic problems unemployment can cause this is no bad thing.  Not only that but there are already policing of business operations present in all advanced economies, this function could be simply added to the list of things to check for by those agencies. New employment within existing organisations is therefore created, so there is a doubling effect from this policy.

The market already limits worker hours when left to its own devices, no intrusion is required.  Long hours which reduce worker effectiveness already make a business less competitive. The invisible hand will remove those businesses which exploit their workers, or who don't take into account employee motivation and what they need to get maximum productivity far more effectively as they are beaten in the marketplace by those companies which do take those things into account.  Improvements in worker conditions always come first from the private sector seeking to maximise profits. This has been true as far back as the industrial revolution.

Small and mid sized businesses cannot afford the extra costs involved in complying with such a policy.  Each new worker has certain fixed costs associated with their employment. Tax, insurance, training, office space, record keeping, background checks, sickness, disciplinary as well as necessary equipment, the actual cost of hiring them and advertising for them and other benefits (usually this adds up to 1.25-1.4x base salary per worker.1  1 Joe Hadzima "How Much Does an Employee Cost?" Boston Business Journal (reprinted for MIT 2005)

There should be no legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours as it limits economic growth.  The transaction, hiring and human resource costs of forcing businesses to take on more workers mean that productivity is reduced and resources are wasted. While GDP might rise because of these actions, GDP will rise due to a fallacy of the "labour theory of value"1 kind. Effort isn't in and of itself productive, though it will add to many measures of GDP. Currently displaced workers would be better served inventing new products and services for the economy they are in.  1 Mick Brooks "An Introduction to The Labour Theory Of Value Part One" Marxist.com 15th Oct 2002

Policing such a policy creates its own set of problems for the society and costs for the economy  Complying with any regulation has a cost attached, and so does policing that regulation in order to make it effective. How would anyone know who was working where and for how long without either a very accepting populace or a very draconian state?  At best there will be ignored regulations - 14-16% of the economy is already avoiding legal responsibilities1 and with employers dissuaded from taking risks that are larger than they would otherwise be, a working week cap has the effect of making the "shadow" economy even more attractive to businesses.  1 Friedrich Schneider with DominikEnste, "The Growth of the Underground Economy" IMF Paper 2002

Only some SME will be affected, and those on such a knife edge financially would probably not have lasted long in the face of competition in any event. Such enterprises are really being subsidised by taking advantage of their workers at the expense of those workers health.

Given the market is already moving in such a direction, there is no need to wait for the slow whittling away of the less optimal when it can be done right away by legislation. This will give a huge head start compared to any economy which uses the market mechanism and make any economy who takes this road advance in terms of productivity.

Unfortunately housing upgrade programs do not always equate to reductions in disease. The vital components including the need for improved community sanitation, access to services - including water and health-care are often ignored. Ananya Roy (2009) shows how the informal nature of India’s state constricts effective planning, and is continuing to ensure slums are kept off the map - limiting access to services.

Upgrading housing: tackling the disease burden  Slum upgrading involves in-situ investment to improve informal settlements; and integrate slums into the city. Two forms of slum upgrading may be classified: the provision of basic services (i.e. housing and sanitation) and the provision of secure land tenure.  The burden of disease is higher in slums due to inadequate sanitation, overcrowding, and a lack of ventilation. Diseases and infections - including diarrhoea, cholera, malaria, TB, and tropical diseases, remain prevalent throughout due to stagnant water and a lack of services. Research indicates higher rates of child and elderly mortality in Nairobi’s slums, in comparison to the rest of the population (Kyobutungi et al, 2008). Improving housing does not just mean building but also ensuring planning standards are followed to create sufficient living space and facilities to reduce the ill-health disadvantage.

There are schemes to finance homebuilding  Affordability is a key challenge for slum-dwellers to enter the housing sector - challenges range from being able to access capital required to buy property, to the volatile prices in Africa’s property market. Improving housing in slums enables dwellers a choice to exit and move up the property ladder. Different approaches have emerged of how provide a means to access finance and generate property markets.  First, housing micro-finance schemes are presenting a flexible means to access credit [1] . Second, cooperative loans, such as Nigeria’s FMBN (Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria) are acting to increase homeownership by providing a secondary mortgage market for low-income families and make finance available. The aim is to ensure repayments are equal to rent costs paid.  [1] See further readings: Riecke, 2013.

To tackle gender discrepancies an engendered strategy is required on land, not only housing.  For example, Gulyani and Connors (2002) illustrate the Kalingalinga slum upgrading project in Zambia resulted in negative effects for women. Following investment in slum upgrading the proportion of female-headed households declined with a rise in the proportion of renters and relocations. Slum upgrading raised living costs to women, and without legal land rights female-headed households were forced to relocate and resettle.

Ensuring supply = demand  A key issue ensuring the growth of slums is the demand for housing is failing to be met. Investment is required to supply housing.  Taking the case of Social Housing programs provided by PAHF (Pan-African Housing Fund) demand is being met by providing affordable houses. 41.5mn US$ has been confirmed by PAHF, of which will be dedicated to fulfil the need for houses. Investments are focusing on urban areas across Sub-Saharan Africa, and are operating through partnerships [1] . If slums are ever to be halted there need to be many more such projects ensuring the supply of houses outstrips demand.  [1] See further readings: PHATISA, 2013.

Cost-effective planning for ‘Slum Cities’  We live in a planet of slums (Davis, 2006), and slums remain a key, and growing, characteristic of contemporary African cities. Slums articulate the infrastructural deficit across African cities - investments are needed.  Slums are a key urban challenge; and need to be tackled, removed, and replaced. “Slums represent the worst of urban poverty and inequality” (Annan, 2003:v).  Slums represent an increasing concern. They are often in unstable environments so are at high risk of being affected by climate change which will further increase costs unless effective strategies are implemented today. Providing safe and secure housing provides a means to tackle articulated problems. Planning will organise the structure of housing communities, follow laws to provide adequate toilets for the population, and enable space for service provision - whether hospitals, police, or schools. Investing in housing will help alleviate chaos; and implement ordered planning for ‘Cities Without Slums’ [1] .  [1] The ‘Cities Without Slums’ Campaign was developed in 1999 by the Cities Alliance; and subsequently included in the MDG.

Are slums really a key challenge? Estimations on the problem of slums may vary depending on which definition is used. Second, the language of the ‘slum’ matters when analysing and applying solutions (Gilbert, 2007; Jones, 2011). The emotions and stigmatic connotations attached to ‘slum’ enables dangerous aesthetic intervention.  Working towards a ‘city without slums’ neglects how and why slums have occurred and suggests governments can apply quick solutions to rid the problem. National aims to remove ‘slums’ has forced governments to focus on the physical problem - infrastructure and housing deficits - rather than understanding who lives in slums and solutions are needed for the dwellers. There remains a need to understand slums as a space of African urbanism. Slums will be cyclically reinforced unless aspects of power, poverty, and politics, are considered.

Slums are not simply an articulation of inadequate supply of, and a hyper-demand for, housing. Alternatively, slums emerge through deterioration, crime, globalisation, and poverty. Therefore provision of housing does not provide the means for all solutions and may themselves again deteriorate into slums. Slums are heterogeneous; therefore their emergence is far from a universal causality.  Secondly, it remains debatable as to whether the needs of informal settlement dwellers are met through housing schemes, such as PAHF. In previous cases, such as in South Africa’s NUSP [1] , inhabitants have been forced to relocate, causing disruptions to livelihoods. Finally, emphasis needs to be placed on building ‘homes’, not ‘houses’.  [1] See further readings: NUSP, 2013.

Finance markets being promoted are introducing risk when insurance, and safety-nets, remain minimal. Investments in housing finance schemes needs to raise questions. Firstly, who organises micro-finance schemes? The idea of positive social capital within the community needs reflection; participation in microfinance is not democratic or available to all (see Jones and Dallimore, 2009).  Second, the provision of loans, and finance, raises concern over future repayment and whether the housing bubble proposed will remain stable. Employment within the informal sector means income is volatile and unpredictable - can housing payments be adapted to irregular income realities when profits are desired?  Incorporating slum dwellers into a financial-market will not remove slums and may simply get the dwellers into debt.

History and tradition is reflected in the building styles adopted across Africa. Upgrading schemes changing the design of housing styles, are both replacing traditional knowledge and practices, but also potentially eco-friendly designs. Investment in housing by private and public actors is failing to incorporate traditional practices, meaning cities are being built through modernist planning ideals.  Slum dwellers need the right to build. Dwellers need to be provided with an enabling environment to use their own capacities to meet their own housing needs [1] .  [1] See further readings: Turner, 1978.

Gender empowerment  Slum dwellers, particularly women, are affected by violence and crime. COHRE (2008) indicates women living in slums are at risk of violence and illnesses, such as HIV/AIDS, due to insecurities experienced on a daily basis in personal and private spaces. Figures show that in Nairobi slums 1 latrine is shared amongst 500 people (Cities Alliance, 2013). Fearing to go to the toilet at night due to risk of rape, women’s geographical experience of the city is constrained [1] . Therefore investing in houses, including building indoor toilets, provides empowerment, safety, and prevents gender based violence.  [1] See further readings: SDI, 2013.

Tackling hazardous environments  Reports are frequently raised on fire outbreaks and hazards in slums. For example, a fire in Khayelitsha township [1] , Cape Town, resulted in five deaths and significant damage. The use of highly flammable materials, in a desire for fast construction, places slum-dwellers prone to risk.  National investment in housing, by providing materials, such as bricks, or training on how to build stable house designs, will ensure safety. Haphazard building can be controlled by investing in housing designs and inspections.  [1] See further readings: Lobel, 2013.

Slum dwellers in Nairobi are shown to pay high rents for low-quality housing - a reality identified by Gulyani and Talukdar (2009). Estimations show around $31mn USD was paid in the form of rents, by poor slum dwellers in Nairobi in 2004. Nevertheless the high-prices did not lead to the materialisation of improved housing. If a landlord can charge high rents in poor housing stock why should he invest in new buildings? Moreover if not done systematically the slum as a whole will never be brought out of poverty rather the poorest areas will simply move around to where those who have not had opportunities are staying.

As long as the stated objective is to tackle the issue of housing and remove slums, informal settlements, and squatting, who is investing is not important. The end goal is a key concern. The stated objective of the investor needs to work harmoniously towards removing slums for practical change to emerge.

Housing politics: who stays in slums?  What kind of city is desired versus being implemented by urban housing investments? The effect of decisions to relocate and design housing policies present implications for the social life of cities and whether existing inequalities are sustained.  For example, issues around housing in South Africa refer to a history of racial inequalities. While in Kenya concern is raised over ethnicity and political clientalism. Further, slum upgrading schemes need to provide an opportunity to change gender inequalities. For example, the precarious position of women in households may remain unchanged unless joint-titling is provided. Widows need to be assured the houses built will enable their freedom to stay out of slums following the bereavement of the male-head in the household.  Ultimately slums remain through upgrading programs. Whether the program provides houses in-situ or through relocation, slum dwellers are contained and kept in poor housing. Ultimately upgrading can often be beneficial to a small group not to all.

Alternative: Replacing slums by providing opportunities  Slum dwellers need to be granted rights to occupy and security of tenure. Slum-dwellers need to be provided with opportunities to progress - recognised as right-holders, or obtain a greater income.  A useful method may involve regulating the informal economy - where a large proportion of slum dwellers work - to provide minimal wages and employment conditions. Such a proposal will enable dwellers to enhance financial capital and reduce vulnerability through labour security. They will then have the money to upgrade their home. Alternatively, establishing a rental market provides an opportunity for replacing slums. A key myth within discussions on the housing problem suggests dwellers want to be homeowners and the rental market remains negative. However, renting enables flexibility to inhabitants and provides an income to landlords. Such funds can be invested within microfinance, community, schemes and individual developments to replace ‘slums’.

Investment is needed: but by who?  Housing is required, however, a crucial component within the debate is who needs to provide funding and be involved in decision making; does it need to be the government? The consequences of investment are influenced by the actors involved. With the need for quality control adamant, greater recognition of who is investing, and for what purpose, is needed. Allowing everything to be done by private firms will often mean evictions and houses just being made so as to increase rent or to sell to those who are not long term residents.  Otiso (2003) provides a case of slum upgrading in Mathare 4, which showcases the need for a tri-sector partnership - involving public, private, and voluntary actors, for upgrading to meet need and resolve shortages in housing. The question might go further; can the community fund upgrading itself, if so is it the best allocation of funding and how is payment to be kept equitable?

Organisations, such as SDI and Cities Alliance, have recognised the diverse experiences of slum-dwellers and their multiple needs. The different programs are catered to local contexts, and work towards developing equal, and just, initiatives for the urban poor. The aim is to stop cyclic reinforcement of slums.

It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.  As regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.  (9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.  (10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012.

A European political union intrudes on its members’ sovereignty  Many of the policies of the political union intrude on national legislation. In many cases, EU policies go against national traditions or redefine laws that were already functional. Occasionally EU policies even cause direct harm, when countries have less freedom to tailor them to their own conditions.  During the past few years, the Commission’s powers have included monitoring Member States implementation of austerity policies in return for bailouts. However, everyone, including the IMF, agrees that austerity was unsuccessful and has seriously hampered recovery (7). Being a part of a political union inevitably means that sacrifices have to be made and this often intrudes on national sovereignty by reducing he room for manoeuvre of national governments.  Intrusion by the EU would be justified if it creates substantially better laws or solid trade benefits; however, regulations on the shape of cucumbers (8) do neither of these. The EU should not have legislative power on these areas.  (7) Blanchard, Olivier; Leigh, Daniel. “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers”, IMF Working Paper. January 2013.   (8) Geiger, Susanne. “The strange curvature of the cucumber”, The German Times. January 2007.

It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.  Distilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.  (12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000.

A European political union is by necessity undemocratic  The EU is too large for a democratic structure. Since it deals not with citizens directly but with Member States, a question arises as to which agents should make fundamental decisions. Should every Member State get an equal vote, or a vote in proportion to the size of its population? If nation states get equal votes, a lot of people in larger states such as Germany, France or Spain may find themselves highly disenfranchised. On the other hand, if states get votes in proportion to the size of its population, countries such as Luxembourg will be forever hesitant to join, and rightly so, for its citizens would most likely be excluded.  The democratic deficit in the EU is no less visible in practice. The Commission is not directly elected (4); Council politics are confusing, take a long time, and grind to a halt whenever Germany is in the middle of elections (5); and the voting turnout for European elections, where MEPs are elected, is too low to be considered a fair representation of voters’ views (6).  This poses a problem the moment the EU begins having legislative power in its Member States: we must not let more and more aspects of citizen’s lives be affected by an institution that is increasingly undemocratic.  (4) “About the European Commission”, European Commission.   (5) Pop, Valentina. “German elections to set EU agenda in coming months”, Agenda, EU Observer. 2 September 2013.   (6)Dowling, Siobhán. “Europe’s Unpopular Elections: Who Is to Blame for EU Voter Apathy?”, Spiegel Online International. 3 June 2009.

It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.  Even if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.

The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.  (14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003.

The EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members  The European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)  This is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.  (11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012.

A European trade bloc can succeed without a political union  The European area only consists of liberal democracies, which consistently honour their agreements. While historically a political union might have been necessary to further strengthen the Coal and Steel Treaty (the EU as it originated) between recently belligerent states, these countries can now obtain the benefit of the trade union through multilateral agreements. They simply have to regulate protectionism and tariffs so countries can remain competitive and barriers to trade remain low. In the event that a country does not comply, the external pressure from the other countries, together with soft sanctions, is more than enough to keep the trade bloc functional.

The EU, in practice, is not a particularly consistent or effective promoter of democracy. It has been unsuccessful in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the European neighbourhood (18): this suggests the EU can only lead countries into democracy when the conditions already exist for this change to happen naturally.  The example of Hungary shows how powerless the EU can be when pressing Member States to stay democratic once they have got in, extremist parties have expanded, the independence of the judiciary threatened and freedom of the press reduced (19). Its structure may make it difficult to become a member without democratizing, but also difficult to justify expelling a Member State. Such cases damage the credibility of the EU as a promoter of democracy. But a change to a trade bloc would not damage the ability of the EU to promote democracy; states could still be forced to democratize as a condition of joining.  (18) Emerson, Aydin, Noutcheva, Tocci, Vahl and Youngs. “The Reluctant Debutante: The European Union as Promoter of Democracy in its Neighbourhood”, Working Document, Centre for European Studies, No. 223. July 2005.   (19) Landry, David. “Hungary: “Test case” for EU democracy?”, Budapest Business Journal. 1 August 2013.

While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.

Political union lends international credibility to a trade bloc  Trust is a valued asset on the international market. When multinational corporations trade in astronomical figures, they must be able to trust in the political goodwill of the governments of the trading partner, to ensure that all parties to the agreement honour its conditions. Major trading partners, such as China and the US, are immense markets where one body can represent the whole country; this is also the case with the European Union through the European Commissioner for Trade. Having one person who can negotiate for the whole bloc has immense benefits in terms of economies of scale and making the European Union a major power in trade negotiations. Without a political union that provides a framework that binds them all members equally Europe would lose out (16).  A single point of contact for trade negotiations is good because it gives the EU a larger market share, it allows smaller EU countries to benefit from the larger EU countries’ economic gravity, and it contributes to long-term trade relations between the EU and other large international entities.  (16) “EU position in world trade”, Trade, European Commission.

Political union has numerous non-economic benefits which a trade bloc lacks  Linking countries together politically is something we have done throughout history to preserve peace and ensure consistent channels of communication. Thanks to the European Union not only have millions of people gained greater freedom of movement and a freer flow of ideas: we have also secured very stable relations between a large number of states that previously were often at war with each other. All Member States, since they are tied both politically and economically, have a great interest in preserving stability in Europe and are incredibly unlikely to engage in hostility. Simple economics does not prevent war, as shown by the amount of trade before World War I, but political unions ensure that differences are worked out through dialogue. Because of this, it seems unthinkable for war to happen in the near future, an achievement that has been recognised by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize (24). Eliminating the political union would compromise this great achievement.  (24) “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012”, Announcement, Prize Laureates, The Nobel Peace Prize. 12 October 2012.

Political union is necessary for Eurozone recovery  What is needed for the Eurozone to flourish is an economic-political union with a single budget, so that capital can flow to where it is needed and fiscal policy can make up for imbalances between Member States (20). The alternative, as we have seen, is internal devaluation, which is a very painful and excruciatingly ineffective ways of achieving the same for a ridiculous price. (21) The European Union therefore needs to be looking forward to more integration rather than backwards to less. More integration can fix many of the problems in Europe; balancing regional disparities through fiscal transfers, eliminating the democratic deficit through a more powerful parliament, and preventing problems with nationalism by empowering regions.  (20) Traynor, Ian. “Eurozone should form political union, says Germany’s ECB firefighter”, The Guardian.   (21) Persson, Mats. “Can the euro be saved through internal devaluation alone – and at what political cost?”, The Telegraph. 28 September 2012.

The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy  The EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.  (17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004.

The premise of this argument is that European countries are so connected that in entering war with another European country you would directly harm yourself. A European trade bloc is enough to ensure this, by interconnecting European economies to make war too expensive to be considered.  Furthermore, while it is clear that there have been no great wars since World War Two, conflicts have not entirely been prevented; to the extent that they have, perhaps it is not the EU’s merit as the EU did not do much to prevent conflict in the former Yugoslavia (25); finally, perhaps the EU may even be blamed for the rise of nationalism and ensuing political tension in countries such as Greece so there is a growing potential for future conflict as a direct result of political union (26).  (25) “The EU and the Nobel Peace Prize”, Charlemagne, The Economist. 12 October 2012.   (26) Mariam Onti, Nicky. “Soros Blames Merkel For Golden Dawn”, Greek Reporter. 7 October 2013.

European integration has been immensely beneficial to EU economies  The political union has had extensive benefits for the European trade bloc. Member States have the same legislation, for example, on labour conditions and protection of consumers (15). They also have similar property law. This allows products and ideas to freely move and be sold in different countries much more easily as there can be less bureaucracy at borders and companies can more easily expand abroad. The European political union also allows countries to streamline their production, students to access better international tuition, companies to move to countries where they can most boost growth, and cheap labour to move to where there is demand for their work as is currently the case with people from the Mediterranean countries moving to Germany for work, it is estimated that 80,000 south Europeans are moving to Germany every year (27). If the EU did not have a common legislation, its freedom of movement and thus its economic advantage would slow down.  (15) “Consumers”, Summaries of EU legislation, Europa.   (27) Connolly, Kate, “Young Spaniards flock to Germany to escape economic misery back home”, The Observer, 7 July 2013,

The Eurozone is not the same thing as the single market, which is the foundation of the EU trade bloc. It would probably even be good for Europe for the Eurozone to be dismantled as it would allow currency devaluations to restore competitiveness to failing economies in Europe’s periphery. The European trade bloc would certainly survive, and it is likely that the weaker economies would be in a much better position in the long-term because their products would be cheaper while still being a part of the single market (22). Further political union, on the other hand, would involve huge financial risks by eliminating any form of national flexibility to deal with economic problems. (23)  (22) See “This House Would Abolish the Single European Currency”, Debatabase.   (23) Issing, Otmar. “The case for political union isn’t convincing”, Europe’s World. 1 June 2013.

The benefits outlined in the argument are only valid if the political aspect of the EU functions efficiently. The EU’s undemocratic nature and unnecessary bureaucracy create uncertainty about whether the EU will even exist in the long-term. Adding to that the growing resentment to the EU in several Member States and looming referenda, the EU is an unstable entity.  A trade bloc, on the other hand, is not conflated with issues regarding sovereignty, national identity, immigration and other sensitive political issues. Therefore, it is likely to be considered safer by potential trading partners. When the EU is not a political agreement, foreign investors can have more trust that the countries involved now will remain involved in the future.

President Bush took a series of extremely difficult decisions that were necessary for national security. Admittedly they were expensive but they made the world a safer place. His decisions on taxation ensured that all Americans benefitted from economic growth.  He had already done the heavy lifting all the Obama administration needed to do was allow the market to bring the economy out of recession. Instead he has interfered and regulated while constantly spending money that wasn’t there on policies that weren’t priorities.  There’s no denying that the economy was in trouble when Obama got the keys to the West Wing but the job of being president is solving these things, not complaining about them. He wanted the job and has singularly failed to deliver.  Instead he has pursued a left-wing, interventionist agenda that believes that government can provide all the answers. Except there is a big problem: he has no experience of running anything. He was a junior Senator in an era where the country tends to turn to former governors to fill the Chief Executive’s jacket; he simply doesn’t know what he’s doing [i] .  [i] Emmett Tyrrell. "Barbour out on the hustings." The American Spectator. March 17th, 2011

After eight years of misrule under Bush, in the middle of an appalling recession expecting everything top get done in four years was always fantasy  Given the size of the challenges facing the Obama administration when he was elected, they were never going to be resolved in four years. Perhaps his largest mistake was not amending his “Yes, we can” slogan with the caveat “but it’s going to take a while.”  A debt of $14tn was never just going to vanish like the morning mist, particularly in the depths for a recession caused, in large part, by the Bush administration’s inability to regulate their friends in the banking industry, to start unnecessary wars and to give away tax breaks to the rich.  Equally, Obama came into the job at a time when most of the rest of the world was barely on speaking terms with the US and has had to rebuild bridges with all of the traditional allies beyond the ever loyal UK and Israel – although even they were looking edgy by the end of the bush era.  Even getting up to the starting line has taken the better part of his first term, it would be folly to hand the country and the economy back to the same people who caused the problem in the first place [i] .  [i] Steven Rattner. "Ron Suskind’s inaccurate revisionism." Politico. October 1, 2011

The republican primaries have yet to even begin so it is too soon to be writing off the whole party.

Obama has delivered some remarkable reforms in fantastically difficult circumstances  On matters as diverse as healthcare to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama has pulled a whole series of rabbits out of the apparently impossible hat he inherited from Bush.  Among other surprises he took the lead in a G20 summit that produced $1.1tn to act as a bailout fund. He’s effectively resolved the catastrophes in two major conflict zones. He’s ensured that poor families actually stay in their homes. Increased funding for student loans, extended unemployment insurance at a time when 7,000 Americans a week were losing their benefits and, on top of all that he’s introduced a healthcare package that will give security and peace of mind to millions of Americans.  All of this has been accomplished in the face of extraordinary difficulties that were not of his making [i] .  [i] Athleen Rosell. "Devil's Advocate: Re-Elect Obama." The Daily Titan. April 19th, 2011

Nobody denies that Obama talks a good game and that he came into office facing some big problems. However, the reality is that he simply hasn’t stepped up to the plate. The economy is a shambles; unemployment is at over nine percent and only looks to grow, the debt is running at $14tn and the deficit is out of control.  His much vaunted healthcare plan is a rehash of Mitt Romney’s plan in Massachusetts. His only solution to any problem is to throw money that the government doesn’t have at it [i] .  Ultimately, he has proved himself long on rhetoric but very short on delivery. His campaign was based on an idea that he could provide leadership to a nation in trouble. Instead he has rushed after either verbosity or inaction and frequently both [ii] .  [i] Karl Rove. "Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012." Wall Street Journal. June 22nd, 2011  [ii] John Feehery. "Opinion: Obama’s fatal missteps." The Hill. October 3rd, 2011

Given the current state of the Republican field and the gravity of the challenges facing the US, Obama may well be not only the best but the only hope  The Republican Party primary campaign currently resembles a dismembered chicken’s head in frantic search of a body. Palin, Trump, Perry… A string of gaffes followed by a collapse after collapse. [i]  Obama at the very least has the capacity to inspire confidence and the experience of four years in office. If, as seems most likely, the Republican candidate ends up being Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, then he would represent a figure who is almost as unpopular in his own party as he is with Democrats.  Divided and divisive a Republican victory in 2012 would fragment congress, terrify the markets and worry international opinion. Furthermore, the only policy option they appear to have suggested for dealing with the economic mess is to do nothing except, perhaps, cut taxes some more; thereby increasing the deficit and further angering China.  Unless the republicans can come up with a genuine surprise (and the guy they voted against last time really doesn’t fit that bill) then the voters are presented with one very harsh reality: Vote for anybody, as long as it’s Obama [ii] .  [i] Dionne, E.J. Jr., “The Rise of the Reverse Houdinis”, 13 October 2011 .  [ii] E.J. Dionne. “GOP’s Favorite Solution: Doing Nothing”. Real Clear Politics. 13 October 2011.

There is a perennial Republican attack – that Democrats cannot be trusted with national security. Obama has proven that to be untrue settling issues in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has, however, managed to do it without offending anybody or having his effigy burnt on the streets in Canada and Europe [i] .  He has managed to re-forge the supportive attitude of much of the world towards combating terrorism and worked with leaders of other major economies to tackle the economic troubles in the global economy. President Bush was the one always looking for votes with his fake bonhomie and folksy charm for the voters back home. Obama by contrast treats his allies with respect and receives it in return and abundance. [ii]  [i] President Obama. "Let's reclaim the post-9/11 unity." USA Today. September 08, 2011  [ii] President Obama. "Let's reclaim the post-9/11 unity." USA Today. September 08, 2011

Obama took the lead in putting together an international solution to the financial crisis. He has taken bold decisions to prevent the crisis turning into a full-blown depression, such as pushing through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which was to give an estimated $787billion stimulus to the economy, [i] and has acted to control the worst excesses of Wall Street through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. [ii] He has passed consumer protections legislation relating to credit cards and mortgages and established a framework to double US exports by 2015. He created and Advanced Manufacturing Fund to help the economy away from its addiction to the antics of Wall Street wide boys and return the focus to industries that make something tangible and, in the same spirit, rescued Detroit from its own suicidal tendencies.  He has freely conceded that unemployment is too high and is working to address that in the midst of an economic crisis that was not of his making. However, he is delivering public policy solutions in new and imaginative areas as opposed to the tired claims of Republicans that yet another tax cut would be a panacea for all economic ills.  [i] Recovery.gov, ‘The Recovery Act’  [ii] The Library of Congress Thomas, ‘H.R.4173 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’, 111th Congress 2009-2010

Obamacare is neither one thing nor the other; even his flagship policy shows that Obama is always the politician and never the leader that the US needs  Obama managed to steer a bill that everyone disliked through Congress. He angered the Republicans, and lost the support of some democrats in congress, 39 voted against the bill, [i] as well as more than a few Democrat voters, and ended up watering it down enough that his own core supporters failed to show up for congressional elections in 2010. [ii]  He is reluctant to show leadership in any area of policy and when he does, as Mitt Romney puts it, acts more as “a politician in chief than a commander in chief” [iii] .  From the outset the President has been considerably more about spin than substance, usually trying to pass off his own mistakes as those of someone else. Of course all politicians do this but, usually, they also do something else as well; Obama is a one trick pony.  [i] Cannon, Carl M., ‘The 39 House Democrats who Voted Against Their Party’s Health Care Bill’, Politics Daily, 8 November 2009.  [ii] Best, Samuel J. Best, ‘Why Democrats Lost the House to Republicans’, CBS News, 3 November 2010.  [iii] Mitt Romney. "We need a leader, not a politician." USA Today. June 10th, 2010

Obama has no clear foreign policy agenda  Obama’s foreign policy to date has, frankly been a mess. He has failed to stand up to Iran and has allowed both Russia and China to take advantage of his ‘reset’ policy. He has ignored the growth of hostile powers while showing a similar disregard for America’s Allies.  Simply by dint of not being Bush, Obama had the possibility of a huge upsurge in support overseas but he has tended to act more the clown than the statesman at international gatherings, for example insulting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the G20 summit in Cannes; responding to French President Sarkozy he said "You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day." [i] Once again his desire to be the politician than the leader applies even at events where nobody has the vote. [ii] [iii]  [i] FoxNews.com, ‘White House Silent on Conversation With French President Insulting Israeli Prime Minister’, 8 November 2011  [ii] Nile Gardiner. "Barack Obama’s disastrous first 1,000 days." The Telegraph. October 18th, 2011  [iii] "Goldberg: Obama, abroad, is adrift." LA Times. September 6th, 2011

Obama has singularly failed to resolve Americas economic woes, which was the single largest issue when he was elected  Beyond the rhetoric, beyond the inspirational speeches, there was one issue on voters’ minds when they supported Obama; the economy and jobs. He has simply failed to deliver.  He likes to portray himself as the master of public policy; a kind of philosopher king. However the reality couldn’t be further from the truth [i] . On the issue that has dominated international discourse since his election, the economic meltdown, he has simply failed to deliver. He accepted a fiscal stimulus package that contained plenty in the way of pork but little in terms of practicality. He has failed to create jobs, the unemployment rate is still at 9% up from 7.8% when he became President. [ii] And Obama has singularly failed to tackle the deficit, which has increased by $4 trillion since he took office, [iii] apparently seeming more interested in spending on unnecessary projects.  [i] Jonah Goldberg. "Where's the evidence Obama's a policy genius?" National Review Online. October 9th, 2011  [ii] Rogers, Simon, ‘US jobless date: how has unemployment changed under Obama?’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 7 October 2011.  [iii] Knoller, Mark, ‘National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama’, CBS News, 22 August 2011.

The reality is fairly simple; Obama is a skilled politician, that is beyond dispute. However, he is also a respected constitutional scholar, the man who caught Bin Laden after eight years of Bush-bluster, who delivered the Democrats – and the American people - their holy grail of universal healthcare.  Contrast this with a Republican leadership who either can’t remember their own policies or who seem to base them on assertions, such as the one made by Michelle Bachman that Jefferson and Mason, both of whom owned slaves, worked tirelessly to abolish slavery. [i] Mitt Romney the candidate the Rupublicans finally decided on is out of touch with ordinary voters, making gaffes such as saying his wife drives 'a couple of cadillacs'.  The contrast could not be clearer; at least the president knows the difference between the War of Independence and the Civil War and cares about ordinary voters.  [i] Roper, Richard, ‘Bachmann, Palin should just admit gaffes, then move on, Chicago Sun Times, 29 June 2011.

This is based on several potentially faulty assumptions first the trust fund may not be aimed at helping to prevent pollution of clean up afterwards; it may simply be given the role of generating the biggest possible return. Second it assumes that politicians see themselves as tied to the people so that they have a reason to prevent pollution, in practice in an autocracy or a faulty democracy this may not be the case. The desire may therefore be to invest as much money as possible in the trust fund and therefore to exploit the resource as fully and cheaply as possible. Even if the money is going into a trust fund the self interest is in polluting as we should remember that dictators are likely to believe they will still be around to see the benefits in decades to come.

A fund would prevent pollution  Environmental damage is an example of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ where if a resource is not owned by an individual (or is free to all) then it will be overexploited. This is because it is in everyone’s self-interest to use it as much as possible. The result is pollution; politicians and oil companies want to exploit the oil as cheaply as possible so they dump pollution on the local population.  For example, the $19 billion ruling handed down last year by a court in Lago Agrio, a town near Ecuador’s border with Colombia, held Chevron accountable for health and environmental damages resulting from chemical-laden wastewater dumped from 1964 to 1992(1).  Putting oil wealth into a trust fund can help prevent this kind of abuse. There are two reasons for this. First if politicians are not getting an immediate benefit they will be less inclined to overlook pollution and there won’t be money to buy support for drilling and pollution to continue. The second is that since the fund is meant to provide long term benefits and investments one of the things it can be doing is being devoted to cleaning up any pollution that is created thus protecting the future generations.  (1) Joe Carroll, Rebecca Penty &amp; Katia Dmitrieva ” Chevron’s $19 Billion ‘Disaster’ Gets Hearing”, Bloomberg, 29 November 2012,

Not all politicians are incapable of investing for the long term. After the economic crisis in which the world saw the perils of “living in the moment”, politicians will be more cautious in the way they spend money. Politicians have in the past been able to build visionary projects such as the EU, or high speed rail, or invest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; in Europe, domestic greenhouse gas emissions fell by over 15 % between 1990 and 2010, due also to improvements in energy and fuel efficiency, so there is no reason to think they could not do so again.(1)  As a result, we do not need a separate group for taking these decisions for the politicians, as they would do it by themselves.  (1) European Environment Agency, “Mixed success for European environmental policies”, Spiral, 2012

Oil wealth flowing to politicians discourages democracy  The wealth from oil, or other natural resources, holds back democratization as a result of the “resources curse” or “paradox of plenty”. Resources provide money, and money is what is needed to run a security state. When money can come from natural resources there is little need to tax the people, instead it becomes a “rentier” economy where the dictator has resources to buy support without recourse to taxation. [1] It is essentially the opposite of the well-known idea ‘no taxation without representation’; if the money comes not from taxes but from oil what need is there for democracy?  This proposal takes away the option of having access to large oil revenues instead providing only a limited amount to the state rather than the pockets of the dictator. This prevents the buying of key groups such as the army and the policy who can be used to repress the population. It is not by chance that the only countries in the Arab Middle East that could be considered democracies before the Arab Spring never had oil; Jordan and Lebanon.  [1] Michel Chatelus and Yves Scehmeil, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262

The biggest problem African countries face is instability whether from rebellions, coups, international conflicts, or terrorist organisation. The inevitable result is violence. What the population needs is safety to enable social benefits like healthcare and education. Money to pay for an army can therefore be a good thing. A good well paid professional force is needed to ensure stability and prevent conflict. Nigeria for example would surely have split apart without a large army; violence from terrorist groups like Boko Haram is increasing creating Muslim-Christian tensions.(1) Without stability there can be no democracy; votes can’t be held, so financing for stability is a good thing.  Egypt is a good example that shows a well-trained army can work for the benefit of democracy; it first stood aside while the people overthrew Egyptian dictator Mubarak and then stepped in when it was believed Morsi threatened democracy.  (1) “Nigeria’s troubles ,Getting worse”, The Economist, Jul 14th 2012   (2) Siddique, Haroon, ‘Egypt army was ‘restoring democracy’, claims Kerry’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013,

Having oil does not just provide the money to undermine, or prevent democracy taking hold; it also provides an immense source for corruption. Oil revenues provide a revenue stream that is not dependent on the people but simply upon the global market and oil production. In a country with no checks and balances, accountability or transparency the money will inevitably go to the elite. This is how Equatorial Guinea can be rich while having most of the population in poverty. Dictator Obiang himself is worth an estimated $700million or the equivalent of about 4% of GDP.(1)  A trust fund can ensure that money from oil goes to the poorest not the richest. It is managed outside the country and away from political pressure. If the government is corrupt and uses the national budget to its own ends the trust fund can provide the dividends as investment in individual development projects to ensure the money is used where it is most needed. All the time it can be transparent to show when and where the government is trying to influence it or get backhanders.  (1) ‘The Richest World Leaders Are Even Richer Than You Thought’, Huffington Post, 29 November 2013,

Long term benefits  It is very tempting to recklessly use an unexpected windfall of money immediately. But the best thing to do is to invest for the long term either to build infrastructure that will pay back its cost in future economic growth, or to invest it in funds that will continue paying dividends long into the future. The example of how Britain and Norway spent their North Sea oil revenues is very revealing: “the British governments spent their North Sea winnings on cutting national borrowing and keeping down taxes. Whatever came in went straight into the day-to-day budget. By contrast, for the past 16 years Norway has squirreled away the government's petroleum revenue in a national oil fund”(1) which now has $810 billion in assets, almost twice the country’s GDP, providing 5% returns.(2)  The advantage of such investment is that they will continue to bring income even after the oil is gone. The oil will therefore benefit future generations as well as the current one. A panel of experts which are immune to political influence is the most likely body to think about long-term needs of the country and devise a plan which can ultimately bring income for a long period of time.  (1) Simon Gompertz “Has the UK squandered its North Sea riches?” , BBC News , 8 October 2012   (2) Jonas Bergman, “World’s Biggest Wealth Fund Says Record Size Is Posing Hurdles”, Bloomberg, 1 November 2013,

Preventing Corruption  Having oil does not just provide the money to undermine, or prevent democracy taking hold; it also provides an immense source for corruption. Oil revenues provide a revenue stream that is not dependent on the people but simply upon the global market and oil production. In a country with no checks and balances, accountability or transparency the money will inevitably go to the elite. This is how Equatorial Guinea can be rich while having most of the population in poverty. Dictator Obiang himself is worth an estimated $700million or the equivalent of about 4% of GDP.(1)  A trust fund can ensure that money from oil goes to the poorest not the richest. It is managed outside the country and away from political pressure. If the government is corrupt and uses the national budget to its own ends the trust fund can provide the dividends as investment in individual development projects to ensure the money is used where it is most needed. All the time it can be transparent to show when and where the government is trying to influence it or get backhanders.  (1) ‘The Richest World Leaders Are Even Richer Than You Thought’, Huffington Post, 29 November 2013,

The change need not be dramatic; it need not apply to all oil revenues at once. For example only revenues from new fields could go into the independent fund while existing revenues to the government are maintained. Services therefore won’t need to undergo contraction.  The impact on politics would also be minor; people elect those who get things done not those who blame others for their problems. Moreover all of the politicians will have the same constraint of a lack of funds so no single party will have an unfair advantage.

Politicians only think about themselves and only for the short term looking for re-election. The result will be the money used for populist measures even if it is not sustainable. The example of Greece proves this idea, as there public sector wages rose 50% between 1999 and 2007, despite having a deficit (1). Everyone wants more money, so will vote for such measures. They don’t think about the question of how that money will be acquired in the long run so will go for unsustainable policies that kick the problem to future generations. Only an independent body will be immune to short-termism.  (1) ‘Eurozone crisis explained’, BBC News, 27 November 2012,

An independent trust fund discourages investment.  When it is politicians who control both the investment and the amount funds being returned from that investment then they have an incentive to encourage more investment. They will want more exploration to find more resources, they will promote technological advances to be able to extract more from the same fields, and they will be willing to grant more production licences.  If on the other hand the money goes into a trust fund then the government and parliament has little incentive to encourage the market and every incentive to hold it up. The oil only provides a risk; unpopularity due to environmental impacts without any benefit in return.  The result will be that the costs of drilling will be seen in the environmental damage it causes while communities do not get any of the benefit as the money is being squirreled away ‘for the future’. This is hindering the market and so reducing the economic benefits to the country.

Keeping funds from government has negative consequences for spending  Let us not forget that in most of the cases when we talk about oil revenues, we are talking about very large sums of money, which can have an immense impact on the budget.  In countries where oil already contributes to the budget any change could be immensely disruptive to the government’s ability to deliver services. If we take Venezuela as an example oil revenues account for 25% of GDP (1), with government expenditure of 50% of GDP (2) any drop in oil revenues would have an immense impact upon social policies such as education, health and welfare. For those where the funding would be new that country would be foregoing a potentially transformative sum of money that could help to eliminate poverty or provide universal healthcare and education.  Such a drop in funds flowing into the government would also have a huge impact on politics; politicians would block the implementation of a proposal that takes away so much revenue. If it did happen the independent fund would simply get criticism heaped on it as an excuse for why services can’t be improved.  (1) Annual Statistical Bulletin 2013, ‘Venezuela facts and figures’, OPEC, 2013,   (2) 2013 Index of Economic Freedom, ‘Venezuela’, Heritage Foundation, 2013,

For the people and accountable to the people  A country’s resources should be used democratically. The resources that are found under the soil belong to the nation and therefore they should be used for the benefit of the people. Even where there is private ownership extending to mineral and energy resources it is the responsibility of the owners to use those resources for the good of the nation. The only way for this to happen is if there is a democratically accountable body in charge of the funding; this has to mean a democratic parliament.  Putting the money in an ‘independent fund’ is not very accountable. Even if it is independent there is no saying what the money will be used for, or that the fund is not really designed to funnel money back to a few individuals.

Is it better that money should be wasted immediately or should the return be spread out? Any prudent population would choose the latter. Most populations are wary of untrammelled exploitation of natural resources of the kind being promoted for fear of the devastating environmental impact.  Recent failures of big companies to protect the environment, like Chevron(1), only add to this discontent and lack of trust. The case of Rosia Montana Gold Company which wants to get a permit to mine for gold in Romania is also very illustrative. Following the request of this company to exploit certain mountainous areas in the Carpathian, a series of nation-wide protests have emerged. Thousands of people from across the nation are going out on the streets on a weekly basis to protest against this project.(2)  An independent fund won’t disincentivise investment; money will still be returned to the nation’s treasury to be used by politicians but because it takes longer to flow into the treasury there is less incentive for reckless investment that disregards the people’s will.  (1) “Chevron's Toxic Legacy in Ecuador”, Rainforest Action Network,   (2) Vlad Ursulean “Stopping Europe's biggest gold mine”, Al Jazeera, 27 Nov 2013

The opportunities for trade are severely limited because of barriers imposed by the international system. The arguments made by pro-trade proponents are often couched in the rhetoric of market economics. Yet the international trade arena represents anything but a free market. Instead, tariffs, taxes, subsidies, regulations and other restrictions operate to disadvantage some countries. Because of their weaker bargaining and economic power, it is typically developing not developed countries that are on the losing end of this equation. The agricultural protectionism of the EU and USA, in particular, means that developing countries are unable to compete fairly.  Furthermore, even if we were to accept that trade is more important, they should not be seen as alternatives; they can readily be complements. Trade is not inevitably magic and aid is not inevitably damaging. They depend on complementary policies. For example, aid-for-infrastructure programs that encourage trade could enable African exporters to compete with their Asian competitors 1.  1. UNIDO, Industrial Development Report, 2009.

Trade provides developing countries with an important basis for their own improvement.  To gear up to be successful trading partners, developing countries often need to go through a number of key changes. As well as developing their own economy and their manufacturing or service sectors, they may need to build trade infrastructure in other ways. For example, increased trade would focus their attention on such things as good governance, the benefits of a broadly stable currency and internal security. Although such developments may come about as a facilitator for trade, in the best case scenario they may be seen as structural changes which will have a trickle-down benefit for the broader society in the underdeveloped country. China for example has reformed its agriculture, created a large manufacturing sector and is increasingly moving into high tech sectors as a result of trading with, particularly exporting to, the rich world and as a result has lifted more than 600 million people out of poverty between 1981 and 2004 1.  1 The World Bank, 'Results Profile: China Poverty Reduction', 19 March 2010, Retrieved 2 September 2011 from worldbank.org:

Trade can be as short term as aid is; demand is very cyclical so if a country specializes in providing that good or service it can soon find that the product they are providing is no longer desired by consumers, or that there is a new product that makes what they provide obsolete. Even if there is a long term partnership between two trading partners it may simply mean tying the poor country into a different kind of dependency. Instead of the poor country being dependent upon handouts it is dependent upon the richer country buying its products or not trying to undercut it.

Financial contributions from the West have proved detrimental for Africa.  Between 1970 and 1998 when aid was at its peak, poverty rose alarmingly from 11% to 66%. This statistic alone suggests aid is damaging to African welfare. Africa began borrowing money in the 1970s when interest rates were low, but a rising rates in 1979 caused 11 African countries to default. Even after restructuring, they fell deeper into debt. While the Marshall Plan had been a success, the same approach would not favor Africa; as Dambisa Moyo contends, it lacks the required institutions to utilize capital efficiently. Debt servicing meant money was passing from the poor to the rich, leaving Africa in a precarious global position. Furthermore, countries which have rejected aid as an approach to combat poverty have prospered, indicating an additional correlation between aid and a ruined economy 1.  1 Edemariam, A. (2009, February 19). 'Everybody knows it doesn't work'. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from The Guardian:

While aid appears unsuccessful for Africa, the approach itself should not be criticized on the basis of results in one continent. Western countries have simply provided African countries with generous payments allowing them to stabilize their economy. It many aspects of life, emphasis is not often attributed to what resources are available but how they are used. Though more guidance on how to invest the money may have been useful, Africa itself must take responsibility for how it has spent the money. The evil behind aid is allegedly overreliance: a country becomes dependent on receiving more and more aid. However, a focused approach to budget and organization of capital could certainly put aid to good use.

Resources will only be scarcer without aid; further chaos and corruption will ensue. There would be no need for fighting should resources be shared out equally. If aid is transferred to governments there is surely a centralized method of doing so; aid itself is not the problem. Africa could escape the issue of receiving payments according to donors’ vested interests by administering a list of causes for which it desires support, accepting contributions where demands fall exclusively within its categories. Again, aid is not detrimental but its careless distribution and allocation is.

Trade is a long-term basis for international co-operation.  Whereas aid is mostly short term, particularly for individual projects or limited to the donors priorities, the other partner in a trading relationship is likely to represent an ongoing market for goods or services. So when a developing country has the capacity to engage in trade with another country, there is a strong likelihood that that trade will blossom into an ongoing trading partnership. This will allow a firm basis for a flow of cash or goods into the developing country, largely independently of whether the developed country is doing well or badly economically at a given moment. This can be contrasted to the flow of aid. It tends to be less predictable, both because it is manipulated for political reasons and also because it can be quite ephemeral and so, if the developed country goes through a bad economic time, the aid budget makes an easy target for a reduction in spending as is shown by the arguments in the United States where the USAID Administrator Shah "We estimate, and I believe these are very conservative estimates, that H.R. 1[bill passed by republicans in the house cutting foreign spending] would lead to 70,000 kids dying,"1.European trade with Africa may have decreased, but China’s demand for oil and raw materials is blossoming, and Africa is becoming a major supplier 2.  1 Rogin, Josh, 'Shah: GOP budget would kill 70,000 children', foreignpolicy.com, 31 March 2011, Retrieved 1 September 2011 from Foreign Policy  2 Moyo, D. (2009, March 21). Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from The Wall Street Journal:

Systemic aid' is detrimental to African society  While aid threatens the economy, it also poses hazards for society in Africa. As Moyo contends, it merely fosters civil war as people fight over scarce resources that cannot feasibly be equally distributed. According to Dr Napoleoni, $1.6bn of $1.8bn in aid received by Ethiopia in 1982 – 1985 was invested in military equipment1.  As a result aid is often limited; some donors refuse to make payments unless a proportion is devoted to a specified cause or if some act is done in return. Moyo refers George Bush’s demand that two thirds of his $15bn donation towards AIDs must go to pro-abstinence schemes. Such requirements further impede Africa’s ability to create a domestic policy and think for itself. Aid is solely to blame for its dependent state.  1 Herrick, L. (2008, May 14). Money raised for Africa 'goes to civil wars'. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from New Zealand Herald

Aid money is often misspent, even when handled honestly. By imposing solutions from outside, it favors big projects, "grand gestures" and centralization - all of which may be inappropriate, only benefit a small number of people, and suffer from intended consequences. By contrast, the profits of trade trickle down to the whole population, giving people the power to spend additional income as they choose, for example by reinvesting it in worthwhile local industries and enterprises.

All countries have something to trade. Many of the world’s poorest countries have a lot of natural resources so they can take part in trade. Even if a country does not have sufficient natural resources it still has people. In order to be able to take part in the globalized manufacturing industry it need only be willing to accept lower wages than its rivals. Alternatively if it is landlocked and has not opportunity to trade in manufactures it can invest in education in order to become a services hub. All states have a comparative advantage somewhere, they just need to find it.

Trade requires infrastructure  Trade does not exist in a vacuum. It needs a wider infrastructure to support it, e.g. roads, railways, ports, education to produce capable civil servants to administer trading rules, etc. For example Malawi as a landlocked country needs roads and railways to link it to ports in neighboring Angola and Mozambique. Without foreign aid, developing countries are not able to develop this kind of support, and so cannot participate effectively in international trade.  This is even more the case when it comes to creating the necessary legal infrastructure and effective civil service. Aid is not always in the form of money - it may also be given through expert advisors who help countries prepare for the challenges of globalization. Such were the efforts in the 1960s by the developing world, but they were dropped in favor of poverty relief. If restarted and restructured, they would yield much better results, without the fear of commodity prices dropping, enabling African countries to eventually stand on their own two feet. Corruption is a potentially huge problem as recognized by Sudan People’s Liberation Movement Secretary General Pagan Amum "We will have a new government with no experience at governing. Our institutions are weak or absent. There will be high expectations. Hundreds of millions of dollars of oil money will be coming our way, as well as inflows of foreign aid. It's a recipe for corruption.1" As a result it is not physical infrastructure that is needed but rather mechanisms for preventing corruption. Something that aid will always be much better at achieving than trade.  1 Klitgaard, Robert, 'Making a Country', ForeignPolicy.com, 7 January 2011, Retrieved 2 September 2011 from ForeignPolicy.com

The global economy is not welcoming to African players  The international trade arena represents anything but a free market. Instead, tariffs, taxes, subsidies, regulations and other restrictions operate to disadvantage some countries. Because of their weaker bargaining and economic power, it is typically developing not developed countries that are on the losing end of this equation. The agricultural protectionism of the EU and USA, in particular, means that developing countries are unable to compete fairly. In the EU, for example, each cow gets over 12 USD every day, which is many times more than what the average Sub-Saharan person lives on 1. Furthermore, Africa has yet to break into the global market for manufactured exports: this is very difficult precisely because of the success of low-income Asia.  1 BBC News. (2008, November 20). Q&amp;A: Common Agricultural Policy. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from BBC News:

Trade does not allocate resources effectively  Aid allows for money in a given country to be allocated well against need. At the micro- level as well as the macro, trade is an inefficient distributor of resources in a developing country. Under it, most if not all of the benefit of the trade will stay with a small elite of people who are often amongst the richest in the country in the first place. They may then move the money offshore again. Alternatively, if it remains within the developing country, it may well simply be used to buttress their own position in a way which further entrenches their social and economic position. So, the benefits of trade flow to few people and often they are the least needy. Aid, by contrast, may be targeted against specifically identified groups or areas on the basis of need, often being given through local groups, such as churches, mosques, health clinics, etc. If one looks at the Gini index (income and wealth equality) ranking, it is plain that the top (most inequality) is occupied by Sub-Saharan countries, fortifying the point 1.  1 Mongabay. (2010, January 25). Distribution of Family Income. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from Mongabay:

Free trade is dangerous  Exposing fragile developing economies to free trade is very risky. There is a short-term danger that a flood of cheap (because of developed world subsidies) imports will wreck local industries that are unable to compete fairly. For example China’s dominance in textile manufacturers has reduced the amount African countries can export to the US and Europe and is causing protests in Zimbabwe and South Africa against cheap imported Chinese clothing. 1  In the longer term economies are likely to become dangerously dependent upon "cash crops" or other commodities produced solely for export (e.g. rubber, coffee, cocoa, copper, zinc), rather than becoming self-sufficient. Such economies are very vulnerable to big swings on the international commodity markets, and can quickly be wrecked by changes in supply and demand. For illustration, one only needs to look at Greenfield’s “Free market-free fall” 2. He writes: “Trade liberalization encouraged increased production, leading to overproduction that pushed down prices, driving down farmers’ incomes…” Combined with the protectionism of the West (the CAP in the EU) trade is dangerous for Africa. Aid is more stable and certain, and is better for frail countries.  1Africapractice, 'The Impact of the Chinese Presence in Africa', 26 April 2007, retrieved 1 September 2011 from David and Associates  2Greenfield, G. (n.d.). Free Market Free Fall. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from UNCTAD:

Even if that were true, people naturally want to trade with each other, seeking to turn their particular resources or skills to their advantage. All too often trade is limited not because government action is needed, but because the government actually gets in the way with restrictive rules and statist controls. For example, regardless of their terms of trade with developed nations, developing countries could all become more prosperous if they removed the barriers they have erected to trade with each other. Putting the emphasis on trade rather than aid redirects attention from what developed states should or could be doing for the developing world, to what developing countries can and should do for themselves.

Trade may not help those most in need.  Aid is linked to need. Trade rewards those who are able and willing to engage in trade. This involves a number of elements – as well as having the rights sorts and quantity of goods and services and being willing to sell at the desired price, a country may need to meet certain other criteria of a purchasing country. For example, that country may make demands in terms of corruption, human rights, political support at the United Nations, or any other of a large number of possible preconditions for a trading partnership. This will suit some countries in the developing world. But for others it will act as a bar to trade. They will therefore not receive the redistribution of wealth that is claimed for the global trading web. In this way, trade can distribute its benefits very unevenly. By contrast, aid can in theory be more evenly distributed and can be targeted against identified need rather than against the ability to compete in a trading marketplace. While aid has not always been targeted effectively and has sometimes been wasted there have been efforts to increase accountability and coordinate aid better such as the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 1.  1 Development Co-operation Directorate, 'Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action', OECD, Retrieved 2 September 2011 from oecd.org:

This argument borders on the absurd. Trade is much more likely to yield benefits for the ordinary men and women of Africa, than aid ever hoped to be. Aid and its unregulated flow are precisely what kept numerous dictators in power (Zimbabwe’s Mugabe, to name but one) allowing them to starve their people while taking weekend trips to the Ivory Coast in private jets. Trade, on the contrary, creates jobs, and those jobs create demand for other jobs - which is what matters to the ordinary person.

Yes, trade might require infrastructure, but Asian countries required it just as much, maybe more than the African ones do. As Moyo argues in “Dead Aid” all of this is to be achieved not by clinging to aid, but by creating a stable enough atmosphere with favorable terms for FDI. The Chinese have already invested billions of dollars in Africa and are likely to invest much more. That way, the African countries get both trade and infrastructure, without being at the mercy of developed nations.

Corruption in any form creates inefficiency and ‘drag’ on the economy – it is an unofficial form of transaction tax and has the same effect on the economy.  The proposition focuses on the ‘seen’ detriment to public servants of losing income from bribery but ignores the ‘unseen’ benefit of ending bribery which is that the cost of living naturally falls with the cost of doing business.

Bribery is sometimes necessary for survival  "Survival" corruption, practised by public servants, is usually the result of small salaries, perhaps in highly inflationary economies, which do not allow them to make a living. Such as with the junior police officers mentioned in the previous point. Without bribery, public administration would collapse altogether as no one would have any incentive to get anything done. Thus the level of corruption is determined by the poor economic situation of the country as well as by the policy of the government.

The developed world also carries part of responsibility for the situation in the developing world due to its role as the bribe-payer. After all, it is largely multinational corporate interests that supply the bribe payments. They defraud the citizens of developing countries who get a less good deal as a result, as well as the interests of shareholders at home whose money is diverted into the pockets of foreign officials. This shows the necessity of treating the bribing of foreign officials as a criminal offence in companies’ home countries. It also requires the publication of all payments relating to foreign deals.

Individuals may have no choice  People are often made to give bribes to officials because of unfavourable economic, social or bureaucratic conditions. Officials may refuse to serve clients unless they are paid. For example in Delhi police officers regularly take lunch without paying and more senior officers take 10,000 each month to allow the restaurant to stay open late. [1] In those countries where state institutions are extremely corrupted, refusal to give a bribe may cost financial losses for business representatives or even health and liberty for citizens who need medical service and access to justice.  [1] Burke, Jason, ‘Corruption in India: ‘All your life you pay for things that should be free’, guardian.co.uk, 19 August 2011,

The position of civil society plays a key role in reducing corruption. Its action in taking a moral stand against corrupted officials is an important precondition for effective anticorruption policy. Hence, citizens who put up with the necessity to give a bribe become a part of the problem. It is not just the case of public officials abusing their positions, but of people who are tempted to choose the easiest way out. Recent developments in India show how quickly expectations can change once people begin to make a stand. Anna Hazare went on a hunger strike creating a mass movement against bribery. Now there are websites such as ipaidabribe.com popping up to shine a spotlight on corruption. [1] The change is the first step in the fight against corruption.  [1] Campion, Mukti Jain, ‘Bribery in India: A website for whistleblowers’, BBC News, 6 June 2011,

In different cultures the lines between the acceptable and unacceptable are drawn differently. However, there are limits in all societies, beyond which an action becomes corrupt and unacceptable. The abuse of power for private gain and the siphoning off of public or common resources to private pockets should be illegal and unacceptable in all cultures and societies.

Bribery is sometimes the cost of doing business  Bribery is often inevitable for foreign companies that invest in those countries, where corruption is widespread and the conditions for business development are unfavourable. In Russia IKEA, the Swedish furniture company, was asked to pay bribes to get electricity for its stores and refused hiring generators instead, however the generators themselves had their price inflated, as a result IKEA suspended investment in Russia. [1] It illustrates that bribe giving is just a result of political system with weak democratic traditions. That is why many companies from developed countries, where corruption levels are low, tend to practise bribery in the developing world.  [1] Kramer, Andrew E., ‘Ikea Tries to Build Public Case Against Russian Corruption’, The New York Times, 11 September 2009,

Bribery is only wrong under a Western-centric notion of corruption  Norms and values differ between countries. In many non-western societies gift taking and giving in the public realm is a matter of traditions and customs. Moreover, gift giving is a part of negotiations and relationship building in some parts of the world. It is hypocritical for the west to target developing countries for this as many so-called democracies are hopelessly compromised by business interests through political funding and lobbying.  The United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bans large bribes but allows for the payment of small ‘customary’ sums in order to ease transactions. [1]  [1] The Economist, ‘When a bribe is merely facilitating business’ June 11th 2011,

Foreign companies simply adapt to the political and economic conditions that exist in different countries. You cannot blame them for high level of corruption, which is the inner problem of the state. Involvement of business representatives in anti-corruption actions may contradict their interests by providing access to commercially sensitive information. If bribery was banned, companies would be unable to operate, resulting in less investment and so less development in some countries.

Corruption is not always wrong – it can sometimes be a reaction to greater injustice. For example, the Mafia arose in 19th Century Southern Italy as a mediating institution for an ‘in group’ facing autocratic tyranny. Outsiders are treated badly, but then most groups of people that we label as legitimate also treat outsiders differently to their members.

Variation in standards leads to a ‘race to the bottom’ of corruptibility  International standards on prosecution of companies who bribe foreign officials may encourage positive changes in national legislation as well, thus eliminating legal flaws to combat corruption. Different national rules and standards for combating corruption are not sufficient in the era of global investments and international business transactions. Variation between national standards enables corruption to spread. In much the same way as companies and rich individuals make use of tax havens and places where taxes are lower and less regulated, all but two of the UK’s FTSE 100 of top companies are set up in tax havens, [1] companies wishing to hide illicit transactions may attempt to take advantage of weaker standards, wherever they are found. In India national laws have clearly not worked with relation to political parties as only one of 45 parties has provided information in response to the Right to Information act. [2] That is why international efforts to ensure the prosecution of the companies that bribe foreign officials are necessary in the current situation.  [1] Provost, Claire, ‘Tax havens and the FTSE 100: the full list’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2011,   [2] Times of India, ‘One out of 45 parties disclose information on sources of funding’, 20 July 2013,

The demand for bribes would end if companies stopped supplying them  The risk of corruption demand greater transparency from business. Companies have a big impact on the social environment and they have a responsibility to address it. Co-operative actions between the business sector and state institutions are essential for effective anti-corruption policy.  Companies that gain a reputation for reporting officials asking for bribes will find that officials stop asking for them. In turn they need a legislative environment that protects their interests. The OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials is an important step forward in this sphere. [1]  [1] ‘OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions’, oecd.org, 1997,

Bribery is morally wrong  Corruption is the misuse of power for financial gain. It takes the core harm from unequal distribution of wealth and the resulting disparity in availability of goods and services and magnifies it by including access to just and nominally public services. It must always disproportionately harm the least well off in society either by denying them what is theirs by right or by forcing them into financial hardship to obtain it.

The bribery of foreign officials cannot be fought by international means efficiently if the level of corruption at the national level is high. It depends on the political will of national governments, the activities of civil society and other social conditions that exists inside the state. This explains why in many countries there has been little enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials. [1] In most OECD countries the political will to prosecute major bribery cases is lacking. This explains why international efforts to combat corruption are inefficient.  [1] Transparency International, ‘2008 Progress Report on Enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions’, 22 June 2008,

The much-acclaimed simplicity of the flat tax in fact makes it too simple to properly reflect a very complicated reality. Goods and services vary in order to make them accessible to different people; there exist both luxury and economy versions of the same goods because companies recognise that people have differing ability and willingness to pay, and hence price these goods differently. It would therefore be strange for the state to tax both kinds of good at the same rate, as if their respective buyers had the same discretionary income and could both afford to buy the product with the additional uniform flat tax on it.

Why a flat tax is simpler:  The current system of 'progressive' taxation whereby higher earners are taxed a higher percentage of their income requires the identification and administration of multiple different tax brackets spanning the entire spectrum of earnings in a nation. This causes a number of problems. The brackets themselves may be largely arbitrary cut-off lines based around round numbers, with no real justification as to why one person increasing their earnings by as little as £1000 should lead to them suddenly being propelled to a new tax bracket, when the actual difference to their income is negligible in overall terms. Moreover, the administration of multiple tax brackets is incredibly complicated and difficult, requiring every taxpayer to record their income and expenditure (in order to try and qualify for tax exemptions and 'loopholes') in meticulous detail and then to properly express this on lengthy and complicated government forms, a process which can cause anger, frustration and alienation amongst taxpayers. [1] In order to try and prevent tax evasion, governments are consequently compelled to have large bureaucracies that oversee this process and comb through looking for fraud, a costly and lengthy process. This may be contrasted with a flat tax system by taking the example of taxes on salaries paid to employees by a company under both systems. In the status quo, a tax collector must be aware in detail of exactly what is being paid to whom in order to ensure that everyone declares their income truthfully, allowing them to be placed in the correct bracket. However, under a flat tax, a tax collector could simply withhold the fixed flat tax rate (for example 20%) of the total company's payroll without needing to know what was paid to whom, as every pound is taxed at the same rate and thus it does not matter what goes to whom. This would allow for a massive simplification of tax forms, and for the down-scaling of the costly government departments dedicated to administering the different tax brackets. Thus the simplicity of a flat tax is a significant advantage.  [1] The Economist Special Report “The case for flat taxes” The Economist. Apr 14th 2005.

This argument ignores the fact that there is still another channel for the allocation of resources, namely the government. In the given example of agriculture tax credits verses manufacturing without such credits, if resources did not go into agriculture because of the special credit, they would have gone not into manufacturing but into government (through the closing of loopholes, and thus the disappearance of a means of being taxed less), and government is far less neutral to the market than any other allocation. Therefore, if the argument assumes that the best allocation of resources is that which most closely resembles a genuinely free market, then in this example a flat tax produces a worse situation, as any allocation of economic resources in the private sector (no matter how 'distorted) is closer to the free market (and thus 'better), than if those resources went into the hands of the government. So if reflecting the market is the uppermost concern, a flat tax is a worse proposition as it brings into higher rates of taxation many areas which currently are less taxed ('loopholes'), thus distorting the market even further as even more resources fall into government hands

Why a flat tax is fairer  In a welfare state such as the United Kingdom, everyone enjoys the same access to services provided by the government, and so it should stand to reason that everyone should also contribute equally to the funding of those services. As not all individuals are equal in their wealth and income, it is impossible to do this on the basis of everyone paying in the exact same numerical amount of money. However, this parity can be achieved by everyone paying the same percentage of their income in tax to the government, and this is exactly what a flat tax is, and so equality in contribution to government services (mirroring equality in access to government services) is achieved. This principle of equality is important for two reasons: firstly, if wealthier citizens feel they are being unfairly burdened by the current requirement that they pay higher percentages of their income to fund government services than those on lower incomes, they may feel a disincentive to work hard (which creates wealth for the whole economy), or may even be driven abroad to states with lower rates of taxation or to tax havens. [1] Secondly this removes the ability of the majority of a population to engage in what the French economist Bastiat called 'legalized plunder', where they (as the majority of voters) assign higher percentages of income tax to the wealthy in order that the state may appropriate and redistribute it to them for their own use. [2] With a flat tax in place, there would be no ability for anyone to vote for a tax rise simply on other people and not on themselves, and thus such policies would receive more consideration and not be used by the majority simply to appropriate the property of others through the law. Thus a flat tax is fairer as it equalized the basis on which everyone pays for access to equal services, and prevents a poorer majority from victimizing a wealthier minority through punitive rates of income tax for the wealthy, which may cause them to flee the country for other states with less taxation.  [1] Ramos, Joanne “Places in the Sun”. The Economist. Feb 22nd 2007   [2] Bastiat, Frédéric. The Law. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 2007

The aim of a welfare state is to allow provide access to vital services for all, but especially for those who could not otherwise afford them -to lift the burden of poverty somewhat. A flat tax, however, would actually increase the burden on the poorest. [1] For example, if under a progressive taxation system the highest rate of tax was 50%, and the lowest 10%, if tax revenues were to be maintained when switching to a flat tax system, then it would be impossible to simply extend the 10% rate of tax to all, as this would mean a large effective drop in revenue (as 40% less is collected from the top bracket with no gains anywhere), and so the rate paid by all would have to be somewhere between 10% and 50%, meaning an effective tax rise on the poorest and middle classes, while the richest receive an effective tax cut. This hardly seems 'fair' or in keeping with the aims of a welfare state, as the argument purports to serve.  [1] Ulbrich, Holley. “Flat Tax Is Class Warfare”. U.S. News &amp; World Report. April 12, 2010.

Why closing tax loopholes is good:  Tax credits, deductions and loopholes distort resource allocation in a market situation because people respond to the differing tax rates and so put more resources into the areas which the loopholes apply to than they would otherwise. For example, current tax credits for investment mean that more resources go into investment than they would in the absence of that credit, as the returns on the placing of resources in this area are higher than others (as it is subject to a lower rate of tax). A government may even set certain tax credits and loopholes which favour certain industries or economic sectors, such as agriculture, on the basis that this is politically useful (in winning votes), when this again distorts resource allocation in the economy. These distortions may prove harmful as they cause certain sectors to be over-valued or over-invested in due to their favourable tax status, to the detriment and neglect of other more highly-taxed areas (for example, manufacturing) which may in fact be the more economically sound. A flat tax would abolish all 'credits' and 'loopholes' (and the politically-influenced government discretion which decides who gets credits and who does not) and therefore restore genuine market conditions without these harmful distortions. [1]  [1] Rothbard, Murray. “The Case Against the Flat Tax”, The Free Market Reader. Auburn. Mises Institute. 1988

The status quo, whereby governments select what areas to tax and at what rate, leads to even more examples of regressive taxation than is alleged of flat taxes. For example, the so-called 'sin tax' on alcohol and cigarettes are designed to limit people's consumption thereof (and thus mitigate the harms of excessive consumption and abuse), but in fact have highly regressive results. This is because those on lower incomes are both more likely to consume large amounts of alcohol and cigarettes, and because this expenditure thus represents a larger share of their income. Consequently, by proportion the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes actually redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. [1] Therefore there is no reason to believe that government discretion in what is taxed and how much actually leads to less regressive taxation; it may even be more so.  [1] Barro, Josh. “Alcohol Taxes are Strongly Regressive”. National Review Online. March 25, 2010

This argument fails to account for the fact that elected governments are even worse at determining what is 'fair' when it comes to tax policy than the arbitrary circumstances described when the government has the option to tax different persons at different rates on the basis of their income. In effect this allows the less wealthy majority to decide what the 'circumstances' of the more wealthy minority mean they 'should' pay in taxes, which may in fact be inaccurate and based more upon a desire to 'punish' the wealthy and appropriate their resources for the majority in an unfair manner. This populist tendency in elected governments is what makes them so bad at deciding 'fairly' based upon 'circumstances', not sectional or class interests, and so why the power to set different tax rates to different people should be taken out of the hands of the government by instituting a flat tax.

Why tax 'loopholes' can be good:  Many of the so-called 'loopholes' which a flat tax would close, by ending the exemptions given when you engage in certain kinds of expenditure under the current income tax system, are actually positive features which incentivize 'good' economic behaviour. One of the great advantages from owning a home, for example, is the resulting ability to deduct mortgage interest payments from taxes. This makes owning a home more expensive, meaning a greater number of people will be able unable or unwilling to buy homes, and will thus be forced to rent instead. This harms their long-term economic prospects, as their mortgage payments would result in them eventually owning an asset whereas rent payments bring them no return, and as self-owned homes become in less demand, the value of the homes which hundreds of thousands of people have already spent decades paying mortgages for will plummet. This would also cause great harm to the construction industry as fewer people can afford to buy new houses. Another example of a useful 'loophole' is that profits and capital gains are currently taxed differently. Under a flat tax they would both be taxed equally, representing a kind of 'double taxation' which would hit most heavily new, young venture capitalists going into high-risk industries, and so will stifle investment and innovation. Finally, the current income tax deductions we allow for charitable giving would be 'closed' with a flat tax, and hence charitable giving would become less affordable and less attractive to most taxpayers. [1] Thus, the closing of these 'loopholes' will in fact disincentivize what we consider to be beneficial economic behaviour, leading to a worse economic state for everyone.  [1] Rothbard, Murray. “The Case Against the Flat Tax”, The Free Market Reader. Auburn. Mises Institute. 1988

Why a flat tax is regressive  'Regressive' means that a tax impacts upon the poor more greatly than upon the rich, and this is exactly what occurs with a flat tax. Because everyone pays the same percentage, both a rich and poor man would for example pay 10% of their income in tax. As the poor spend a greater percentage of their income on their basic necessities (such as rent and food) than the rich do, as the rich have far more discretionary income to spend on luxuries. [1] Therefore, the impact of a 10% tax upon a poorer person is far greater in terms of limiting their ability to buy things they may want or need than it is upon a richer person, and consequently the harm of taxing a poorer person at the same rate as a richer person is greater than the harm of taxing a richer person at a higher percentage. Even if the 'personal allowance' allows the poorest in our society to exempt their income from the flat tax (which, of course, offers no relief to the middle class, who now pay a greater percentage tax on their income), they will still be significantly worse off as a consequence of the sales component of the flat tax. This again stems from the poorest spending a greater percentage of their income on necessities, which are not currently subject to sales tax (VAT). Once these VAT 'loopholes' (such as on books, children's clothing and food) are closed, the poorest will be harmed as they have to pay out even more to obtain the necessities of life. Both These increased harms breed resentment and can lead to social disorder, as was seen in the UK in 1990 when an attempt to introduce a 'poll tax' (a form of flat tax, with everyone paying the same charge) led to severe rioting in London and caused the plan to be abandoned. [2] Therefore the regressive nature of a flat tax makes it undesirable and more harmful than current forms of taxation.  [1] Encyclopedia of Business. “Discretionary Income”. Enotes.   [2] BBC On This Day “1990: Violence flares in poll tax demonstration” BBC Home

Why a flat tax isn't 'fair':  The arguments in favour of a flat tax argue that it is more 'fair' than other forms of taxation because it theoretically treats all persons and all forms of income equally by taxing them all at the same rate. This firstly fails to explain why any arbitrary percentage at which the tax is set is necessarily the 'fair' number and thus why everyone should receive the wonderful privilege of paying that exact number and not another based upon their income, expenditure and circumstances. The effect of the tax upon different individuals in different circumstances is thus key to the tax's supposed 'fairness', and to the undermining of this argument. For example, say both Mr Smith and Mr Jones earn £50,000 a year. However Mr Smith is a young man with few assets who relies upon his personal savings to finance a future business, and Mr Jones is an old man who has already built up or inherited £500,000 in assets. There is no clear reason why it is 'fair' for them to both pay the same rate of taxation despite their vastly different circumstances and the effect that the tax would have upon each of them, as Mr Jones' built-up wealth is protected, but Mr Smith's ability to build up assets and start a business in the first place is undermined. Or take the example of a sick man and a healthy man with the same income, but one of whom thus has much higher medical costs to pay. In the status quo they can be taxed differently (by allowing for income tax deductions for healthcare expenditure), however under a flat tax they would both be taxed the same, and it this would severely harm the sick man. Therefore, it seems counter-intuitive that in a world where all individuals are not the same and rates of taxation impact in highly different ways upon individuals depending on their differing circumstances (over which they may have little control), that every individual should pay exactly the same rate of tax, as if they were all the same. That hardly seems 'fair'.

This argument again assumes that governments do a good job of deciding what areas and sectors 'deserve' loopholes and which do not. The fact that the distribution of resources would change if we abolished certain tax loopholes is probably a sign that these areas have been artificially inflated in terms of their resource allocation by these very tax credits and loopholes, and should therefore be returned to market standards. The selection of many of these sectors for credits may well have been done not on an economic but rather on a political basis, for example in order to protect jobs in some sectors and help boost a government's votes at election time.

NAFTA's harmful effects on American industry outweigh its benefits. Americans are not helped by lower prices if they lose their job and have no money. Furthermore, evidence shows the American jobs lost through NAFTA were largely high-wage manufacturing jobs, thereby exacerbating income inequality.

The US has benefitted from NAFTA through lower prices and increased trade  The increase in low-cost Mexican goods has benefitted US consumers1, thereby improving the standard of living for working Americans. US exports have increased by $104 billion2, thereby bolstering manufacturing. While some jobs have been lost due to NAFTA, these have been primarily low-skill jobs; reducing the number of low-skill jobs in the economy allows the US to concentrate on more profitable, white-collar jobs. And even these low skilled workers benefit from having to pay less for their goods.  1 Marla Dickerson, "NAFTA has had its Tradeoffs for the U.S.: Consumers and Global Companies Benefitted, but Critics See Pitfalls," Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2008.  2 Robert Scott, Carlos Salas, Bruce Campbell, "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers," Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006, 5.

There is little reason to believe that NAFTA was a key agent in Mexican political change. In the time after NAFTA was signed, Mexico also experienced an economic crisis linked to a currency collapse1. Its president fled the country on corruption charges and drug-related corruption continues to plague the country. Mexico has had both good and bad political and economic experiences since the implementation of NAFTA, and it is impossible to say that NAFTA caused the freer elections in 1994 and therefore has been overall beneficial for Mexico.  1Paul Magnusson, "Did NAFTA Backers Bamboozle America?" Business Week, May 8, 2000.

NAFTA has benefitted Canada.  Canada already benefited from having the world's biggest market next door and under NAFTA this benefit is expanded immensely. Under NAFTA, Between 1994 and 2003, Canada's economy grew at 3.6% annually, and employment has risen1. NAFTA has also help equalize agricultural flows between the US and Canada. NAFTA has given Canada an advantage in the US, the world's biggest market, as well as zero-tariff access to a wide variety of American products2.  1 Lee Hudson Teslik, "NAFTA's Economic Impact," Council on Foreign Relations, July 7, 2009.  2 George Myles and Matthe Cahoon, "Canada and NAFTA: a 10-Year Measure of Success," BNET, January 2004.

While Canada has experienced some economic benefits due to NAFTA, these benefits do not outweigh the harms for North America overall. Furthermore, as the Con discusses below, Canada has struggled to reconcile its environmental regulations with NAFTA, thereby hurting it environmentally, if not economically.

If anything, NAFTA has harmed international cooperation by damaging the parties involved. Due to the continental free trade agreement, Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods, American manufacturers have been laid off, environmental harms have increased, and the agreement has failed to create the job stimulus it promised. We can only hope that NAFTA is not a typical example of international cooperation, for such would not bode well for the international community.

NAFTA has improved democracy in Mexico.  Trade liberalization has caused social upheaval that created greater demand for genuine democracy within Mexico1. The election of 1994 is considered to be the first free election in the modern history of Mexico2. In 2000, the first opposition president (not a member of the Institutional Revolution Party) since 1929 was elected3. Many scholars credit the liberalized economic environment fostered by NAFTA for this political development towards a genuine democracy4.  1Kevin Kelley, "Good NAFTA?," Utne: The Best of the Alternative Press, 2011, 2.  2Renee G. Scherlen, "Lessons to Build on: the 1994 Mexican Presidential Election," Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 1998, 21.  3Sam Dillon, "Mexico's Ousted Party Tries to Regroup After Stunning Defeat," New York Times, July 13, 2000.  4 Geri Smith and Cristina Lindblad, "Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do," Business Week, December 22, 2003.

NAFTA has bolstered cross-continental cooperation.  By expanding their free trade regions to the entire continent, Canada, the US, and Mexico have demonstrated the plausibility of greater international cooperation. Although NAFTA is not on the scale of the EU, it similarly demonstrates the ability of nations to work together for mutual benefit, thereby increasing international cooperation. NAFTA helps create a secure North American continent where none of the states need be worried about the other members in much the same way as the European Union does in Europe. Competition and potentially wars are prevented through greater trade integration as is shown by European integration since the second world war.

Corn is only one product in a complex trade system. While NAFTA has undoubtedly given US corn farmers an advantage, it has also benefited Mexican avocado famers- and everyone employed in the industry1. Automobile production has shifted away from the US and towards Mexico after NAFTA2. Each country cannot expect to export more of every product- what Mexico has lost in corn production, it has gained in other areas.  1Amy Clark, "Is NAFTA good for Mexico's Farmers?," CBS, February 11, 2009.  2 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers." Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.

The loss of US production jobs is part of a greater global trend; NAFTA is not responsible for this change. Mexico and Canada are responsible for only one-fifth of the growth in the US trade deficit. The rapid acceleration of technological communication has made outsourcing and offshore production easier than ever1, and the US is losing jobs to countries that do the work as a fraction of the cost.  1 Thomas L. Friedman, "The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century," (New York: Picador, 2007), 148.

NAFTA has interfered with Canadian laws concerning environmental protection.  Under NAFTA, if foreign investors believe they are being harmed by regulations, they may sue for reparations under special tribunals1. Canada regulates commercial use of its lake and river water2, fearing ecosystem damage, and had previously banned the importation of a gasoline additive MMT3. Due to lawsuits brought by American companies Sun Belt Water Inc. and Ethyl Corporation, the Canadian government was forced to change legislation to allow these companies to conduct business. By compelling Canada to reduce its standards for environmental protection, NAFTA has failed to meet Canada's interests.  1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004.  2 "The Sun Belt NAFTA Case." Sun Belt Water, 2004.  3 Kerr, Jim. "Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues." March 10, 2004.

NAFTA has reduced workers' bargaining power.  In reducing barriers to imports and exports, NAFTA has shifted bargaining power in favor of producers, who can more easily relocate factories if workers in an area are too demanding. This allows more exploitation of workers, something that we should be preventing rather than encouraging. By allowing companies to move production across the US, Canada, and Mexico, NAFTA creates a disadvantage for workers in all three countries1. This essentially helps the rich get richer while making those who are poor, or middle class poorer increasing income inequality.  1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers." Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.

NAFTA has failed to give Mexico a competitive edge in the global economy.  Although NAFTA gives Mexico a slight advantage over its competitors, this edge has been insufficient; Chinese labor is still cheaper, and imports more goods to the US than Mexico does1. Real wages in Mexico have actually decreased 0.2% and income disparities between Mexico and the US have grown2. In failing to provide sufficient means for Mexico to compete with other developing nations, NAFTA has failed to serve its parties' interests.  1 Smith, Geri and Cristina Lindblad. "Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do." Business Week, December 22, 2003.  2 Stiglitz, Joseph E. "The Broken Promise of NAFTA." New York Times, January 6, 2004.

NAFTA was severely damaging to independent Mexican farmers.  US farm subsidies make it impossible for Mexican farmers to compete without tariffs; the so-called free trade act disadvantages Mexican workers because their American counterparts are not working under a free trade system1. While Mexican consumers benefit from lower prices, rural farmers tend to be much poorer than city residents in Mexico. Therefore this agricultural loss benefits the rich at the expense of the poor1.  1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004.

NAFTA has reduced the cost of production. In a free trade economy, workers only have the upper hand in bargaining if there is a labor shortage. NAFTA does not deprive workers of something they are entitled to; if a company saves money by relocating production, new workers get hired, goods become cheaper, and consumers benefit. NAFTA may have disadvantaged certain workers, but it benefits other workers and consumers.

NAFTA caused a severe trade imbalance between the US and its neighbors.  As NAFTA has allowed manufacturing to relocate south of the border and export to the United States the US has turned from having a trade surplus to a trade deficit. In 1993, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico and a stable deficit with Canada1. After NAFTA, the US' deficit with its neighbors increased $107.3 billion, creating a net displacement of over 1 million jobs. NAFTA was supposed to stimulate job growth in the US, not job loss; this failure demonstrates the harms that NAFTA has caused its members.  1 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers." Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006.

NAFTA gave Mexico an edge; that does not mean Mexico's problems would disappear. Mexico's economic problems are the result of a low tax base and poor education, among other issues1. A trade agreement alone cannot solve a nation's complex socioeconomic issues. Though it is impossible to know what would have happened, it is fair to speculate that Mexico would import even fewer goods to the US if not for NAFTA. Therefore, even if Mexico has yet to become an industrial powerhouse, NAFTA can still be considered advantageous.  1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004

NAFTA allows companies to shed light on antiquated regulations. The advantages and disadvantages of MMT are contested1, and the Canada's grounds for prohibitions on the water exportation that Sun Belt wanted to do were questionable1. Environmental protection is necessary, but should be reasonable; if regulations are preventing business for no good reason, those regulations should be reconsidered.  1  "&gt; Jim Kerr, "Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues," March 10, 2004, &lt;

If retailers need to unload an item, it is totally within their rights to do that, as long as they don't use that item to trick consumers into buying more expensive items. Selling off goods at a low price, when not planned, would also not harm producers because it would not be a case of "retail price management (RPM)," in which producers agree to sell the product for less to the retailer.

The use of loss leaders can have damaging social effects.  Typically it is less healthy products that are heavily discounted, such as alcohol and fatty, sugary and salty processed food. Heavily processed food should cost more than fresh food, but supermarkets don't use fresh fruit or vegetables as loss leaders. The practice tends to distort the shopping behaviour of many of the poorest in society, pushing them into poor diets that lead to obesity, bad dental health and poor nutrition. Banning the practice would make it easier to encourage healthier diets and lifestyles. Selling alcohol below cost price leads to large social harms caused by alcoholism and binge-drinking. The use of alcohol as a loss leader has already been identified as a problem in some countries. In New Zealand, for example, Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises—the two companies that own all of the major supermarket chains in the country—agreed not to use alcohol as a loss leader.1 Of course companies in most countries would not agree to such a promise without being prohibited by law, and even New Zealand should go a step further by prohibiting all loss leaders, as alcohol is not the only good that can cause social harm when it is artificially inexpensive.  1 Robert Smith, “Lack of loss-leader sales good news for brand conscious wine industry,”National Business Review (New Zealand), June 19, 2009

The use of loss leaders allows greater competition in the retail sector. It helps to drive the overall level of prices down by allowing much greater variation in pricing than would be possible if all goods had to be offered at cost price plus a small profit margin. Loss leaders also allow new entrants to make an immediate impact upon a mature marketplace dominated by a small number of entrenched incumbents, and so they are a valuable tool in maintaining price competition over the long term.

Banning loss leaders would help suppliers  The practice of loss leaders is bad for suppliers. Farmers and manufacturers are often forced by the dominant retail giants to participate in discount schemes, sharing the losses at the dictate of the retailer. If they refuse they will be dropped by the retailer and cut off from the marketplace. The American Antitrust Institute has concluded that these "Resale price maintenance (RPM)" agreements—which are agreed upon because retailers have all of the leverage—are usually illegal.1 Prohibiting loss leaders will prevent this abuse of market dominance by the big retail companies and ensure a fair deal for our farmers.  1 John B. Kirkwood, Albert Foer, and Richard Burnell, “The American Antitrust Institute On the European Commission’s Proposed Block Exemption Regulation and Guidelines on Vertical Restraints,” American Antitrust Institute, September 27, 2009, page 5-6.

The use of loss leaders in marketing campaigns can benefit both retailers and producers. Below-cost price offers are typically used at the introduction of new products in order to encourage consumers to try something for the first time. Whether it is a new vegetable or cheese, a different breakfast cereal or an improved type of soap powder, it is in the interest of farmers and manufacturers to build consumer awareness and market share quickly. In the long run, if consumers like the new product, prices will rise and both producers and retailers will profit from it, so it is quite reasonable that producers are asked to share in the costs of launching it at a discount.

Banning loss leaders protects consumers from predatory marketing tactics.  Loss leader strategies exploit consumers by providing partial, misleading information. Giant retailers are not charities; they do not offer heavily discounted goods in order to help the poor. Instead they have calculated that they can attract price-conscious shoppers in with headline deals on a few loss-leading basics, and then persuade them to pay over the odds on a wider range of goods with big profit margins. In this way, loss leaders are a con trick on consumers who are bewildered by deliberately confusing marketing–an onslaught of advertising and ever-changing promotions to the point that they are unable to compare the prices of rival firms and make a rational choice about where to shop. In their paper, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey show how retailers use loss leaders to trick consumers by giving them incomplete information.1 And in the long term, by driving out smaller retailers and reducing competition in the retail sector, the practice can drive up the overall cost of essentials for everyone.  1 Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Institut d’Economie Industrielle (IDEI Working Paper #658)

The prohibition of loss leaders would promote competition in the market.  Selling items at a loss is a predatory strategy used by large retailers to drive out smaller businesses, and so prohibiting them would protect competition. The practice is especially bad for small businesses, which cannot compete with the massive retail firms behind huge hypermarkets. These dominant corporations have the deep pockets to make a short-term loss in order to increase the volume of their sales. The whole basis of this policy is to drive smaller firms that cannot afford to offer loss leaders out of business. France has regulated its retail sector to prevent this kind of abuse of market dominance, in order to preserve its traditional shopping streets with family businesses. Other countries should follow the French example and ban loss leaders to protect small business and boost competition.

It is not the government's place to force lifestyles on people. There is plenty of information around on what constitutes a balanced and healthy diet; people should be left to make up their own minds about what they buy with their own money. In any case, loss leaders make very little difference to the overall price comparison between processed and fresh food. Fresh food like fruit, vegetables and raw meat is expensive because it will soon rot and so it incurs higher transport and storage costs than processed food with a long shelf life. If governments want to change the balance in costs, they would be better off putting a tax on the unhealthiest foods rather than interfering arbitrarily in the realm of the marketing.

The government should be able to stop large retailers from exploiting consumers and producers. There is no doubt that retailers have a reason for selling items below market value, but they are only able to profit from such an illogical strategy by exploiting consumers and producers. They trick consumers into buying more expensive items and they force producers who have minimal leverage to lower the wholesale price in order to take the loss leader price into account.

Loss leaders are an inexpensive option available to less well-off customers.  The use of heavily discounted loss-leaders is good for shoppers, especially low-income consumers, who are most appreciative of a bargain that will help them stretch their limited budget. Customers are not stupid but instead canny consumers who are well able to see through the marketing ploys of the big retailers. Often price-conscious shoppers will stock up on the most heavily discounted items, but then go elsewhere for the rest of their shop. On the other hand, attempts in countries like France to regulate retailers have just resulted in protection for the existing firms that dominate the marketplace, and in a lack of competition, which drives up the cost of the weekly groceries for everyone. The same items can cost 30% more in France, where loss leading is banned, than in Germany where it is not and discount stores flourish1. Prohibiting this strategy will hurt consumers. 1: Economist, "Purchasing-power disparity: French shoppers want lower prices, but not more competition," May 15, 2008.

Selling at a loss is a practical way of shifting products that have failed to sell.  Retailers find themselves all the time with stock that they need to unload, that nobody is buying. This is especially a concern with items that have a sell-by date after which they may not be sold and so become worthless. In such a situation, selling below cost price is economically rational, as it means that the retailer realises some money on their stock rather than none at all. Visit any open-air market at 3.00 p.m. and you will see traders slashing the prices of unsold perishable goods for just this reason. If a retailer is going to sell an item below price level, it might as well use that item as a marketing device. Can you imagine the same market trader slashing his prices, but not shouting them to passersby? Sometimes retailers need to sell items below the price level, and they should be allowed to market them cleverly in order to make up for some of the loss in revenue.

Banning loss leaders will interfere in the market, causing a net economic loss for society.  By requiring retailers to sell items at least at cost level, the government is creating an artificial price floor, which will cause prices to rise and create a net loss for society. Basic economics explains that artificial price floors upset the free market, costing a net economic loss for society, which will eventually be paid by all sectors involved.  The harm that prohibiting loss leaders causes to prices is well documented. According to a study by the French newspaper La Tribune, a basket of identical items costs 30% more in France than it does in Germany, partly because of the ban on loss leaders1. In fact, this is the very reason why Ireland repealed its loss leaders ban. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade &amp; Employment said at the time, "The single most important reason for getting rid of the [law] is that it has kept prices of groceries in Ireland at an artificially high level." Indeed, a study published in the British Food Journal concluded that the Irish law had caused prices to rise, and a separate study came to the same conclusion regarding France's loss leader prohibition. More generally, a report from the American Anti-Trust Institute shows that throughout history, such price laws have typically raised prices to consumers. 1 Economist . "Purchasing-power disparity: French shoppers want lower prices, but not more competition." May 15, 2008.

The government has no right to tell business what it should charge for its goods.  It should be up to business what it charges for its goods; if it decides to charge less than the cost price, it must have a market-based reason to do so, and it is not the place of government to intervene. It is well-known that consumers focus on the prices of a few staple goods, such as bread, milk, baked beans, etc. So it is rational for retailers with high fixed costs (in wages, rents, power etc.) to set the prices for these key products very low, and even make a loss on selling them, because it will entice more shoppers into their stores. These consumers will also buy other products on which the store does make a profit, and overall sales volumes and profits will rise.

There is a good and a bad side to loss leaders for consumers, but prohibiting the practice will always be worse. The obvious benefit to consumers of loss leaders is that they are inexpensive goods to buy. While it is possible that some people will then buy more expensive products because they have entered the store, every item has a price tag, so the customer is always aware of his decision, which means this is not a predatory practice.  Banning loss leaders, on the other hand, is catastrophic for consumers, as it will always result in prices rising. When announcing the repeal of Ireland's loss leaders prohibition, Irish Minister for Enterprise, Trade &amp; Employment Micheál Martin said, “Very simply, the [law] acted against the interests of consumers for the past 18 years.”1 Loss leaders have positive and negative effects on consumers, but a ban is all bad.  1 Ireland Business News, “Groceries Order abolition.”

Loss leaders do not help lower-income customers because they are aimed at people who will buy a lot of expensive goods at the store. Patrick DeGraba of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission argues that, when retailers act strategically, loss leaders are aimed at highly profitable customers1. Retailers have no interest in targeting less well-off consumers, because they won't then spend a lot of money in the store. Therefore, they are more likely to offer a high-quality item below its true cost; this will still be too expensive for many people, though. For example, stores will offer discounts on high-quality turkeys at Thanksgiving, because people who buy them are likely to buy a lot of food. Loss leaders may provide discounts for some consumers, but prohibiting the strategy would not hurt lower-income customers. 1: Patrick DeGraba, "Volume Discounts, Loss Leaders, and Competition for More Profitable Customers," Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics (Working Paper 260), 2003.

If Japanese ministers wish to exercise their freedom of religion then there are plenty of other Shinto shrines that they could visit. Freedom of religion does not mean that politicians should be free to do as they wish knowing that it will insult others. The consequences of attempts to exercise freedom of religion in a volatile situation can be immense; Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount while leader of the opposition was one of the sparks for the Al Aqsa Intifada. [1]  [1] ‘Al Aqsa Intifada timeline’, BBC News, 29 September 2004,

Freedom of religion  Everyone is entitled to freedom of religion and that applies to the Japanese as much as any other peoples. Yasukuni is a shrine in the Shinto religion – equivalent to a church - and was the center of state Shinto through the first half of the twentieth century. [1] Refusing to allow Japanese ministers to visit the shrine might therefore be said to be similar to barring British politicians from Westminster Abbey because there is a memorial stone to Oliver Cromwell there and as a result it could be interpreted as offensive to the Irish – Westminister Abbey’s page notably avoids mentioning the Wexford and Drogheda massacres that are remembered by the Irish. [2]  [1] EDITORIAL ‘Lawmakers must respect constitutional separation of religion and state’, The Asahi Shimbun, 13 August 2013,   [2] ‘Oliver Cromwell and Family’, Westminster Abbey,

If ministers were visiting the shrine as part of their private lives then they should visit anonymously not publically as part of the large events at the shrine. If an individual is going under the glare of the media to take part in a formal event then it is clearly they are not doing so just for their own private and domestic reasons because it is a public event. As a public event then the position of the person in question becomes important.

Every nation should be allowed to respect its war dead  Every nation should be allowed to honor its war dead how it wishes. Wars are horrifying times and atrocities are almost always committed by all sides. Japan’s actions in its wars, particularly the Second World War were particularly brutal but this should not mean that Japans leaders should be banned from paying their respects to their ancestors who died fighting for their country. Most nations do this in one way or another. The difference is that Yasukuni has those who were convicted criminals enshrined but others also honor those who have committed acts that might be considered criminal. Perhaps the most extreme example is the Mausoleum of Mao Zedong right at the heart of Beijing where there are still big celebrations to mark his birthday – unlike Shintoism in Japan Maoism is still very much part of the ideology of the state. [1]  [1] Analects, ‘Mao’s birthday Party time, The Economist, 7 June 2013,

If the Japanese politicians wish to honor their war dead there is another option for them; they could visit the Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery. The Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery houses the remains of the unknown Japanese soldiers who died overseas during the second world war. [1] This is both a broader cemetery in that it honors civilians who died in the war as well as soldiers and narrower as it is only those remains that are unidentified so it does not contain war criminals as Yasukuni does.  [1] ‘Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery’, Ministry of Environment,

Is a domestic matter for each individual  The vast majority of members of the government when visiting Yasukuni do so only in a private capacity and not as representatives of the government. As private individuals in their own lives anyone should be allowed to visits any such sites they wish. Minister Keiji Furuya argues “Paying homage to the war dead is a purely domestic matter and it’s not for other countries to criticize us or intervene in these matters” and Prime Minister Abe agrees that it should not be a diplomatic issue “As for when I might go to Yasukuni Shrine, or whether I will go or not, I will not say as this should not become a political or diplomatic issue”. [1] That there has been controversy and criticism even when it clearly is a domestic private matter, such as former Republic of China (Taiwan) President Lee Teng-hui visiting the grave of his elder brother in 2007 shows that critics, in this case the People’s Republic of China, are simply interested in finding an opportunity to attack the Japanese government. [2]  [1] Slodkowski, Antoni, ‘Cabinet ministers visit Yasukuni Shrine; Abe sends offering’, Japan Today, 15 August 2013,   [2] Fujioka, Chisa, ‘Taiwan’s Lee visits Tokyo’s Yasukuni war shrine’, Reuters, 7 June 2007,

It is silly to argue that visiting a shrine makes a country look militaristic. Of course in most cases militaristic symbolism and militarism goes hand in hand but this is not the case here. Japan by its actions is not militaristic and no amount of visits to shrines will make it so. Japan is committed to a pacifistic constitution; Article 9 states “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” [1] Despite flashpoints with all its neighbours only 25% of the Japanese public want to increase Japan’s defense capabilities – although this is rising. [2] It is notable that he Yashukan itself accepts that its position on the war is a challenge to the mainstream Japanese opinion. [3]  [1] ‘The Constitution of Japan’, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 3 November 1946,   [2] Hayashi, Yuka, ‘As Tensions Rise, Pacifist Japan Marches Into a Military Revival’, The Wall Street Journal, 18 July 2013,   [3] Yoshida, Takashi, ‘Revising the Past, Complicating the Future: The Yushukan War Museum in Modern Japanese History’, Japan Focus, 2 December 2007,

Those going to Yasukuni are not going to honour the class A war criminals but the more than two million others who have given their lives for Japan. It is unfortunate that there are war criminals enshrined in the cemetery but it is wrong to conclude that because they are there those visiting must be visiting the war criminals.

Visits sour relations  The visits by senior Japanese politicians to Yasukuni are clearly a major issue in international politics that damages relations between Japan and its neighbours, particularly the People’s Republic of China and the two Koreas. Whenever ministers visit there is a round of recriminations this is often accompanies by cancelling discussions and visits as in april 2013 when South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung Se cancelled his visit. [1] South Korean President Park Geun-hye notes “If [Japan] does not have the courage to face its past and does not take an attitude of taking care of its partners’ pain, it will be difficult to establish trust to proceed toward the future.” [2] Diplomacy is about trust, Yasukuni undermines it.  Even attempts to minimise damage by sending representatives, as done by Prime Minister Abe in August 2013, does not help repair relations with China responding “It does not matter in what form or using what identity Japanese political leaders visit the Yasukuni Shrine, it is an intrinsic attempt to deny and beautify that history of invasion by the Japanese militarists”. [3] The only option is for all ministers to steer clear of the shrine and avoid sending offerings. It is not in Japan’s national interests for them to go.  [1] ‘Seoul cancels summit over Yasukuni visits’, The Japan Times, 23 April 2013,   [2] ‘S. Korea’s Park: Japanese politicians hampering citizens’ efforts to promote trust’, The Asahi Shimbum, 15 August 2013,   [3] Mead, Walter Russell, ‘China &amp; Korea Condemn Japan over Shrine Visit’, The American Interest, 15 August 2013,

Separation of Church and State  In most modern democracies there is a strict separation of Church and State. This is the case in Japan just as in the United States of France. The constitution states “No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority” and bans the use of public money on any religious institution. [1] Lawmakers, and in particular cabinet ministers, visiting the Yasukuni shrine break this principle. [2] The constitutionality of visits has been challenged before and was ruled to be in violation of article 20 of the constitution (quoted above) by the Osaka High Court in September 2005. [3] Clearly no state should have senior members of the executive regularly breaking its own constitution.  [1] ‘The Constitution of Japan’, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 3 November 1946,   [2] EDITORIAL ‘Lawmakers must respect constitutional separation of religion and state’, The Asahi Shimbun, 13 August 2013,   [3] ‘Koizumi’s Yasukuni trips are ruled unconstitutional’, The Japan Times, 1 October 2005,

Makes Japan look militaristic  Ministers and MPs visiting Yasukuni makes Japan look much more militaristic than it really is. There are two reasons for this. The first is the class A war criminals who should not be honoured as it appears to be honouring their militarism. The second is that Yasukuni itself has an overt political mission that essentially promotes such militarism. In the Yasukuni’s museum the Yashukan Japan’s wars are portrayed as wars of liberation from Western colonialism and fights against bandits and terrorists [1] – exactly the same justifications used in World War II itself. The museum, and its close ties with the shrine, display the unreconstructed view that Japan was the victim of the Second World War not the aggressor. When politicians visit the shrine they are showing their support for this interpretation. This could be solved by making the museum much more balanced; admitting that Japan started the wars they were involved in, information about the massacres such as at Nanjing, and about some of the other horrors perpetrated such as the ‘comfort women’ and unit 731.  [1] Kingston, Jeffrey, ‘It’s time Japan acted to end the war over Yasukuni Shrine’, The Japan Times, 14 August 2013,

Honouring war criminals is wrong  It is wrong to honour war criminals whose actions resulted in the deaths of thousands – or if you count the responsibility for the whole war in East Asia millions – of lives including the lives of Japanese citizens. The results were horrifying criminal acts. If Yasukuni is at all about remembrance then these individuals should not be enshrined and politicians certainly should not visit. Even Emperor Hirohito – Emperor during the Second World War – was opposed to their being enshrined. After the enshrinement of the war criminals in 1978 he stopped visiting the Yasukuni. He is quoted by Imperial Household Agency Grand Steward Tomohiko Tomita in his memoirs “At some point, Class-A criminals became enshrined, including Matsuoka and Shiratori. I heard Tsukuba [the chief priest before the enshrinement] acted cautiously” However he questioned “What’s on the mind of Matsudaira’s son [the chief priest at the time of enshrinement], who is the current head priest? Matsudaira had a strong wish for peace, but the child didn’t know the parent’s heart. That’s why I have not visited the shrine since.” [1]  [1] ‘Hirohito visits to Yasukuni stopped over war criminals’, The Japan Times, 21 July 2006,

The ruling in this case, as in others, was equivocal as it considered the problem to be that the visits by then Prime Minister Koizumi were in an official capacity. Koizumi put his name down as Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi which the court considered made it official. [1] If the visits had been considered to be in a private capacity it would have been ok. Most cabinet ministers when visit emphasize that they go in as private citizens not as state ministers.  [1] ‘Koizumi’s Yasukuni trips are ruled unconstitutional’, The Japan Times, 1 October 2005,

The visits to the Yasukuni Shrine are mostly taken by the PR China and the Koreas as an opportunity to complain and bring up old wounds. Simply stopping visiting Yasukuni is not going to solve the fundamental problems in relations between these nations – disputes over Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima and Pinnacle Islands/Senkaku/Diaoyu or provide the demanded apologies over Japan’s World War II conduct which in any case when offered tends to be rejected as not enough. [1]  Ultimately foreign relations between nations do not have to be linked to history; many countries put conflicting pasts behind them. If the other countries of North East Asia wanted good relations with Japan they would simply ignore these visits.  [1] AP, ‘China dismisses Japanese apology for war aggression’, USA Today, 22 April 2005,

Referring back to counterargument one, this again assumes the a priori existence of individual rights. Moreover, following this logic, as all individuals would, behind a "veil of ignorance", most certainly choose to live is a developed, prosperous nation, all developed nations would have the moral obligation to literally relocate the entire population of the developing world into their own countries. Simply because something may be seen as "preferable" to some people does not a moral imperative create.  Further, this experiment assumes universality of any conception of rights or "human rights". The subjective nature of what it means to be a human being between different faiths and cultures leads to different conceptions of what "dignity" means to humanity and thus enforcing the conception of "dignity" held by the militarily powerful on other states does not necessarily protect it, but in many ways can erode it.

National sovereignty ends when human rights are systematically violated.  States violate their right to non-intervention through systematic human rights abuses by violating the contract of their state.  States derive their rights of control and on the monopoly of violence through what is called the ‘social contract.’ A state gains its right to rule over a population by the people of that state submitting to it their rights to unlimited liberty and the use of force on others in society to the state in return for protection by that state [1] . The individual is sovereign and submits his rights to the state who derives sovereignty from the accumulation of an entire population’s sovereignty. This is where the legitimacy and right to control a population by force comes from. When a state is no longer protecting its people, but rather is systematically removing the security and eroding away the most basic rights and life of those citizens, they no longer are fulfilling the contract and it is void, thus removing their right to sovereignty and immunity from intervention.  The necessity of intervention in such a case comes from the desperation of the situation. Regimes that use the machinery of the state and their enriched elite against their populations hold all the wealth, power and military might in the country. There is no hope for self-protection for individuals facing a powerful, organized, and well-funded national army. In such a case, the sovereignty of the individuals need to be protected from the state that abuses them.

Interventions can be small and successful.  It is the interventions that take a long time to succeed, such as Kosovo, or even fail such as Somalia, or those where many people do not buy into the justification such as Iraq that are remembered. However this forgets that there have also been many small successful interventions and sometimes the threat of intervention is enough. Sierra Leone is the forgotten conflict of Tony Blair’s premiership in the UK. In 2002 Britain sent 800 paratroopers into Sierra Leone, originally just to evacuate foreigners from the country but became an intervention when the British helped government forces drive out rebels which may have saved many lives. However it may also have emboldened Blair to help with intervention in Iraq. [1] This example also shows that it is important to have support on the ground as the British were seen as being legitimate and there was a functioning government who could do the rebuilding. Where this luxury does not exist it is important not to do as happened in Iraq and disband the civil service and prevent those natives who are qualified from running the country even if they may have been implicit in the previous regimes actions.  Where possible as little force as possible should be used. In Libya NATO only committed airpower and supplied weapons so keeping the conflict as much a domestic affair as possible. Slowly as it becomes accepted that interventions will happen the threat will become enough. Sudan may well in part have accepted the secession of South Sudan due to the US backing of the peace deal in 2005.  [1] Little, Allan, ‘The brigadier who saved Sierra Leone’, BBC Radio 4, 15 May 2010,

Individual rights are created by the state and do not exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist outside of the realm of the existence of a state. To argue that a “social contract” exists where one gives up their “rights” to the state is to suggest that these rights somehow exist outside of the scope of the state existing, which they do not. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore in no way a breach of any contract or trust [1] . No state or external organisation has any right to decide what a state should or should not construct as its citizen’s rights and therefore has no basis for intervention.  [1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. &lt;  .

This deters future human rights abuses.  The use of force sends a strong message to oppressive regimes that their behaviour will not be tolerated.  Human rights abuses happen around the world because there is no mechanism to stop it. Oppressive regimes thrive simply because there is no real, coherent deterrent to their abuses. Sanctions target their populations not their personal enrichment they gain through siphoning off money from domestic industry, diplomatic sanctions have no tangible impact on states and peacekeepers are useless when there is no peace to keep. The only true deterrent to regimes around the world is the danger that a strong military rival from outside will intervene and stop them and remove them from power.  Sending a strong message that the international community can and will intervene in the cases of human rights abuses seriously increases the costs in regimes' cost-benefit-analysis of state behaviour and deters them from committing human rights abuses for fear of military defeat from abroad.

Most human rights abuses are motivated by ideological factors that are not rationally calculated through a "cost-benefit-analysis." Much of the world's human rights abuses are committed along ethnic or religious lines and thus are not open to incentives and disincentives but are rather absolutist obligations they think they have from their religion or ethno-cultural beliefs.  Moreover, most interventions are costly, damaging for the intervening forces and are generally unappealing to domestic populations in the states that are intervening. As such, the political will for intervention is usually quite low and not feasible. Most regimes will know this and thus take this "message" from the international community with a grain of salt and therefore have no impact on their actions.

This is unlikely to happen in the majority of cases as not all countries have an anti-Western bias and not all intervening forces have to be Western or identifiably Western. Moreover, the best way to gain the support of a population is to tangibly impact their lives and demonstrate the commitment to their protection and their cause. The best solution for anti-intervention force bias comes with the intervening force itself when real people see troops fighting in a real way to protect them and their rights. There is no more powerful way to build trust than to save a member of someone's family or community in front of their eyes. Thus, this is a self-correcting issue. Although there may be initial issues with backlash from the region, most people will welcome those who are risking their lives to save them and their families.

Force does more harm than good.  The use of force is incredibly damaging to the people you are trying to protect.  Military intervention inevitably leads to further casualties and loss of civilian life. All warfare has civilian costs due to imperfect strategic information, the use of human shields and the simple fact that more bombs, troops and guns leads to more violence and thus more death of those caught in the crossfire. Adding to this the propensity of forces to hide among civilian populations and, often, the lack of identifiable military uniforms, leads to further human costs and prolonged guerrilla warfare.  Adding to human cost is the infrastructural costs of prolonged warfare, particularly seen in interventions including bombing campaigns, leads to prolonged and sustained damage caused by the use of force both during war and in reconstruction.  For example, the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1998 led to 1,200-5,000 civilian deaths [1] .  If we are aimed at protecting the human rights of individuals, the massive loss of human life, and sustained damage to basic infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the state means the use of forces furthers human rights abuses, not stops them.  [1] "Kosovo: Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign." Human Rights Watch. United Nations High Commission for Refugees, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. &lt;  .

This is an illegitimate violation of national sovereignty.  Human rights are a social construct that are derived from the idea that individuals have created on the subject. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore legitimate practice of any state [1] .  The imposition of one state’s conception of what rights should or should not be protected is in no way morally justifiable or universally applicable. Different religions and cultures create different constructs of human dignity and humanity and thus believe in different fundamental tenets and “rights” each person should or should not have.  It is not legitimate to impede upon another state’s sovereignty due to subjective consideration imposed upon the less powerful by the superpowers of the global system.  [1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. &lt;  .

Foreign intervention fragments the conflict.  The use of force by foreign agents fragments conflicts which perpetuates the war. The countries who are likely to and historically have participated in humanitarian intervention are developed Western nations such as the US, UK, Canada and France either unilaterally or under organisational banners such as NATO. In the vast majority of the world, the West is not well-liked and the education systems, media and local history have created negative perceptions of the West as "imperialists" and colonialists. Intervention can often be seen as "neo-colonialism" and the West trying to assert power to change regimes inside other countries around the world. This, combined with the inevitable human cost of the use of force, turns local populations against the intervening forces and allows government forces to cast any resistance movements that cooperate with the intervening forces as traitors to their country.  This is both bad in terms of causing large military opposition from both sides of the conflict against the troops who are intervening, but also fragments the conflict. Resistance movements splinter into those cooperating with the intervening forces and those who aren't. This fractures the resistance movements, reducing their chances of success and reducing the possibility of ceasefires by fragmenting the sides of the conflict making it hard to determine who effectively represents who at the negotiating table.  A good example of this can be seen by the fragmentation of Sunni and Shi'a factions in Iraq post-intervention and the further entrenchment of Sunni opposition to the Shi'a after the Western forces specifically enriched the Shi'a through power and wealth for their cooperation1.  1 "Iraq in Transition: Vortex or Catalyst?" Chatham House 04.-2 n. pag. Web. 7 Jun 2011.

Although there are some subjective elements of rights, there is generally a consensus amongst most people that fundamental human rights, such as being alive, are universally good. Although we should not impede sovereignty for subjective things, genocide, ethnic cleansing and other systematic abuses of human rights are things that are universal and thus should be protected for all people around the world.

There is no appetite for, and little interest in, the outside world in the North. Those reunions that have been organised have been established by the South. As far as the citizens of the North are concerned they are living in a utopia that is the envy of the world. There is little evidence that North Koreans are clamouring for reunification, although there is some appetite for it in the South, it is diminishing as the generations that remember a united country die and the younger generations take a look at the cost of doing so.  It is also highly questionable what either party would get from the union. The North would gain little except mass unemployment as they are simply not equipped for a 21st century economy and the south would get all of the social unease that usually accompanies mass unemployment. Talk of a shared culture and heritage is all very well but simply doesn’t pay the bills in is a fairly dubious claim at best – the languages are now unrecognizable to each other and the last sixty years have eradicated anything but the most romanticised views of an ancient and honorable past that never existed.  Neither party brings any noticeable natural resources to the deal and the skill sets of each society are now so vastly different as to be mutually exclusive. There simply is no economic advantage.  Politically the merger would look set to cause disaster, the last thing that the South’s new and somewhat fragile democracy needs is the sudden addition of millions of unemployed citizens with no history of participating in a democratic process. It would confer second-class status on those from the North for generations to come and be more likely to create a situation that looks like Israel/Palestine than one that looks like Germany.

Kim Jong Un is unlikely to consent to any form of unified government that does not include him and his family  Although the regime in Pyongyang has expressed an interest in a reunified country, progress has been painfully slow. It took twelve years to get from initial contact to the first meeting. It seems likely that any suggestion of reunification is more a negotiating ploy than emblematic of any serious commitment.  If reunification is to be achieved, it will happen in spite of the current leadership in the North rather than because of it.  The continued separation of the two Koreas is, in many ways, an accident of history. They were only divided in 1945 for administrative convenience. If the Soviet and American leaderships had been able to develop a more sensible agreement then the two would never have been separated in the first place.  This means that for the sake of administrative convenience sixty years ago, four thousand years of history has been torn apart.  From the perspective of Korean culture and the Confucian beliefs that underpin it the nations should be reunited. It is clearly in the interests of the citizens in the North, whether they are aware of the fact or not. It is an idea that speaks to natural justice but is obstructed by the fact that one half of the country is run as the private fiefdom of one family. The only realistic way it will happen is through military intervention to compel the North and remove Kim Jong-Un and his cronies.

Although the famines in North Korea are now an annual fixture and are routinely exacerbated by the regimes whimsical refusals to accept food aid, it is difficult to see how the situation would be improved by what would probably be a long and protracted war followed by permanent unemployment.  South Korea has no welfare state to speak of and retired people live off the income of the working ‘middle’ generation.  Mostly the situation works well but it does assume that at least somebody in the household is capable of getting a job at some point.  Per capita incomes are approximately five per cent of those to the South.  Although it is possible to make a moral argument that the world has a responsibility to avert another famine in the North, they certainly do not have the moral authority to impose, asked and unwanted, a solution that runs the very real risk of making things worse for citizens on both sides of the 38th parallel.  It is questionable as to whether the South has the right to meddle in its neighbours affairs for the rest of the world, en masse, to take it upon itself to do so is as lacking in moral authority as it is in economic credibility.

North Korea represents a clear danger to its neighbours and their allies and that is unlikely to change  [1] Tania Branigan The Guardian 23 November 2010  [2] Green, Shane, ‘North Korea  North Korea is virtually the definition of a rogue state. It remains technically at war with the South and frequently this manifests itself in acts of aggression. In any other situation the regime bombing of Yeonpyeong island would have been considered an act of war and met with a military response [1] . The regime’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weaponry poses a very real threat. The regime has tested missiles at least capable of reaching Tokyo and Seoul and has indicated a desire to be able to reach Washington, [2] James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is worried that they will be able to hit the west coast within a few years. [3] It seems reasonable to assume that, with the limited resources of the state being spent on these two goals, rather than feeding the people, the regime will ultimately succeed in their ambitions. Waiting until they can actually bomb North America or Europe would make Kim Jong-Un or his successor far too secure. Although it seems unlikely that he would ever mount an attack with conventional weapons, access to an appropriate delivery system and a nuclear warhead would make his removal by military means virtually impossible. Removing him from office before this happens is essential for the security of the region and the world.  [1] Tania Branigan The Guardian 23 November 2010  [2] Green, Shane, ‘North Korea threatens to attack US’, The Age, 8 March 2003  [3] Barnes, Julian E., ‘U.S. may be within N.Korea missile range in 3 years, official warns’, Los Angeles Times, 17 June 2009  threatens to attack US’, The Age, 8 March 2003  [3] Barnes, Julian E., ‘U.S. may be within N.Korea missile range in 3 years, official warns’, Los Angeles Times, 17 June 2009

North Korea may well be a dangerous state with an unstable leader but neither the regime nor the nation is suicidal. There may be a large military but it simply lacks the resources to mount an invasion.  The occasional demonstrations of military prowess have far more to do with negotiations about aid than they have to do with a genuine military threat to the South.  It is inconceivable that North Korea would take any significant military action without the agreement of Beijing and it is inconceivable that any military action would achieve more than a gnat bite from the point of view of either the American or Chinese military. Although Kim Jong-Il may be a master of sabre-rattling as a form of brinkmanship it is staggeringly unlikely that the sabre would ever be unsheathed.  It is worth noting that the idea that Pyongyang would commit financial suicide by attacking their main form of financial support – South Korea – is relatively ridiculous. The shifting relationship between the two Koreas has more to do with the varying level of political machismo in Seoul than it has to do with the realities of the possibility of military intervention or confrontation.

Despite the tyranny of Kim Jong-Un, the control he exercises over his people has eliminated the possibility of revolution  There is grinding poverty in the North as well as brutal repression and all the other trapping of a military dictatorship. The only alternative future for the North is of a failed state going economically and socially in the opposite direction from the rest of Eastern Asia but now armed with nuclear weapons.  The security threat this poses to the region is terrifying.  However, it seems unlikely that the regime has any intention of surrendering their absolute power and the people are unlikely to remove him however bad things get, North Koreans do not have access to the tools such as mobile phones and the internet that made the Arab Spring possible. [1] Instead the people will continue to be fed a diet of propaganda and not much else.  As well as the security implications there is a simple issue of morality, in any other situation where the actions of a government were impoverishing a people to, quite literally, the point of starvation, the world would feel moved to act.  It is as clearly in the interests of North Koreans not to starve to death by the hundreds of thousands as it is in the interests of the South not to see similar numbers irradiated by a bomb on Seoul.  [1] Zakaria, Fareed, ‘Zakaria: Will the North Koreans rise up?’, CNN World, 14 November 2011

Although the younger generation in South Korea doesn’t have the hunger for reunification of their parents and grandparents, very few are hostile to the prospect per se, they are only concerned about the cost.  It seems unlikely that this would in any way reflect the ‘50-53 war which was a battle between the US, the Soviet Union and China and just happened to be hosted on the peninsula and to its huge cost.  One of the advantages of involving China is that it would be the clearest possible demonstration to the South Korean people that the superpower was committed to the long process of rebuilding their mutual neighbour.  This answers several of the possible objections. China gets the benefits of security and South Korea gets an important ally in the process of rebuilding the North.

China has an enormous interest in not having an unstable nuclear power on its doorstep. It also has an interest in Pyongyang doing nothing to upset the region’s relationship with the West. That in and of itself should be enough for China to at least increase the trade and support it gives to North Korea. China is already investing in North Korea, such as at the port of Rason, [1] it would want to protect these investments, Chinese firms main criticism of operating in North Korea is the business environment something that unification would improve.  The same can be said for Japan and the other Asian Tigers. Rates of growth in North Eastern Asia have been spectacular in recent years and do not look set to diminish in the long term.  It is also worth noting that the estimates for the costs of reunification vary and $5trillion is on the upper end. Also that is the cost for getting the North to where the South is now. It took the South 60 years. North Korea would be following the same path as part of a larger and richer nation and could as a result do it faster. The North has land for development that is desperately lacking in the south and a large pool of cheap labour whose living standards would be increased dramatically by the association. Even just accepting the food aid sent by the international community would be huge progress on the current situation.  Clearly North Korea is not going to solve all of its problems over night but simply not getting much worse every year would be a start.  [1] Wong, Edward, ‘Tending a Small Patch of Capitalism in North Korea’, The New York Times, 12 October 2011

Forcible "liberation" is contrary to the principle of self determination  The absence of a civil society in North Korea makes it very difficult to know if there is a great upwelling of dissent in the country but there is certainly very little in the way of evidence of it. For the same reason, there is no obvious government in waiting, there is nothing that could take over from the triad of party, army and state that currently runs the country except and imported elite from the South.  As a result an uninvited military intervention the people of North Korea would end up, in effect being ruled by a ruling elite that they don’t know.  The influence of the regime is everywhere in the North and an occupying force would need to attempt a process similar to the disastrous de-Ba’athification actions in Iraq. The results do not seem likely to be any different.  Replacing a heavily armed rogue state with a similarly heavily armed failed state would not seem to represent much in the way of progress.  A rogue state can, at least, be mostly constrained by China, a border region that is part of a united Korea in name only offers no such opportunities for persuasion and coercion. Instead it would represent a ‘badlands’ causing difficulties for all around it on a daily basis with rampant crime taking the place of economic activity.

There is little interest in unification among young people in South Korea  There is one very obvious historical example which speaks to attempts to unite Korea by force: the 1950-53 war. It seems unlikely that even the most ardent supporter of reunification south of the border would be keen to repeat that fiasco which had at least 910,000 battle deaths and total death toll up to 3.5million. [1]  In addition, the younger generations have much less interest in the proposal than their parents and grandparents did.  As a result the grand coalition would run the very real risk of one of the component parts actively opposed to the proposal and the other half at the very least unhappy about it.  The assumption that the North Korean army will simply roll over or melt away is reminiscent of the ideas about swift victories in Iraq and Afghanistan and so it seems unlikely that the US public would be too keen to sign up for a second Korean War.  Ultimately to work this proposal needs the support of the peoples of North and South Korea as well as those of, at least, the US and China. There is precious little evidence that any of those things are true.  [1] ‘Inter-State War Data’, Correlates of War v.4.0, 1816-2007 , ‘Korean War’, Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century

Reunification of the Korea peninsular is unaffordable  Estimates of the cost of reunification vary wildly but one thing is clear, they’re all very large. One recent estimate put it at $5 trillion – or $40,000 per capita for South Koreans for 30 years. [1]  The economy of the North is virtually non-existent, it was never that healthy even when Moscow was propping it up, in 1992 it collapsed completely. Now only the military has any money at all. A whole series on unfinished and unnecessary vanity projects are the only thing resembling an infrastructure and roads and factories would simply need to be built from scratch.  Although it is tempting to make the comparison with the reunification of Germany, the two situations are very different. Incomes in the East were about one third to one half of those in the West and the population was about a quarter that of its more populous neighbour.  The population of the North is about half of the South and incomes are at about 5 per cent. [2]  The Republic of Koreas simply could not pay the bills and so the burden would fall on other nations, presumably China and the US.  Such a commitment would seem unlikely, it would be fantastically unpopular in the United States and unlikely to be supported for more than a couple of years. In the case of China, since they have shown little interest in developing many of their own backward, rural provinces it seems unlikely that they would commit to someone else’s.  [1] Beck, Peter M., ‘The Cost of Korean Reunification’, Atlantic Council, 7 January 2010  [2] Ibid

There are certainly difficulties in seeing how an independent North Korea could be reasonably expected to joined the global community of nations. However, that is not the case here. There are still ties between the North and South, of blood and kindred if nothing else, two potent forces in Korean culture and Confucian thought.  The situation is different from Iraq and the lessons of the De-Ba’athication process appear to have been learnt; that middle ranking, and often senior, apparatchiks do not necessarily have a loyalty to the former regime. De-Ba’athication was much more extensive than its equivalent in post-communist Europe where generally only those over a certain level were excluded [1] while after World War II very few Japanese were excluded from the bureaucracy. [2] It seems unlikely that the mistake would be repeated.  The closest analogy to where the North is now is not the oft-cited East Germany but South Korea’s own prodigious economic growth. On the basis of which there should be huge optimism at the prospect of reunification.  Reunification looks almost inevitable as the state quietly implodes. The leadership in North Korea are not fools, they see the economic data and know that change is needed. There is even talk of not accepting Kim Jong Un’s designated successor.  As a result reunification can take place after a long period of decline which leaves the country needing even more effort and money to rebuild or following decisive action.  There is every reason to suspect that there is genuine dissatisfaction in the North and certainly the accounts and actions of defectors would suggest this to be the case.  [1] Williams, Kieran et al., ‘Explaining Lustration in Eastern Europe: ‘A Post-communist approach’’, SEI Working Paper No 62, 2003, p.2  [2] Arato, Andrew, ‘The Occupation of Iraq and the Difficult Transition from Dictatorship’, Constellations, Volume 10, Number 3, 2003, p.9

Africa has witnessed significant economic growth since the inception of the ‘War on Terror’, and it is predicted that between 2013 and 2023 there will be an annual increase in GDP of 6% a year [1] . This implies that US military assistance to help counter-terrorism activities will not be needed in the future to same extent.  In addition, the emergence of the African Union’s composite peacekeeping force has created an army with counter-terrorism abilities. This force draws from multiple countries which reduces the cost for each member, creating an economically viable African force.  [1] The Economist, ‘Africa rising: A hopeful continent’

African states can’t afford the full cost  Africa is the least developed continent in the world and will struggle to independently maintain a specialised counter-terrorism force. Thirty four of its fifty four states are classed as ‘least developed countries’ [1] . The result of poor funding and bad governance is a decreased efficiency of security and military services in these states. In turn, this has resulted in destabilisation of the region. Wages, training, and military equipment are expenses which few African countries can afford alone. Kenya, for example, had to disband its Police Reserve unit in 2004 as unpaid officers had turned to corruption to ensure a decent wage, despite the need to combat terrorism in the state as shown by the attack on Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall [2] . Aid from the United States enables these African states to field financially viable forces which can then participate in counter-terrorism. Before military aid was cut to Egypt in 2013, the US provided $1.3 billion annually to support one of the strongest militaries on the continent [3] .  [1] The World Bank ‘Least Developed Countries’  [2] Boniface,B., ‘Kenya to revive police reservists in Garissa to fight al-Shabaab’  [3] BBC ‘US withholds Egypt military aid over crackdown’

Other actors are gaining strength in the counter-terrorism scene. Despite its weaknesses, the AU has participated successfully in counter-terrorism actions such as that of Darfur and Somalia. Other Western actors have also presented themselves as an alternative. In 2012 France intervened in Mali and prevented extremist Muslim and Tuareg separatists from gaining control of the state. The US’ response to this same incident was limited in contrast demonstrating numerous alternatives to AFRICOM.

Specialism of the United States in counter terrorism  The United States has one of the most elite and experienced counter-terrorism forces in the world, Africa could only benefit from the help they offer. Branches of the US military which specialise in counter-terrorism, such as the US Navy SEALs and Delta Force, receive rigorous training and have gained experience from numerous operations. Many African states lack the ability to train and utilise such forces, which is why US help is welcome. US military advisers were sent to Uganda to help combat the Lord’s Resistance Army [1] (LRA) and assisted with ‘an impact disproportionate to its size’ [2] . Between 2011 and 2013, the LRA’s attacks were halved and the conflict’s death toll decreased by 67%. The experience that these forces provide is visibly valuable for Africa’s counter-terrorism activities.  [1] Shanker,T., ‘Armed U.S. Advisers to Help Fight African Renegade Group’  [2] BBC, ‘US forces join jungle search for Kony’

The use of US Special Forces does not guarantee success in counter-terrorism operations. These forces have made mistakes in the past, as demonstrated by the failure in the battle of Mogadishu. Despite two years in the field, the US assisted African forces have still not found Joseph Kony (leader of the LRA) which puts the Special Forces’ usefulness in to question. There is also the issue of sending the ‘right man for the job’. Military advisors who are female or lower ranked are often not respected by the forces they train [1] .  [1] Metrinko,M.J., ‘The American Military Advisor’

Providing military assistance against terrorism can have a negative effect on global stability. Operation Restore Hope in Somalia misappropriated the state as a terrorist haven and anti-terror missions failed to target the nature of the conflict [1] . This led to continued instability within the country which then produced a significant Islamic, terrorist movement in 2006.  [1] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.4

There are few alternatives  The United States is the only significant actor in region which can be relied upon in counter-terrorism issues. Due to the “War on Terror” and a need to maintain a military equipment export industry [1] , the US has been a reliable ally for many African states. The alternatives are less attractive. African nations often dislike their neighbours involving themselves in their affairs, exemplified by the second conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo – the Great War of Africa that drew in nations across the region attempting to secure their own interests. The limited effectiveness of the AU’s army has also prevented them from becoming a prominent actor in counter-terrorism. The failure of the AU’s measures in Sudan during 2003 forced them to appeal to the UN for aid. This was effectively an admission of failure [2] , signifying these actors as weak in comparison to the USA.  [1] Plumer,B., ‘The U.S. sends Egypt far more military aid than it needs’  [2] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.13

Increased global security  The presence of US military equipment and counter-terrorism forces in Africa will result in greater security for the rest of the world. Many of the terrorist groups which have existed in the ‘ungoverned’ spaces of Africa have an international agenda. Al-Qaeda and other groups have used Africa as a base to plan attacks against the West, such as the 2004 Madrid bombing [1] . The disruption and eradication of these groups is therefore beneficial as it will prevent these groups from acting freely on the international stage.  [1] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.2

The US Congress has taken steps to reduce security assistance to states which have committed mass human rights abuse [1] . In October 2013, President Obama announced cutbacks in military aid to Egypt after a military coup and crackdown on protestors [2] . In addition to these penalties, there are also good governance programmes run by USAID in unison with counter-terrorism policies to ensure a healthier transition to democracy, reducing the risk of repression [3] .  [1] Ploch,L., ‘Countering Terrorism in East Africa: The U.S. Response’ pg.38  [2] Gordon,M.R., ‘In Crackdown Response, U.S. Temporarily Freezes Some Military Aid to Egypt’  [3] Ploch,L., ‘Countering Terrorism in East Africa: The U.S. Response’ pg.55

The rise in terrorist activity in Africa since 2006 has reshaped this priority. Following the Kenyan example, the Nairobi mall massacre and the subsequent attacks have acted to change the prioritisation of terrorism in some countries. In early 2014, Kenya’s Defence Secretary Raychelle Omamo stated that there was going to be a greater focus on counter-terrorism in the future [1] , this event has shown many Africans that terrorism is an issue that requires serious attention.  [1] Otieno,B., ‘Kenya: China to Help Kenya Safeguard Territory’

Militarisation of US policy in Africa  The broadening of USAID to accommodate counter-terrorism assistance has detracted from long term development goals. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the change of USAID’s focus, the agency transformed from one of development to one of a ‘quasi-security’ nature [1] . Since 2001, USAID has been forced go beyond its traditional humanitarian role. Development goals, which are crucial dealing with the root causes of terrorism such as poverty and poor state-citizen relationships [2] , are being sacrificed for short term military objectives. The military training of police has actually served to detract from development, as police financially exploit citizens with their newly gained power [3] . Africa’s urgent need for development suggests that the expansion of USAID’s role is disadvantageous for the continent.  [1] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.629  [2] Gast,E., ‘U.S. Counterterrorism in the Sahel’  [3] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.638

Disrupts international relations  US counter-terrorism support of certain African states has resulted in the indignation of their rival states. Africa’s complex history of conflicts has created enmity between states. The selection of some states for counter-terrorism support has weakened relations between these states and the United States. Eritrea, for example, has been hostile towards the United States due to the latter’s support of Ethiopia, who fought a war with Eritrea from 1998-2000. Eritrea accused the US of supporting Ethiopian occupation of Eritrean lands and caused the state to withdraw from US regional counter-terrorism plans [1] .  [1] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.7

Props up authoritarian regimes  The USA has helped solidify the rule of several oppressive regimes in Africa through its counter-terrorism assistance. In an effort to prevent terrorism from gaining a foothold in Africa, US policy has supported states which have poor human rights records, allowing them to continue brutal regimes. The training and equipping of counter terrorism units by the US has been linked to increased repression and unaccountability from police forces [1] . This approach strengthened the Sudanese regime, who committed atrocities in Darfur while simultaneously received aid from the USA [2] . US support on the continent could backfire if highly trained but repressive forces become prominent.  [1] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.638  [2] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.13

Many Africans do not prioritise counter-terrorism  The US focus on terrorism has detracted attention away from the more pressing issue of domestic crime. High rates of murder, manslaughter, rape, corruption and the illicit drug and small arms trades are of greater importance than counter-terrorism to many Africans. The misplacement of funds by USAID in states like Kenya, has detracted attention away from the major threats to citizens. Hills commented in 2006 that ‘their (Kenyans) concerns focus on the ineffectiveness of the country’s criminal justice system in the face of rising crime’ and claims that the counter-terrorist training received by them does little to improve domestic crime rates [1] .  [1] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.637

In general, the USA’s counter terrorism assistance has led to greater regional co-operation. Shared intelligence and resources have become necessary to efficiently combat the global threat of terrorism. The US assisted a joint Mali-Niger venture to regain their desert regions, increasing co-operation between these two states [1] . Intelligence co-operation between North and Sahelian Africans has increased significantly since the beginning of the “War on Terror”, improving international relations between these countries.  [1] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.18

Counter-terrorism helps ensure security, which is closely linked to development. Before it is possible to improve health care, education, poverty and other development factors, it is necessary to have a secure environment [1] . The action to broaden USAID’s development agenda is therefore taking a more practical approach towards ensuring that long term growth can occur in a stable environment.  [1] Beswick,D. &amp; Hammerstad,A., ‘African agency in changing security environment: sources, opportunities and challenges’ pg.476

Acting due to a change of government is not the prerogative of another state. Putin is within his rights not to recognise that government and to grant asylum to former president Yanukovych but not to take action within the Ukraine to change the situation.  The coup however was not a coup but an abdication. “Yanukovych has lost his legitimacy as he abdicated his responsibilities. As you know, he left Ukraine – or left Kyiv, and he has left a vacuum of leadership.” It was therefore Yanukovych who essentially decided that he was no longer in charge by leaving Kiev and not making any statements for several days. [1] Moreover the Ukrainian constitution (both 2004 and 2010 versions) gives the right to impeach the President to Parliament [2] this is what the Parliament has done.  [1] Psaki, Jen, ‘Daily Press Briefing’, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2014  [2] Constitution of Ukraine, Article 85 (7 &amp; 10), wikisource, 2004 , 2010

Necessary response to an illegal coup  The current government in Ukraine is the result of an illegal coup. On the 21st February Yanukovych and the opposition in Ukraine agreed to EU proposals that restored the 2004 Ukrainian constitution and set Presidential elections for later in 2014. The two sides were “to create a coalition and form a national unity government”. Thus Yanukovych was to remain President until the next elections. [1] The opposition however ignored this deal. As Putin puts it “They immediately seized his residence rather than giving him a chance to fulfil the agreement... He didn’t have any chance of being reelected.” The Ukrainian opposition used illegal and unconstitutional means to effect regime change. Russia therefore has a right to act to protect those who there has been an “armed seizure of power”. [2]  [1] ‘Agreement on the Settlement of Crisis in Ukraine - full text’, theguardian.com, 21 February 2014  [2] Siddique, Haroon, ‘Putin: Yanukovych ousting was ‘unconstitutional overthrow’’, theguardian.com, 4 March 2014 [used this link as it is more comprehensive than the Guardian’s own]

Historical and cultural claims are not worth much when it comes to sovereignty over territory; if they were then every country in the world would be involved in disputes with their neighbours. In 1994 Russia agreed the Budapest Memorandum with the US, UK and Ukraine in it committing “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine [and] reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”. [1] Russia signed agreements in 1997 that recognised Crimea as a part of Ukraine in return for a lease on the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. [2] Russia has therefore not been contesting sovereignty and so has no legal claim.  [1] Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994’, cfr.org, 5 December 1994  [2] Felgenhauer, T., ‘Ukraine, Russia, and the Black Sea Fleet Accords’, dtic.mil, 1999

Approval of the Parliament  The Russian parliament has agreed to approve force “in connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots” [1] The Russian Federal Council approved the move unanimously so allowing Russian troops to be used. [2] This gives President Putting the authority to use the Russian military in Crimea, or elsewhere in the Ukraine, if he believes it is necessary.  The Crimean Parliament has also asked to join Russia and is to have a referendum to show the support of the people for this action. “From today, as Crimea is part of the Russian Federation the only legal forces here are troops of the Russian Federation, and any troops of the third country will be considered to be armed groups with all the associated consequences.” [3] This clearly gives Russian troops the right to be in Crimea.  [1] Kelly, Lidia, and Polityuk, Pavel, ‘Putin ready to invade Ukraine; Kiev warns of war’, Reuters, 1 March 2014  [2] RT, 1/3/2014  [3] AP, ‘Crimean parliament votes to join Russia, referendum on move March 16’, FoxNews.com, 6 March 2014

Invited by the legitimate government  President Yanukovych is Ukraine’s legitimate President. He is therefore perfectly at liberty to allow Russian troops into his country to keep the peace in much the same way as countries around the world welcome US troops on their soil as protection from external threats or UN peacekeepers to keep the peace domestically. Yanukovych in a letter to Putin called “on the President of Russia, Mr. Putin, asking him to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability and defending the people of Ukraine.” [1]  [1] ‘Yanukovich sent letter to Putin asking for Russian military presence in Ukraine’, RT, 3 March 2014

This is a very different situation from a government inviting in UN peacekeepers. First the Russians are an involved party – part of the cause of the conflict due to the protests in Kiev first breaking out due to Yanukovych turning from the EU to Russia a country so involved would never be asked to be involved in a UN peacekeeping force. Secondly a UN peacekeeping force requires not only the approval of the government but of the UN Security Council. [1] This has not been forthcoming in this case.  On the other hand it is different from basing in another country as the US does as that does not involve coercion. Or for that matter taking vital strategic points such as airports and surrounding the host countries military bases. [2]  [1] ‘Role of the Security Council’, United Nations Peacekeeping, accessed 4/3/2014  [2] Fraser, 2014

Approval by one parliament may make the action legal within Russia but it does not make an invasion legal under international law. The Russian parliament has no legal authority over Crimea or other regions of Ukraine so cannot authorise the use of troops within that country – that is something only the Ukrainian parliament, or in extremis the UN Security Council can authorise.  Similarly the Crimean parliament cannot legally simply decide that Crimea is no longer a part of Ukraine, even a referendum does not enable such a transfer of sovereignty. Self determination should be internal, not external. [1]  [1] Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217

“Russian mobilisation is a response to an imaginary threat. Military action cannot be justified on the basis of threats that haven't been made and aren't being carried out.” Argues US UN Ambassador Samantha Power. [1] There is little threat to Russian citizens or minorities from the new government. Putin has accused the new government of intimidating minorities and increasing anti-Semitism but Ukrainian Jewish organisations have said “does not correspond to the actual facts”. [2] Any protection of citizens should not be pre-emptive.  While it is right that the Crimea should be consulted on its future this should be done without any Russian intervention. Having Russian soldiers on the ground biases any referendum helping to make it illegitimate. With the referendum having happened after intervention Russia cannot say it was reacting to the demonstrated will of the people.  [1] Mardell, Mark, ‘Ukraine's Yanukovych asked for troops, Russia tells UN’, BBC News, 4 March 2014  [2] Zisels, Josef, et al., ‘Open letter of Ukrainian Jews to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’, Voices of Ukraine, 4 March 2014

Crimea should be Russian  Russia has a strong claim to the Crimea; The territory was only handed over in 1954 by Nikita Krushchev for political reasons. [1] Previously it had been Russian for three hundred years. Historically Crimea is Russian not Ukrainian. Culturally Crimea is important to Russia too, it was the main Russian tourism destination during the Soviet Union and Symbolised Russia’s gains in the 18th and 19th Centuries. [2] Russia for most of the 1990s refused to accept Ukraine’s independence, let alone Crimea that Crimea should be a part of it with the Russian Parliament engaging in actions such as declaring Sevastopol a Russian city. [3] Therefore the sovereignty of the region should be considered to be contested.  [1] Pravda, ‘USSR's Nikita Khrushchev gave Russia’s Crimea away to Ukraine in only 15 minutes’, 19 February 2009  [2] Judah, Ben, ‘Why Russia No Longer Fears the West’, Politico, 2 March 2014  [3] Minorities at Risk Project, ‘Chronology for Crimean Russians in Ukraine’, 2004

Need to protect Russian civilians  It is the people of Crimea who are important and their interests should be considered. Putin told the Federation Council that Russia is responding to a “threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation… and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory”. [1] Russia needs to protect both the Russian citizens who are in Crimea and the ethnic Russians who look to Moscow not Kiev.  The Crimean parliament has agreed to hold a referendum on 25th May on “Autonomous Republic of Crimea has state sovereignty and is a part of Ukraine, in accordance with treaties and agreements.” [2] This was put forward to 16th March with two options; Do you support Crimea's reunification with Russia? Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Crimean Republic dated 1992 and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine? [3] The 97% vote for joining Russia and 83% turnout conclusively show that this is the will of the Crimean people. [4]  [1] RT, 1/3/2014  [2] RT, 27/2/2014  [3] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Crimean parliament speeds up referendum, introduces question about joining Russia’, Kyiv Post, 6 March 2014  [4] Hewitt, 17/3/2014

Negotiating with the new government would mean recognising it. Russia may well recognise a new government after elections are held and the government is once more legitimate but until then there is little to negotiate. Moreover elections must be held only when there is stability. At the moment Russia won’t recognise any elections because they would be held under a situation of terror where “there is the danger that a fascist element will come to the fore, and some anti-semite will come to power.” [1]  [1] Siddique, 2014

Russia is hardly the first nation to send troops across a border without UN Security Council support, indeed there is quite a list; Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo. All undertaken by western powers. Russia is not threatening the use of force it is simply guaranteeing that its citizens will not come to harm and putting the military on standby just in case such protection is necessary.

Any cross border troop movements are a violation of sovereignty  States are allowed to take measures for “self-defence if an armed attack occurs”. [1] The movement of troops across the international border from Russia into Ukraine, and from the Russian base in Sevastopol clearly is a violation of sovereignty and Ukraine if it wishes has every right to use force to defend itself even if the Russians don’t fire first. [2]  [1] United Nations, ‘Article 51’, 1945  [2] Deeks, 2014

Damaging to Russia  The United States wants to isolate Russia economically with Kerry threatening Putting “He may find himself with asset freezes, on Russian business, American business may pull back, there may be a further tumble of the ruble.” [1] Even without economic action Russia is already suffering fallout from the markets. The Moscow stock exchange fell 11.2% - or almost $60billion. The ruble reached all-time lows against the dollar and the euro and the Central bank was forced to raise interest rates by 1.5% to prevent further losses. [2] Longer term investment is likely to be hit as US and European companies are less willing to invest in a country with an aggressive foreign policy.  [1] Swaine, 2014  [2] Adomanis, Mark, ‘The Invasion Of Crimea Is Crushing Russia's Stock And Currency Markets’, Forbes, 3 March 2014

What are the consequences of violating international norms?  President Putin has noted the west is being hypocritical by highlighting their role in the middle east over the last decade. And it is true that violating the prohibition against force does not carry any immediate sanction, and that which it does carry are discretionary to individual powers. However that does not mean the violation does not matter; instead it means that any attempt to annex Crimea will be seen as completely illegitimate. [1] International institutions are also likely to react, albeit slowly and not very effectively. Institutions such as the Council of Europe demand “Ukraine's territorial integrity must be respected and international commitments upheld” [2] while the OSCE is sending monitors to Ukraine. [3] Some institutions may exclude Russia altogether; there have been suggestions from Secretary of State Kerry that Russia could be thrown out of the G8. [4]  [1] Voeten, Erik, ‘International law and institutions look pretty weak now, but they will matter a lot down the road’, The Washington Post, 2 March 2014  [2] Jagland, T., ‘Secretary General Jagland warns against escalation in Ukraine's Crimea region’, Council of Europe, 1 March 2014  [3] AFP, ‘OSCE security monitors 'advance teams' in Ukraine tonight: US’, google.com, 4 March 2014  [4] Swaine, Jon, ‘Russia G8 status at risk over ‘incredible act of aggression’ in Crimea says Kerry’, theguardian.com, 2 March 2014

Russia should negotiate with the new government  If Putin is truly concerned about Ukraine’s government being illegitimate and unconstitutional then he should be supporting elections as soon as possible to settle the question of who the government. Putin himself accepts that Yanukovych has “no political future” and helped him for “humanitarian reasons”. [1] If this is the case then military action in Ukraine is superfluous; what Russia needs is a new government in Ukraine that is legitimate. The action in Crimea however simply unites Ukrainian opinion against him making it less likely that a pro-Russian candidate stands a chance of winning the election. Already 58% of Ukrainians support integration with the EU. [2] A rash attempt on Crimea could ensure Putin permanently loses Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence.  [1] Siddique, 2014  [2] Titchenko, Ilya, ‘The Deadly illusion of a divided Ukraine’, Kyiv Post, 2 March 2014

While there has been some economic fallout for Russia this is likely to only be temporary, as the risk of actual conflict goes away the markets will return to normal. There is almost no chance that there will be any sanctions that do real damage because much of Europe is dependent on Russia for gas; Germany gets around 39% of its gas from Russia, and this accounts for almost 9% of its energy consumption and other smaller economies in Eastern Europe are even more dependent. [1] Impose sanctions and Russia could squeeze gas supplies.  [1] Ratner, Michael et al., ‘Europe’s Energy Security: Options and Challenges to Natural Gas Supply Diversification’, Congressional Research Service, 20 August 2013, p.10

It is an invasion without Security Council sanction  The legality of Russia’s invasion of Crimea is simple “Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine violates international law.” [1] The UN Charter is unambiguous “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. [2] Russia has both threatened the use of force by its parliament authorising the President to use force on Ukrainian territory [3] and actually done so by sending troops into Crimea. The only legal way for the UN Charter’s prohibition on force to be avoided is through a Security Council mandate. Which Russia does not have. [4]  [1] Posner, Eric, ‘Russia’s Military intervention in Ukraine: International Law implications’, ericposner.com, 1 March 2014  [2] United Nations, ‘Article 2’, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945  [3] RT, 1/3/2014  [4] Deeks, Ashley, ‘Russian Forces in Ukraine: A Sketch of the International Law Issues’, Lawfare, 2 March 2014

This action by Russia shows (once again) that the consequences of violating international norms is practically zero. As such the action damages the credibility of that norm, especially when applied to a powerful state like Russia. [1] The main problem is Russia is a member of these organisations; as a Security Council member the UN can do nothing, similarly it is blocking a full scale monitoring mission by the OSCE. [2] As for the G8, a talking shop, is Putin really likely to care? [3]  [1] Ku, Julian, ‘Russia Reminds the World (and International Lawyers) of the Limits of International Law’, Opinio Juris, 2 March 2014  [2] AFP, 2014  [3] Judah, 2014

“Ukraine is not [only] our closest neighbour, it is our fraternal nation... we will not go to war with the Ukrainian people.” [1] There have been no shots fired and the action is not a hostile act, it is simply to protect the Crimeans. Russia has not engaged in an armed attack as the forces in Crimea have not fired a shot.  [1] Siddique, 2014

The veto is not wielded as an ideological tool, but rather a tool of national interest like any other diplomatic tool. The recent case of Libya, whereby the veto power was not used by any of the P5, demonstrated the ability of the Security Council to align themselves to the cause of civilian protection. For this reason, it should also be noted that collective security is often indistinguishable from the national interests of the P5. The military might of each of the P5 members individually, and within separate groups, notably the UK and US axis within NATO, is such that the avoidance of disagreement is crucial to international peace. Even if the P5 did cast their vetoes for reasons of ideological self-interest, this cost is outweighed by the maintenance of unity that becomes ever more critical in the post-Cold War multipolar world.

The veto is wielded as an ideological tool.  In the rare recent circumstances in which the veto power has been utilised, it has been hijacked by ideological demands and petty national interests. The P5 are able to use their veto powers not to enforce legality, justice and transparency in the international environment, but rather appease their allies and punish their enemies. China prevented peacekeeping operations proceeding in Guatemala and Macedonia on account of the engagement of those countries with Taiwan1. The veto is no longer applied for the maintenance of collective security, but the substantiation of internal security. 1 He, Yin, 'China's Changing Policy on UN Peacekeeping Operations', Institute for Security &amp; Development Policy, July 2007,

The veto power is still as relevant as it ever was. As the opposition notes, the veto power was granted to ensure the victors in World War II that they could prevent the escalation to world war that had so ravaged their lands and populations. The maintenance of the 'long peace' over the subsequent half-century can be at least partially attributed to the effectiveness of the Security Council veto; the P5 are tempted away from military solutions towards diplomatic feuds due to their ability to bring overbearing political power to bear on rivals. For example, fears of Iran's acquirement of a nuclear weapon have been abetted by US-sponsored efforts to impose sanctions on the regime. Without the veto power, the Security Council would not remain in its current, useful form and may not have prevented a resort to war in this case.

The Security Council knows it has to reform.  All the Security Council members know that at some point there is going to have to be reform of the council. This will most likely mean more members being admitted to the Council. The three countries whose grasp on the Security Council is tenuous due to their relative power having declined; UK, France and Russia, will likely be willing to give up their veto in order to retain their seats. The United States and China would then have to follow or face the rest of the international community and devalue the United Nations. A half-way house would probably be agreed where the veto could be retained in a few areas much as it has been within the European Union decision making process. This could then be slowly eroded over time.

The veto power is a barrier to discourse, preventing the U.N. from acting where the majority of its member states want it to.  Purported U.N. actions that would clearly antagonise a member of the P5 never even reach the Security Council; such is the awareness that the veto would stall its progress. The statistics of the numbers of vetoes passed at any particular point in UN history does not reveal the true defect of the institutional arrangement. In an attempt to circumvent this, countries and military alliances are forced to act unilaterally. NATO initiated military action against Yugoslavia, under the imprimatur of the United States and the United Kingdom, without receiving Security Council authorisation. It had become evident that any UN military involvement would be vetoed by both China and Russia. Furthermore, the silence of the Security Council whilst Russia launched a relentless and brutal campaign against Chechnya was deafening. Nevertheless, there is little that can be done such is the absolute power of the veto that Russia and the other P5 members have.

The Security Council is a unifying force, regardless of its veto powers. Its history of mandating U.N. interventions to prevent humanitarian disasters is on the record and clear. Though many point to the Srebrenica massacre in the former Yugoslavia, few recall the success of the U.N. mission in bringing that conflict to a peaceful resolution. Furthermore, unilateral actions, undertaken without recourse to the Security Council, are often eventually rectified through the Council anyway. The legality of the NATO action in both Yugoslavia and Kosovo was subsequently scheduled for consideration by another organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice. Following the conflict NATO and Russia sought and achieved Security Council endorsement of the campaign. The Council then authorised the deployment of a peacekeeping force in order to police Kosovo. The Security Council thus proved to be a unifying force despite the presence of the veto power.

The efficacy of the United Nations Security Council is dependent on the participation of the world's most powerful states, which is in large part due to the possession of the veto power. Removing the veto, or granting it only to those who contribute their fair share to the United Nations budget risks undermining the very structures that have made the Security Council the platform for co-ordinated international action. For example, whilst China is not one of the top contributors to the budget of the organization, it's economic and military strength are enormous and if the Security Council is to remain relevant, China must be encouraged to remain at the table. The veto power ensures unilateralism is a secondary thought.

The veto power is an anachronism that does not suit the contemporary international society and it's power relations.  The permanent five (P5) were given this privilege for two reasons that have no application in the post-Cold War world. Firstly, the Allied powers, with the addition of China, sought to bind themselves to the UN organisation that was designed to prevent the depredations of the Second World War ever recurring. Secondly, the P5 held unrivalled strategic might through their possession of nuclear weapon technology or imminent nuclear capacity. Yet, the UN is no longer in any danger of imminent collapse. The P5 will abandon neither the organisation nor the cause of global peace by loss of the veto power. Moreover, the global power balance has shifted dramatically since 1945; the P5 'do not reflect the geopolitical realities of today'1. Nuclear proliferation has accelerated in the past decade, such that inter alia India, Pakistan, North Korea, Egypt, Iraq and Iran are developing inter-continental ballistic capacity. 1 Kafala, T. (2003, September 17). The veto and how to use it. Retrieved May 13, 2011, from BBC News

The Permanent Five no longer contribute to the United Nations to a degree expected of their special status.  Funding contributions to the United Nations should directly relate to the influence that member organizations thereafter have on its actions; with the veto in place, this is no longer the case. The Permanent Five, as the group of nations granted the most constitutional power in the United Nations, should contribute a proportional amount of resources to the institution. Initially, this was the case – however, by 2004, Japan was contributing 19 per cent of the UN budget, second only to that of the United States [1]. In third place, contributing 8 per cent, was Germany, another state lacking a veto power and any ability to overrule the interests of P5 nations, all bar one of whom contributed less to the UN budget [2]. Furthermore, India and Brazil, whilst not contributing financially to the degree of Japan and Germany, have permitted large swathes of their armed forces to join U.N. peacekeeping operations to fulfil the mandates handed down by the Security Council. Despite these financial and military contributions, the states concerned get no greater say in the interests and actions of the organization. A fairer, more equitable model would insist on a greater proportionality between one’s contribution to the United Nations and one’s ability to influence its actions.  [1] Blum, 2005  [2] ibid

Constitutional change within the UN is possible and thus worthy of full discussion. As Richard Butler has observed, a proper debate about the defects of the veto might at the least yield a more constructive interpretation of the nature of the veto and its application1. An informed public awareness of the potential for the Security Council to be bypassed or hijacked might lead to pressure for exercise of the power in accordance with the Charter aims. Notably, China was persuaded or compelled not to cast the veto in respect of the Council measures on Kosovo. This reasonable approach prevailed in spite of vocal Chinese opposition to the bombing campaign, and the destruction of the Chinese embassy by NATO forces. 1 Butler, R. (1999, August 19). Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered. Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Chicago Tribune:

Treaties do not confer permanent and inalienable rights; they should be constantly subject to reform when their dictates conflict with the wishes of their voters. In an institution like the United Nations, which espouses self-determination, the existence of a power which is immune from reform is not a source of pride. If the veto powers had a right to the veto when they were first introduced, that right has now been lost in the chorus of disapproval found among the very same U.N. member states that granted them that right. In a political environment, if an elected official loses the will of their voters, the elected official does not get to choose whether they keep those elected powers. The power remains with they who grant the powers, the voters.

The veto power has proven a success in the maintenance of peace.  The veto power has been wielded with increasing success both during and since the Cold War. Between 1945 and 1990, 240 vetoes were cast1. Yet between 1990 and 1999 the power was utilised on only 7 occasions, whilst more than 20 peacekeeping operations were mandated. This figure exceeds the total number of operations undertaken in the entirety of the preceding 45 years. The prodigious use of the veto during the Cold War period might have saved the world from the realisation of nuclear war. Now, increasing nuclear proliferation is a reason for maintaining the unity of the P5 by means of the veto. The current rhetoric concerns 'rogue states' gaining possession of nuclear weapons. These are states whose potential deployment of arms is unpredictable and with whom there is limited international dialogue. If the P5 is split on a matter of international security, any one or more of its members could become equally 'rogue'. 1 Global Policy Forum. (n.d.). Changing Patterns in the Use of the Veto in the Security Council. Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Global Policy Forum:

The veto power reduces the risk of nuclear escalation.  The P-5 veto holding members of the UN SC are unique in that they are the only countries that have nuclear arsenals (not simply a small stock of nuclear weapons). They are the only countries with the power to initiate full-scale nuclear war. Therefore, it is important that that they be able to end measures with their veto power to ensure that measures are not realized that could foment serious international tension and possibly nuclear war. In other words, 'you give (veto power) to the nations who- thanks to their nuclear missiles- already have effective veto power anyway'1. The gift of the veto power encourages such nuclear states to act within the system, ensuring that 'they have a stronger stake in acting within the system than acting outside of it'2. 1 Beck. (2004, December 5). The Security Council Veto Power, or Got Nuke? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Incite: 2 Fassbender, B. (1998). UN Security Council Reform and the Right to Vote: A Constitutional Perspective. Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Abolition of the veto is practically impossible.  The abolition of the power of veto is simply impossible to imagine. The P5 will not willingly cede their pre-eminent position in international politics. And unsurprisingly, each member would have the constitutional power of veto over any proposal to remove the veto. Articles 108 and 109 of the United Nations Charter grants the P5 veto over amendments to the charter, requiring them to approve stripping away their own veto powers. Given the influence wielded by a veto-bearing state, it is unlikely that any of the P5 would agree to give up this privilege. Therefore, this whole debate is undermined by the sheer impossibility of it being removed, without the wholesale destruction of the United Nations as an organization or, at best, as a relevant organization.

The veto power was granted legally to the P5 by the other participating states, and therefore the P5 have a right to those powers.  There is no requirement in the UN Charter for the veto power to be distributed according to geopolitical realities. Whilst democracy and equality are the principles that direct the General Assembly, they were never intended to apply to the Security Council. The Security Council was conceived as the 'hegemonic' organ, designed to be responsible and effective. As such, the veto power was a tool to ensure the Security Council would not be encumbered by democracy. Therefore, the privileges of the P5 'appear as rights bestowed upon them' by the states who ratified the UN Charter in 19451. As a consequence, the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council have little to complain about when they themselves are responsible for their 'diminished status' under the Charter1. The price paid for their diminished status is the effectiveness of the Security Council. 1 Fassbender, B. (1998). UN Security Council Reform and the Right to Vote: A Constitutional Perspective. Hague: Kluwer Law International, p.264

Only the abolishment of the veto power would enable global action free from the political motives and inherent power politics of the veto powers. Absent of the veto, motions would be considered and passed on merit, not on the self-interest and political motives of the veto powers.As Tarik Kafala argues, 'the majority view at the Council would prevail and we might expect more resolutions passed, more situations identified as threats to world security, more cases of states being reprimanded and sanctions being imposed'1. Far from destabilising the world order, the removal of veto power would merely enshrine self-determination within the organization that purports to carry that principle to the world. 1 Kafala, T. (2003, September 17). The veto and how to use it. Retrieved May 13, 2011, from BBC News

Under international law there are only two instances where secession is possible; in the case of foreign occupation and as a result of decolonisation. The third category espoused by the proposition is disputed and naturally leads to absurd consequences: how small a group of people on how small a plot of land can unilaterally declare independence?  Moreover, the Kosovan claim for independence is not clear-cut. The population ratio of Kosovo-Albanian to Serb inhabitants of Kosovo is constantly in flux. In addition, the current ratio has far fewer Serbs because of enforced or fear-driven flight from the region after NATO intervention gave Kosovo-Albanians the upper hand in the region. In 1971 Serbs were 18.4% of the population. [1] The Kosovo-Albanians have suffered undeniably over the last decade. However, that should not lead us to ignore the very genuine historical significance of Kosovo to Serbia, particularly to the Orthodox faith. There is a historical tradition of both Serbs and Kosovo-Albanians inhabiting Kosovo. To effect a change in the sovereignty over a region on the basis of a temporary population ratio is to ignore the complexity of the issues that surround this territory.  [1] Howe, Marvine, ‘Exodus of Serbians stirs province in Yugoslavia’, The New York Times, 12 July 1982,

Self-determination is a human right  Self-determination is a right recognised by the United Nations Charter and forms the basis of relations between all nations on earth. Thus, Kosovo-Albanians have international law on their side in their pursuit of an independent homeland. If the UN Charter is not explicitly on the side of the Kosovo-Albanians it is difficult to see which people it does support. The very credibility of international law and international society depends on support for causes like that of Kosovan independence where the people in a region have had their right to self-determination internally totally frustrated. [1]  [1] Kumbaro, Dajena.‘The Kosovo Crisis in a International Law Perspective: Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity and the NATO intervention’. NATO Office of Information and Press. 2001.

Ethnic Serbs are suffering right now in Kosovo. A large portion of them have been displaced from their homes and a significant number of Serbian Orthodox churches and cemeteries have been demolished or vandalised. It is hypocritical to use to suffering of one side to justify a transfer of sovereignty while simultaneously ignoring the suffering of the other side.

The people of Kosovo are distinct from their neighbours  Kosovo-Albanians are ethnically and culturally distinct from Serbs. They live in a geographically distinct location, Kosovo which is separated from Serbia by the Prokletije, Kopaonik and Zegovac mountains. They comprise 1.7 million people, living within a distinct area, who as the majority are ethnically Albanian and religiously Muslim are clearly different from the Serbs who until recently ruled over them. There was initially a peaceful resistance movement led by Ibrahim Rugova, established after the loss of autonomy and rights the region experienced in the 1990s. However once this failed to make progress in 1997 an armed resistance movement called the Kosovo Liberation Army emerged. [1] Slobodan Milosevic the Serbian leader responded with in ethnic persecution resulting in NATO intervention which in itself should be enough reason to support independence. For all these reasons, Kosovo-Albanians deserve to be allowed to govern themselves just as much as any other people.  [1] Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, ‘Background Note: Kosovo’, U.S. Department of State, 16 November 2011,

An ethnic or religious difference from the rulers of one’s country is not a sufficient condition to necessitate independence. It is perfectly possible for example to be a Muslim in a predominantly Christian country, or someone of Irish heritage living in England, without calling for a separate "state within a state". Not just any minority group deserves to have its call for sovereign independence recognised. There have to be additional and better reasons, other than a simple difference in ethnicity or cultural heritage if a people are to ground a valid claim for sovereign independence.

Britain does though claim sovereignty over far away locations such as the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. The controversy of those claims is not mitigated that they are populated by ethnic Britons who immigrated on assumption of British control.  Ethnic nationalism has a very bad history, both around the world and in the Balkans in particular. Out of the nineteenth century explosion in popularity of nationalistic ideologies grew the bitter tensions and wars of the twentieth century. The last thing that we should be doing is promoting a continuation and an extension of this divisive and destructive way of perceiving the world. Ultimately, an independent state would be created just because it was believed that there is too much bad blood between the Serbs and Kosovo-Albanians for them to live in harmony. To create an ethnically exclusive state because of animosity with another ethnic group is not a solution; it is a recipe for disaster.

Reversing de-facto sovereignty would be an affront to those who suffered from ethnic cleansing  The NATO action in Kosovo was justified as a humanitarian intervention to prevent the oppression and murder of Kosovo-Albanians. It makes a mockery of that action and the liberal-internationalist, humanitarian rhetoric that underpinned it, to then deny these over a million people the right to determine their own future free from outside interference. Tony Blair for example stated “We cannot let the evil of ethnic cleansing stand. We must not rest until it is reversed.” [1] If they should then choose to seek EU membership, then that is their right and a clear opportunity for them to gain greater prosperity outside Serbia.  Kosovar Albanians have suffered much over the last decade at the hands of Serbia. It is offensive to suggest that they must submit to any arrangement that preserves Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. Serbia/Yugoslavia forfeited whatever right it had to govern Kosovo when it systematically discriminated against Kosovo-Albanians. It is also in Serbia’s own interests to put its own bloody past behind it and make a clean break in the interests of improving its economic and diplomatic relationships with its neighbours, and in seeking foreign aid and perhaps one day EU membership.  [1] Blair, Tony, ‘Prime Minister’s speech: Doctrine of the International community at the Economic Club, Chicago’, 24 April 1999,

The popular sovereignty of the Kosovan people must take precedence over other considerations  The present fact of a distinct, Kosovo-Albanian people living in Kosovo must take precedence over any traditional, religious or historical claim to Serbian sovereignty over that land. It is certainly true that Kosovo is historically and culturally important to Serbia. It has a particular significance for the Orthodox faith. However, consider the following analogy. Great Britain is, officially, a Christian country. This fact gives the British no valid territorial claim to sovereignty over Bethlehem (the literal birth-place of Christianity), particularly when there are people already living in the area. Historico-religious, traditional associations with a place can never override the rights of an indigenous population to remain in possession of its land and sovereignty.  There are clear, historical precedents for granting Kosovo independence. These precedents can be seen regionally in the post-communist independence of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia, as well as of the Baltic Republics. Globally, one can see precedents in the struggle of African countries for independence from European colonial rule. The relative proximity of Serbia to Kosovo in no way makes the situation dissimilar to the struggles of India against British rule - the British would not be content to be ruled by France just because the two countries are neighbours.

This argument depends upon how one defines the ‘territorial integrity’ of a state in Article 2. Certainly it would not be legitimate for a state to simply declare based on an old treaty or historic claim that its territory encompassed that of a neighbour and to invade, therefore the requirement to respect territorial integrity must only refer to de facto integrity. Given that Serbia has no actual control over the territory of Kosovo it is not a violation of the rights of the Serbian state to recognise it as an independent nation.

In the last decade Kosovo has leveraged remittances and direct investment from the Kosovar diaspora to achieve robust growth. It has also made significant progress in developing key social and economic institutions necessary for a viable state. In adopting the Euro as legal tender it has gained a strong financial anchor. Kosovo also benefits from low public debt and a strategic cash reserve. [1] It is also wrong to argue that Kosovo would be unviable because of its size as Kosovo has a population considerably larger than many independent states in Europe today (eg Iceland, Malta, Cyprus, Estonia).  [1] IMF ‘Republic of Kosovo: Concluding Statement of the 2011 Article IV Consultation Mission’. May 30 2011.

Now is not the appropriate time  There are still widely reported incidents between Kosovo-Albanians and Serbs. [1] Mafia-style gangs dominate the area, [2] many associated with the KLA paramilitaries who struggled against Serbia, and are involved in international crimes such as drug and people trafficking. Moreover, there was an effective Serb boycott of recent elections in Kosovo. The region has clearly not yet healed its wounds and to put even more strain on the already tense relations between the two communities is simply not advisable.  In Serb-dominated North Kosovo, schools utilities and municipalities are integrated into Serbia’s system, not Kosovo’s.  [1] Potok, Zubin, ‘NATO soldiers wounded by gunfire in Kosovo clash’, Reuters, 28 November 2011,   [2] Lewis, Paul, ‘Kosovo PM is head of human organ and arms ring, Council of Europe reports’, guardian.co.uk, 14 December 2010,

It will be bad for regional stability  Not only will a move toward independence be bad news for the Serb minority population and for regional relations in general. Some areas of northern Kosovo are ethnically Serb, while parts of southern Serbia have an Albanian population, so the border is likely to be in dispute. It will also increase tensions in neighbouring Macedonia. There is a large, Albanian minority in the north of Macedonia. In the aftermath of NATO intervention in Kosovo separatists attempted to put the cause of independence from Macedonia on the map. The Macedonian government is not willing to cede any of its territory and any resurgence in separatist terrorism - which would be the inevitable consequence of independence for Kosovo - would lead to bloody conflict in that region. [1] Not only Serbia but also Macedonia and Greece fear a struggle for a Greater Albania. Thus, in the interests of preserving peace and preventing loss of life, we should postpone the settlement of the question of sovereignty until tensions between the different communities subside.  [1] Karon, Tony, ‘Why Macedonia Has NATO Worried’, TimeWorld, 12 March 2001,

The UN charter is against it.  Article 2 of the UN charter requires all member states to ‘refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’.  Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), which authorised the deployment of an international force to Kosovo to manage security and governance, explicitly affirmed the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the name for the Union of Serbia and Montenegro which ended in 2006) and the other States to that region. [1]  Recognition of an independent Kosovo is a violation of the territorial integrity of Serbia and thus a violation of the rights of the Serbian state.  [1] UN Security Council Resolution 1244

An independent Kosovo is not a viable state  An independent Kosovo would be too small for it to be a viable state. It is one of the poorest regions in Yugoslavia, with a per capita GDP of only $2750, [1] and needs to be a part of a larger state for it to benefit from the development subsidies, economies of scale and labour movement rights that are offered by membership of a larger state. The creation of an independent sovereign state would entail the introduction of destructive tariffs and other bureaucratic obstacles to the regeneration of the region, which must be the first priority. The avid desire of Slovenia and other former communist countries to join the political and economic project of the European Union is a clear indication of the way that Balkan people should be directed.  [1] Background Note: Kosovo,

Whilst the ideal of Serb and Kosovar living in harmony is an honourable one, the international community should not waste energy trying to engineer such a society when both sides appear committed to exclusive, nation-state models which involve the political and social hegemony of one group over the other. Multicultural toleration is a fine liberal, democratic ideal but it does not fit every empirical reality. The tensions are too great to make such a system work.

The uncertainty over Kosovo’s status is a cause of tension. Drawing a line under the whole issue and making it clear that Kosovo will not revert to being part of Serbia again allows for a relaxing of nationalist tension and for serious discussions to begin over land swaps that would make the border more sensible.

This would be a very risky course to take; currently there is 51% support for independence and that could as well go up as down when given the opportunity. With both the Spanish and Catalan economies in crisis it is likely that such a referendum would only be bolstered by anger at the government due to the state of the economy. This might therefore be an option for Spain at some point in the future when the economy is back on its feet and so less of an issue but at the moment it would be waving goodbye to Spain as we know it.

Control over Catalan destiny would reduce tensions and may help prevent independence  For Spain by far the biggest reason for allowing a referendum is that it may well be the best way of keeping Catalonia within Spain over the long term. So long as Spain says it will not allow a referendum or give the Catalans control over their own destiny the movement for Catalan independence is likely to get stronger as it can focus on the denial of democratic rights – Spain is waving a red flag to the bull. Allow a referendum, particularly if it has to be accompanied by a long period of campaigning for reflection and Catalans will have to agonise whether it is in their own best interests, 1 decide whether they want to damage their economy by having large companies such as Planeta the world’s largest Spanish language publishing business pulling out, 2 sever extensive links with Spain, and risk their membership of the European Union which Spain would veto. 3 If Spain were to offer as an alternative a new constitutional settlement that solves many of the grievances the Catalans have at the moment they might find they really want to remain within Spain, 4 much as many scots would prefer devo-max.  1 Bloomberg editors, ‘To Keep Catalonia In, Spain Should Allow a Cote to Secede’, Bloomberg, 15 October 2012,   2 Charlemagne, ‘Hostage to Catalonia’, The Economist, 5th October 2012,   3 Bollier, Sam, ‘Catalans press for secession from Spain’, Al Jazeera, 30 September 2012,   4 Bloomberg editors, ‘To Keep Catalonia In, Spain Should Allow a Cote to Secede’, Bloomberg, 15 October 2012,

Such a decision by the Catalan government would clearly be against the Spanish Constitution and therefore illegal. The constitution makes it “the Army’s mission is to guarantee the sovereignty and independence of Spain, to defend its territorial integrity and the constitutional set up” so such a move would invite a military response. Some members of the ruling PP party have already stated that the Guardia Civil should take over the Mossos (Catalan police). 1 There are also members of the army who would be willing to take such action, "Catalan independence? Over my dead body and that of many soldiers" says Colonel Francisco Aleman who also compared the crisis to the start of the Spanish Civil war in 1936. 2  1 Guibernau, Montserrat, ‘Calls for independence in Catalonia are part of an evolution of Spain’s democracy that the country’s constitution may have to come to accommodate.’, London School of Economics and Political Science, European Politics and Policy, 8 October 2012,   2 Mason, Paul, ‘Catalan leaders seek independence vote, legal or not’, BBC News, 5 October 2012,

Catalans clearly want self determination  Every peoples has the right to self determination. This is enshrined in the UN Charter right at the start in Article 1 as a purpose of the United Nations “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and is also in other major international agreements. 1 Large numbers of states have been recognised since this principle of self determination was recognised by the world in 1945 a great many of them states that are less natural states in terms of size, economy, ethnicity or geography so it would be wrong to deny a right exercised by so many others from the Catalans. It is clear that the Catalans wish to exercise this right to decide their own destiny democratically through a referendum. When polled by the Catalan Survey Institute 74.1% said they would be in favour of organising a referendum with 19.9% against, the remaining 6% were undecided. 2  1 The United Nations, ‘Charter of the United Nations’, 26 June 1945, Chapter 1, Article 1,   2 Coll, Gaspar Pericay, ‘74% of Catalan citizens are in favour of holding an independence referendum in Catalonia’, Catalan News Agency, 10 October 2012,

It is far from clear whether self determination gives peoples the right to decide whether they should be independent. The Supreme Court of Canada has looked at this issue with reference to Quebec that has in the past argued for its right to self determination. The court argues “The recognized sources of international law establish that the right to self-determination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal self-determination -- a people's pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state. A right to external self-determination (which in this case potentially takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral secession) arises in only the most extreme of cases and, even then, under carefully defined circumstances.” This is because such a right must fit in with the principle of territorial integrity of existing states. 1  1 ‘Reference re Secession of Quebec’, Supreme Court of Canada, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217  Para 126/7

Not getting your way in a democracy is not an excuse for turning to violence. Catalonia instead must attempt to persuade the other regions of Spain to allow a referendum or if it can’t then accept that the majority in Spain do not want Catalonian independence and respect their position. Violence will not help persuade the rest of Spain of its case; it did not for the Basques, and will not for Catalonia. So far the Catalan independence movement has recognised this with Lopez Tena the leader of the Catalan Solidarity for Independence party states “We would under no condition follow that [violent] path. That’s not how things are done in a democratic country.” 1  1 Primor, Adar, ‘Catalan leader predicts independence in about two years, and close friendship with Israel’, Haaretz, 4 October 2012,

Catalonia will hold its own referendum regardless of Spain’s position  Catalonia is likely to go its own way and decide it should make its own decisions regardless of the rest of Spain’s views. Artur Mas Catalonia’s President says "If we can go ahead with a referendum because the government authorises it, it's better. If not, we should do it anyway". 1 So regardless of the Spanish position in his next four year term he will hold a referendum asking “Do you want Catalonia to become a new state within the European Union?” If Spain then does not back down about allowing this then there may well be a constitutional crisis. So far the Catalan option is simply to “internationalise the conflict we will have to go to Brussels to explain that they don't even let us consult with the people”. 2  Ultimately despite being within Spain so long as support for independence remains strong the Catalans probably have more cards to play; they provide more in taxes than they receive so could cut Madrid off, or in the final play they could unilaterally secede leaving Spain with the unpalatable option of either negotiating to get Catalonia back in, accepting, or invading.  1 Bollier, Sam, ‘Catalans press for secession from Spain’, Al Jazeera, 30 September 2012,   2 Tremlett, Giles, ‘Catalonia leader threatens to draw EU into independence row with Spain’, guardian.co.uk, 15 October 2012,

If a referendum is not allowed violence may be the result  The worst case scenario is one in which the Spanish government continues to deny the Catalan people the ability to decide for themselves democratically and peacefully then it is possible that eventually the result will be a change from a peaceful movement to a violent one. Some outside observers see parallels with the break up of Yugoslavia where the solution has to be further decentralisation and the center accepting a democratic route – in Yugoslavia failure to do so ultimately lead to several wars. 1 2 For the moment there are only the slightest of hints that things may get more radical if denied Pujol the General secretary of the governing Catalan party says "There will be no way to avoid it. If we don't deliver it someone else will. More radical parties. But in a negotiation… it's not the best thing to reveal what you are going to do next" so there is the possibility some factions of the independence movement turning to violence as Eta did in the Basque region if denied the democratic route. 3  1 Stanic, Ana, ‘Catalunya and Spain: more than time for dialogue’, Open Democracy, 18 October 2012,   2 Basta, Karlo, ‘Reducing Catalonia’s autonomy as a reaction to the fiscal crisis would only provide more fuel for secession-minded nationalists’, London School of Economics and Political Science, European Politics and Policy, 26 September 2012,   3 Mason, Paul, ‘Catalan leaders seek independence vote, legal or not’, BBC News, 5 October 2012,

It is not up to the Spanish state to choose when the Catalans should be able to have a referendum on independence. A time of crisis is as good as any; economic grievances are one of the main drivers in the desire for independence so it should come as no surprise that there is increase desire for a referendum when there is just such a crisis. Spain has already shown that it considers that there never has been and never will be a right time for a divorce. Even in the good times attempts to get an autonomy statute were met by challenges in the constitutional court which after years of deliberation watered down the agreement which had already been watered down by the Spanish Parliament. 1 More recently it was in large part the refusal of the Spanish Prime Minister to consider a request to consider Catalonia the same way as the Basques and Navarra in terms of finances that triggered the current crisis. 2  1 Pericay, Gaspar, ‘The Spanish Constitutional Court shortens the current Catalan Statute of Autonomy’, Catalan News Agency, 28 June 2010,   2 Guibernau, Montserrat, ‘Calls for independence in Catalonia are part of an evolution of Spain’s democracy that the country’s constitution may have to come to accommodate.’, London School of Economics and Political Science, European Politics and Policy, 8 October 2012,

Section 2 of the constitution continues “it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.” 1 However it is not the constitution that is the problem blocking a referendum; rather it is the Spanish parliament. The government and parliament clearly could ask the King to allow a referendum on Catalan independence if it so wished. It should do so in order to prevent any more existential challenges to the constitution; constitutions have to be flexible if they are to survive the government is therefore wrong to treat it as a static unchanging document and justification for ruling out a referendum for Catalan independence. 2  1 Cortes Generales, Spanish Constitution, 27 December 1978,  Section 2  2 Guibernau, Montserrat, ‘Calls for independence in Catalonia are part of an evolution of Spain’s democracy that the country’s constitution may have to come to accommodate.’, London School of Economics and Political Science, European Politics and Policy, 8 October 2012,

Catalan independence would lead to further break up of the Spanish state  The issue of Catalan independence does not just affect Catalonia but the whole of Spain. All the regions of Spain have strong regional identities and Catalan is merely most widely spoken regional language with the both the Basque region and Galicia in particular having their own languages. Therefore a Catalan bid for independence might prompt other regions to make a bid for independence too. Moreover Catalan is spoken in regions outside Catalonia so these regions could potentially decide they are better off with Catalonia than Spain. 1  The basques in particular, who have already turned to the political path from that of violent separatism, are likely to take inspiration to work towards peaceful independence if the Catalans succeed and are allowed a referendum. 2 If Catalonia is allowed to secede then why should the Basque region be any different?  1 McCormick, Mark, ‘The languages of Spain – interactive’, guardian.co.uk, 19 January 2011,   2 Zabalo, Julen, ‘Basque nationalists are taking inspiration from Scotland and Northern Ireland by using politics as a vehicle for independence’, London School of Economics and Political Science, European Politics and Policy, 25 September 2012,

The middle of a crisis is not the right time for divorce  Both Catalonia and Spain are in the middle of an economic crisis. Spain is considering a bail out by the European central bank and the prospect of losing 20% of its economy and the uncertainty while it happens would have an immense impact on the rest of the economy at a time when Spain already has unemployment of 23%. On the other side Catalonia’s regional government needs bailing out by Spain’s central government; it is seeking 5 billion Euros from a bailout fund set up by the Spanish government. Therefore while Catalonia may be the richest part of the Spanish economy but its government is missing its deficit targets. 1 It is therefore exactly the wrong time for Catalonia to be rocking the boat with a referendum on independence and the uncertainty this creates. Catalonia needs the Spanish government for its own bailout and the Spanish government needs stability if it is to avoid a bail out from the European Union and the conditions that are likely to come with such action.  1 Tremlett, Giles, and Traynor, Ian, ‘Catalonia's €5bn plea brings Spanish bailout nearer”, The Guardian, 28 August 2012,

Spain is one indivisible nation  The Spanish constitution does not allow the holding of referendums on independence by Spanish regions. Spain is a single ‘demos’ made up of all the regions together rather than being separate and simply brought together under one banner. The Constitution says it “is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards”. 1  Moreover while referendums may be allowed for “political decisions of special importance” “The referendum shall be called by the King on the President of the Government's  proposal after previous authorization by the Congress.” 2 So the calling of one is first up to the national government to decide one is needed and then requires the approval of the national parliament. In case that was not clear enough it is reiterated in section 149 on the role of the State and Regions “The State shall have exclusive competence over the following matters: Authorization of popular consultations through the holding of referendums.” 3  1 Cortes Generales, Spanish Constitution, 27 December 1978,  Section 2  2 Ibid, Section 92  3 Ibid, section 149

For the most part this is simply being alarmists. However if other Spanish regions do wish to go their own way then all the arguments for why Catalonia should be allowed its own choice apply to them as well.

Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Palestinians' legal case, their foremost argument for a 'right of return' has always rested on a claim of victimhood; this claim is highly disputed (as outlined below). Without this moral culpability on the part of Israel, there is no responsibility to right the situation on the part of the Israeli state.  Moreover, the 'individual' nature of the right of return is not helpful to the Palestinian case: Stig Jagerskiold argued in 1966 that the right of return was intended as an individual and not a collective right: "...[it] is intended to apply to individuals asserting an individual right. There was no intention here to address the claims of masses of people who have been displaced as a by-product of war or by political transfers of territory or population, such as the relocation of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe during and after the Second World War, the flight of the Palestinians from what became Israel, or the movement of Jews from the Arab countries." [1] The claimed legal 'right of return' was never intended to be invoked by masses of people, which would fundamentally alter the welfare and nature of the state they returned to, and so its use in this way is invalid.  [1] Lapidoth, Ruth. "LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE QUESTION". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: Jerusalem Letter / Viewpoints. 1 Septemebr 2002.

Palestinians have a right to return under international law  Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." [1] This right clearly applies to the Palestinians, as shown by UN General Assembly Resolution 194: “The General Assembly, Having considered further the situation in Palestine ... Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." [2] This resolution was further clarified by UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 which reaffirms: "the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return." Israel itself accepted Resolution 194 when it was allowed to join the UN on the condition that it accepted this resolution. [3]  Israel's own laws recognise the importance of the 'right of return' to a people in general through the fact that Jews are allowed to emigrate to Israel under Israel's Law of Return, even if their immediate ancestors have not lived in the area in recent years. [4] The fact that, conversely, Palestinian people who grew up in the area and whose immediate ancestors had lived there for many generations are forbidden from returning is thus a huge injustice even from Israel's own legal perspective. Moreover, this right of return applies not just to Palestinians as a group but also individually to all Palestinian refugees themselves. On March 15, 2000, a group of 100 prominent Palestinians from around the world expressed their opinion that the right of return is individual, rather than collective, and that it cannot therefore be reduced or forfeited by any representation on behalf of the Palestinians in any agreement or treaty. They argued that the right to property 'cannot be extinguished by new sovereignty or occupation and does not have a statute of limitation.' [5] Therefore the Palestinian right of return has a clear basis in international law, including in Israel's own law, and so it should be recognised.  [1] United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Wikisource. 10 December 1948.   [2] United Nations. "UN General Assembly Resolution 194". United Nations. 11 December 1948.   [3] Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. "Factsheet". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition.   [4] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.   [5] Al-Ahram Weekly. "Affirmation of the Palestinian Right of Return". Al-Ahram Weekly Online. 9 - 15 March 2000.

This argument again assumes that Israel is morally responsible for the current plight of the Palestinian refugees, which is untrue as Israel was not responsible for their exodus (as outlined below). Moreover, it is Arab countries, not Israel, which keep Palestinians in a state of limbo. It is the failure of Arab states to incorporate Palestinians into their societies by offering legal status which keeps the Palestinian refugees in their current indeterminate position, not Israeli policy. Furthermore, self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination, including not compromising the fundamental security or nature of the original state, something which recognising the Palestinian right of return would do to Israel. Such policies are often pursued by Arab states explicitly as a tool against Israel: for example, Palestinians who moved from the West Bank (whether refugees or not) to Jordan, are issued yellow ID cards to distinguish them from the Palestinians of the "official 10 refugee camps" in Jordan.  Since 1988, thousands of those yellow-ID card Palestinians have had their Jordanian citizenship revoked in order to prevent the possibility that they might become permanent residents of the country. Jordan's Interior Minister Nayef al-Kadi said: "Our goal is to prevent Israel from emptying the Palestinian territories of their original inhabitants," the minister explained. "We should be thanked for taking this measure... We are fulfilling our national duty because Israel wants to expel the Palestinians from their homeland." [1]  [1] Abu Toameh, Khaled. "Amman revoking Palestinians' citizenship". The Jerusalem Post. 20 July 2009.

A Palestinians were forced to leave and so have a right to return  Especially in the 1948 War, Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes and towns en masse by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). The traditional Israeli point of view arguing that Arab leaders encouraged Palestinian Arabs to flee is simply untrue. In fact, Arab leaders intended for the Palestinian Arab population stay put. Historians such as Benny Morris, Erskine Childers, and Walid Khalidi state that no evidence of widespread evacuation orders exists, and that Arab leaders in fact instructed the Palestinian Arabs to stay put. [1] [2] [3] .  According to Morris, whatever the reasons driving many into flight, temporary evacuation under local orders, contagious panic, fear of Jewish arms, or direct expulsion manu militari, the 700,000 odd Palestinians who did become refugees acquired that status as a result of compulsory displacement or expulsion, since they were not permitted by Israel to return.(1) In terms of the cause of the Palestinian flight, Morris argues that "Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish... attacks or fear of impending attack."(1) A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948", dated 30 June 1948 affirms that up to 1 June 1948: "At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population.  As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases. [4] This clearly demonstrates not only Israeli responsibility for the Palestinian refugees of 1948, but also that Israel was aware of it while it was going on, thus showing that expelling the Palestinians was intentional Israeli policy. This is compounded by the fact that the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Arabs of Palestine was part of the Zionist project from the very beginning. Theodor Herzl, in effect the father of modern Zionism and the state of Israel, in the draft-agreement of The Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC) stated the company was 'for the purpose of settling Palestine and Syria with Jews' (the company lobbied for approval from Sultan Abdulhameed in Istanbul in 1901). In Article III of the same agreement the JOLC was given the right to deport the native populations, an act aimed at legitimizing ethnic cleansing, by granting "The right to exchange economic enclaves of its territory, with the exception of the holy places or places already designated for worship. The owners shall receive plots of equal size and quality procured by it (the JOLC) in other provinces and territories of the Ottoman Empire." [5] This intentional ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Palestine can therefore be seen as part of the Zionist project to create a Jewish majority state in Israel. Therefore, to deny the Palestinian right of return is to perpetuate this injustice and allow ethnic cleansing to succeed. Israel, a state founded by refugees of ethnic cleansing and the Holocaust, should not allow such an injustice to stand any longer.  [1] Morris, Benny. "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". Cambridge University Press. 2004  [2] Childers, Erskine. "The Other Exodus". The Spectator. 12 May 1961  [3] Khalidi, Walid. "Why did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited". Journal of Palestinian Studies Vol 134, no. 2 (Win. 05).  [4] Morris, Benny. "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defence Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948". Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan., 1986)  [5] Sakhnini, Nizar. "Dispossession and Ethnic Cleansing." Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. 12 July 2004.

The characterization of the 1948 Palestinian exodus as forced by Israel is incorrect. In the very same passage quoted opposite, Morris goes on to argue that only "an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of (Israeli) expulsion orders or forceful 'advice' to that effect". [1] Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator in Palestine, testified that "the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion." [2] Thus, Israel is not responsible for acts of flight from Palestine which were largely motivated by imagined fears, which were the cause of almost all the Palestinian refugees, as they were not directly expelled or threatened by the IDF.  The Palestinians of 1948 may have made a tragic choice, for themselves and for their descendants, but this does not make Israel morally responsible for this choice and its consequences, as in almost every case Israel was not to blame, and it is impossible to isolate and identify those few where it may have been. Even if Israel were somehow morally responsible, it does not follow from this that Israel should accept an unlimited Palestinian right of return on the part of every refugee, considering the massive harms this would inflict on the state of Israel (outlined below). Rather, as Israel has proposed in the past, the Palestinians could accept words of contrition from Israel, and generous allocations of international aid, in place of the right of every refugee and his descendants to go back to his old home inside Israel. [3] This would be a more acceptable alternative to Israel, and still help to heal Palestinian wounds.  [1] Morris, Benny. "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". Cambridge University Press. 2004  [2] UN Progress Report, 16 September 1948, Part 1 Section V, paragraph 6; Part 3 Section I  [3] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.

Denying the right to return harms Palestinians  Palestinian refugees represent the longest suffering and largest refugee population in the world today. During the creation of Israel in 1948, approximately three quarters of a million Palestinians were forced to become refugees. Together with their descendants, more than 4.3 million of these refugees are today registered with the United Nations while over 1.7 million are not. Approximately 32,000 Palestinians also became internally displaced in the areas occupied in 1948. Today, these refugees number approximately 355,000 persons. Despite the fact that they were issued Israeli citizenship, Israel has also denied these refugees their right to return to their homes or villages. [1] The fact that these refugees are forced by Israel to continue living abroad, mostly in refugee camps, further harms Palestinians by denying them the right to self-determination in their homeland which they were expelled from.  The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: "All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right". [2] By this measure, the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination in their homeland, allowing them to establish an independent state if they wish, any suppression of that right should be seen as a human rights violation. Therefore Israel's denial of the Palestinian’s right of return harms the Palestinians, and so it should be ended.  [1] Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. "Factsheet". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition.   [2] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.

The 1948 UN General Resolution 194 specifically applies the right of return to the Palestinian refugees. Paragraph 11 states "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." [1]  [1] United Nations. "UN General Assembly Resolution 194". United Nations. 11 December 1948.

The inalienable rights of refugees are not negotiable, nor are they subject to the interests of the state which they would be returning to. International law considers agreements between an occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution. [1] Therefore the interests of the state of Israel are not legitimate reasons to deny the right of return which is owed to Palestinian refugees. Moreover, the right of return is feasible in Israel due to the availability of empty land. 80% of Israelis live in 15 percent of the land and that the remaining 20% live on 85% of the land that belongs to the refugees. Further, of the 20%, 18% live in Palestinian cities while the remaining 2% live in kibbutzim and moshavs. By contrast, more than 6,000 refugees live per square kilometer in the Gaza Strip, while over the barbed wire their lands are practically empty. [2]  [1] Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. "Factsheet". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition.   [2] Sakhnini, Nizar. "Dispossession and Ethnic Cleansing." Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. 12 July 2004.

The Palestinian refugee crisis was created and is perpetuated by the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves  The current Palestinian refugee crisis is largely the creation of the Palestinian people themselves, who largely left voluntarily (or at least not by Israeli force) in 1948, and the Arab states who both started the 1948 war against Israel and who have kept the Palestinians in limbo ever since instead of integrating them.  Firstly, Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948. Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion. Efraim Karsh states that most Palestinians chose their status as refugees themselves, and therefore Israel is therefore absolved of responsibility. [1] Morris argues that only "an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of (Israeli) expulsion orders or forceful 'advice' to that effect". [2] Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator in Palestine, testified that "the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion." [3] Therefore Israel is absolved of moral responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, as the vast majority of it was caused by the Palestinian people themselves.  Further, Arab states instigated the 1948 and 1967 wars, and so they bear responsibility for their outcomes, including the refugees that resulted. Israeli official sources, foreign press, and officials present at the time, and historians such as Joseph Schechtman have long claimed that the 1948 refugee crisis was instigated by the invading Arab armies, who ordered Palestinian civilians to evacuate the battle zone. Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion. [4] [5] Thus the responsibility for housing and integrating Palestinian refugees into established, recognised nations in fact lies with the Arab states. However, this is a responsibility that the Arab world has neglected since 1948.  It is the failure of Arab states to incorporate Palestinians into their societies by offering legal status which keeps the Palestinian refugees in limbo, not Israeli policy. Refugees and their descendants are usually kept in refugee camps and not allowed to integrate into the Arab nations in which they reside. [6] Such policies are often pursued by Arab states explicitly as a tool against Israel: for example, Palestinians who moved from the West Bank (whether refugees or not) to Jordan, are issued yellow ID cards to distinguish them from the Palestinians of the "official 10 refugee camps" in Jordan. Since 1988, thousands of those yellow-ID card Palestinians have had their Jordanian citizenship revoked in order to prevent the possibility that they might become permanent residents of the country. Jordan's Interior Minister Nayef al-Kadi said: "Our goal is to prevent Israel from emptying the Palestinian territories of their original inhabitants. "We should be thanked for taking this measure... We are fulfilling our national duty because Israel wants to expel the Palestinians from their homeland." [7] Thus, the Palestinian refugee problem was brought about through choices made by Palestinians themselves, during a war against Israel initiated by Arab states. The crisis has since been perpetuated by other Arab governments. Many states- such as Jordan- have pursued policies that call for the exclusion and marginalisation of Palestinians, in the interest of weakening Israeli claims to statehood and maintaining and deepening Palestinian and Arab resentment of Israel. Israel is not therefore the morally culpable actor, and so has no responsibility to recognise the Palestinian 'right of return'.  [1] Karsh, Efraim. "Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians"". Cass. 1997  [2] Morris, Benny. "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". Cambridge University Press. 2004  [3] UN Progress Report, 16 September 1948, Part 1 Section V, paragraph 6; Part 3 Section I  [4] UN Progress Report, 16 September 1948, Part 1 Section V, paragraph 6; Part 3 Section I  [5] Schechtman, Joseph. "The Arab Refugee Problem". 1952.  [6] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.   [7] Abu Toameh, Khaled. "Amman revoking Palestinians' citizenship". The Jerusalem Post. 20 July 2009.

No real 'right of return' exists in international law  Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not guarantee a right of return because the clause "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" was meant to guarantee the right to leave.  According to its legislative history, Article 13 was aimed at governments which imprisoned certain subgroups of their own nationals by preventing them from moving beyond their national borders. According to its sponsor, the mention of a "right to return" was included to assure that "the right to leave a country, already sanctioned in the article, would be strengthened by the assurance of the right to return. [1] Moreover, Article 13 only guarantees a specific right to return "to his own country". [2] But, the Palestinians who were displaced were never citizens or legal residents of Israel. Therefore, they can have no right of return to Israel. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, furthermore, does not specify a 'right', but rather says refugees "should" be allowed to return. [3] Hence Israel is under no obligation to recognise a 'right', but rather merely to accept that Palestinians have some claim to return or to compensation for not being able to return. This is distinct from a total and inalienable 'right' to do so, regardless of the consequences for Israel. Also, there is no formal mechanism in international law to demand repatriation of refugees and their descendants in general or Palestinians specifically. No international legislation, binding UN resolutions or agreements between Israel and the Palestinians require this. This is demonstrated by international precedent, especially by the case of the 758,000-866,000 Jews who were expelled, fled or emigrated from the Arab Middle East and North Africa between 1945 and 1956, with property losses of $1 billion. [4] Since these refugees were neither compensated nor allowed return—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders or international legal authorities—the international community has accepted this migration of Jews as fait accompli, and thereby set legal precedent in the region against a right of return for Palestinians also.  Finally, most of the inhabitants of the Palestinian refugee camps abroad were not actually alive in either 1948 or 1967, and there is no reason to believe that their descendants automatically inherit any 'right of return' which their ancestors may have held. Therefore Israel should not recognise the Palestinian 'right of return' as no such right really exists under international law.  [1] Dinstein, Yoram. "Israel Yearbook on Human Rights". Volume 16; Volume 1986  [2] United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Wikisource. 10 December 1948.   [3] United Nations. "UN General Assembly Resolution 194". United Nations. 11 December 1948.   [4] Schwartz, Adi. "All I wanted was justice". Haaretz/adi-schwartz.com. 4 January 2008.

A Palestinian right of return would destroy the 'Jewish State' in Israel  If all or a large majority of Palestinian refugees and their descendants were to implement a 'right of return', it would make Arabs the majority within Israel and Jews an ethnic minority. This amounts to abolishing the Jewish people's right to self-determination, which they hold under the 1993 Vienna Declaration. [1] It would also mean eradicating Israel as a Jewish state, which was the intention behind its foundation. The majority of Israelis find a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees to be unacceptable, pointing to this worry that as they become a minority Israel as a Jewish state would be undermined. [2]  Re-enforcing the need for the existence of a Jewish state (as a safe haven for persecuted Jews) is the presence in Israel of 758,000-866,000 Jews who were expelled, fled or emigrated from the Arab Middle East and North Africa between 1945 and 1956, to whom the Arab states which expelled them are not willing to offer any 'right of return' of their own. [3] An open letter to the Palestinian leadership published in 2001 by Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and other Israeli intellectuals and peace activists dramatically demonstrated the agreement even among the 'peace camp' in Israel that a total right of return for Palestinians can never be acceptable to the Israeli people: “We shall never be able to agree”, they wrote, “to the return of the refugees to within the borders of Israel. The meaning of such a return would be the elimination of the state of Israel.” Yossi Sarid, chairman of the Meretz Party, stated baldly that “Israel can survive without sovereignty over Temple Mount, but it cannot survive with the right of return. If the Palestinians insist on it, there will be no (peace) agreement.” [4] Thus asking Israel to recognise the Palestinian right of return is tantamount to asking Israel to accept its own destruction as a state, and is thus totally unacceptable.  There are further reasons that recognising the Palestinian right of return would be fundamentally harmful to Israel's welfare, and thus an invalid action. Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that rights can be limited by law solely for securing 'due recognition and respect for the rights of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and general welfare in a democratic society.' Article 30 states that nothing in the declaration may be interpreted as permitting any state, group, or person to engage in activity aimed at the destruction of any rights or freedoms guaranteed. The 'rights' and 'general welfare' of Israel's Jewish citizens would be endangered if millions of Palestinians who were openly hostile to Israel's existence became a majority. Article 3 of the declaration further states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purpose and principles of the United Nations". [5] The Palestinian right of return would result in the loss of Israeli sovereignty and its replacement with an Arab-majority state, and the dismantling of Israeli society in favour of an Arab-Muslim dominated society, resulting in the destruction of a UN member state: a violation of the United Nations Charter. For this reason, a Palestinian right of return is invalidated.  A right of return would also result in a flood of Palestinians stating their 'right of return' as justification for entering Israel at any time and in unlimited numbers and laying claim to old homes. This creates an unworkable legal nightmare, clouded by historical ambiguities. Such an extended legal nightmare would last for decades, and hurt the reconciliation process. [i-[1]  There are many things that Israel can and has offered to Palestinian refugees: compensation, assistance in resettlement, and return for an extremely limited number of refugees based solely on family reunification or humanitarian considerations. But an unlimited right of return for all refugees and their descendants simply goes too far. This is largely because it is purely unworkable to allow millions of Palestinians to return back to a territory that is already overcrowded. [i-[2] [6] For all these reasons, recognising the Palestinian right of return would destroy Israel as a 'Jewish state' and fundamentally harm the welfare of its current legal inhabitants by infringing on their rights, and so Israel should not pursue this recognition.  [1] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.   [2] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.   [3] Schwartz, Adi. "All I wanted was justice". Haaretz/adi-schwartz.com. 4 January 2008.   [4] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.   [5] United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Wikisource. 10 December 1948.   [6] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.

The Zionist project which led to the state of Israel intended to displace Palestinians from the very beginning, long before the so-called Arab 'aggression' in 1948. Theodor Herzl, who presided the First Zionist Congress, had provided the ideological underpinnings of the Zionist movement in his pamphlet, Der Judenstaat, which was published in 1896. Herzl called for a colonial project for the exclusive benefit of the Jews and suggested that Der Judenstaat would 'form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.' Efforts of the Zionist political movement to implement their project, with the support of the Imperialist Great Powers, in complete disregard to the Palestinian rights and human reality in Palestine, were responsible for initiating and prolonging the conflict in and around Palestine. The establishment of an exclusive Jewish State in a country where the majority of its people were not Jewish meant transplanting Jews from all corners of the world and bringing them to Palestine. Simultaneously, it meant dispossession and ethnic cleansing for the Palestinians. This was, and still is, the core issue in the conflict. All subsequent events are derivative and irrelevant as a consequence. [1]  [1] Sakhnini, Nizar. "The Core Issue". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. 11 July 2004.

A great many of the world’s leading states are multicultural/ethnic rather than ethnic states. The United States, Brazil, India, and Indonesia to take just a few. These states have been able to construct national identities that are not just based upon ethnicity. For cosmopolitan democratic states the border being an accident of history does not matter [1] ; this is what African states need to do as well not carve themselves up.  [1] Ratner, 1996, p.591

Ethnic borders allow nation states  In Africa borders are artificial often running through ethnic groupings without consideration for culture or even local geography with the exception of water courses. [1] Altering these borders to reflect ethnicities and culture would help states to create their own national identity as their identities would not be split. Having the whole of an ethnicity within one state will help prevent misappropriation of culture and history by another state.  [1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.19

That such a move will reduce conflict relies on a lot of assumptions; most notably that the changes won’t spark a lot of new conflicts. Territory is the biggest source of violent conflicts among states and this will create a large number of new such conflicts. When there is a response 76.6% of the time it will be military when territory is in dispute compared to 49% when something else is the cause, and such disputes are three times as likely to escalate to war (7.3% to 2.5%). [1] The redrawing process would also mean suffering as states attempt to pre-empt new borders by moving those of the ‘wrong’ ethnicity and as insurgencies are stepped up. The Abyei area of Sudan shows what is likely to happen; it was to have a referendum to decide whether to join the North or South but the north occupied the region before it could be carried out. [2]  [1] Hensel, 1998, pp.20-1  [2] Copnall, 2011

Redrawing could be democratic  A redrawing of borders would allow for democratic participation in the building of new African states. There would have to be plebiscites in local areas to determine where borders should run and extensive consultation so that the borders are drawn based on the wishes of the people this time. The opposite of what happens at the moment. For example much of the Bakassi homeland was ceded by Nigeria to Cameroon as a result of an International Court of Justice ruling on the colonial border and many people are asking Nigeria to resettle them as they don’t share Cameroon’s culture. [1] Clearly the people would surely much prefer to have their destiny in their own hands than letting the borders be settled by an international court pouring over 19th century maps. [2]  [1] Chinwo, 2012  [2] Fisher, 2012

Ethnic borders erase a wrong of history  Imperialism and Colonisation is one of the great wrongs of history where much of the globe was carved up without any reference to the facts on the ground. When the west drew borders peoples were split, and kingdoms and cultures carved up. Independence may have ended some of the worst aspects of imperialism but it exacerbated the problem of borders. [1] Africa has since seen the problems that this has created and should realise the need to break from the colonial legacy.  [1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.4

Changing borders won’t erase the wrong – it happened and that should be recognised. Borders are simply one by-product and if there are individual borders that are particularly problematic then they might need to be redrawn but there should not be a comprehensive change. To do so might simply create a new wrong with thousands of conflicts over where borders should run.

Plebiscites and consultation across the whole of Africa. The project would take years or decades to come up with agreed upon borders. Small areas state might wish to be ceded to a neighbouring state when those closer don’t creating enclaves and exclaves [1] as well as a recipe for conflict.  [1] Exclave.eu

First changing borders encouraging development relies on the assumption that there won’t be conflict. Second if independence movements gain independence then there will be a lot more international borders and the barriers to trade these impose. Finally we need to think about this the other way around; when there are ethnic groups on both sides of the trade they are encouraging and facilitating trade between the two states – this is something to be encouraged not changed. Having the same ethnicity on both sides of the border works in the same way as having emigration in encouraging trade. Because of networks overlapping between the two countries trade will increase. In Spain for example doubling the number of immigrants leads to an increase in exports to the immigrant’s country of origin by 10%. [1] Economic development is not always stifled at borders; two of the four Nigerian states with GDP per capita of over 2000NGN are on the border with Benin. [2]  [1] Peri, 2010  [2] AlifArabia, 2013

Preventing conflict  Redrawing borders could help resolve conflict in Africa. Michalopoulos and Papaioannou find "civil conflict intensity, as reflected in war casualties and duration, is approximately 35% higher in areas where partitioned ethnicities reside." Conflict duration is 18.5% higher. [1]  They identify seven different ways in which artificial borders lead to, or intensify conflict;  1, partitioning ethnicities creates irredentist demands  2, partitioning makes an independence movement more likely  3, when borders are not marked the ethnic group has a reason to attempt to change the border  4, patronage politics leads to discrimination against minorities  5, splitting ethnicities encourages smuggling and criminalisation  6, splitting resources that were previously part of an ethnic group’s homeland will leave the ethnic group trying to engineer the resources return  7, partitioning reduces development so increases inequality with and resentment towards the center of the state. [2]  Getting rid of all of these reasons for conflict would help make Africa more peaceful in the long run.  [1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.22  [2] Michalopoulos, 2011, pp.4-6

Encouraging development  Using data from satellites measuring luminosity Michalopoulos and Papaioannou find that border areas with partitioned ethnic groups are up to 60% less developed than those towards the centre of countries so are not artificially split. Ethnicity is significant for trade. For example between Niger and Nigeria prices of millet increase at the border by 23.2% when it is also the border between ethnicities but only 9.3% when the same ethnicity is on both sides of the border for cowpea the figures are 20.2% and 14.4%. [1] Moreover internally where there is an ethnic border between markets there is a similar increase of 21% for millet and 22% for cowpea. [2] Ethnicity may also affect the ability to gain credit from other traders. [3] It therefore makes sense economically to have borders at ethnic boundaries due to the natural trading relations within an ethnic group. Splitting an ethnic group creates unnecessary hardship by making it more difficult to trade.  [1] Aker, 2010, p.16  [2] Ibid, p.21-2  [3] Ibid, p.25

There are many ‘odd borders’ around the world without problems. Not least between Belgium and the Netherlands. There are about twenty tiny enclaves at Baarle as 5732 parcels of land in a 50km border region were parcelled out separately. [1] Yet there has been no conflict between the two since Belgian independence. Odd borders don’t matter – it’s the willingness to cooperate that counts.  [1] Smith

It has since been accepted in the 1989 Guinea-Bissau/Senegal case that a colony gaining independence need not be bound by agreements concluded by the imperial power. [1] Borders have never in the past been fixed, they have changed usually as a result of conflict but also more peaceful changes such as demarcation or unification. African states should not be binding themselves to an out of date territorial system forced upon them by their imperial oppressors.  [1] Ratner, 1996, p.620

Encourages Secessionism  There are at least 834 different ethnicities in Africa [1] and could be as many as 3315. [2] If the ethnicities along the borders are being allowed to choose where they belong then every other ethnicity should, anything else is inconsistent. This is necessary to solve long running campaigns for independence such as by Western Sahara where the people would not want to have to choose between Morocco and Mauritania. [3] On the other hand if only groups which are already in revolt are asked whether they wish independence then such a proposal is simply hypocritical failing to take into account that groups that have been non-violent may also wish independence.  [1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.1  [2] Wentzel, 2013  [3] BBC News, 2013

Damages dreams of African unity  The African Union Constitutive Act has as an objective to “achieve greater unity and solidarity”. This is something that is damaged by making borders open to question. Borders at the moment are a settle but redrawing borders will open up disputes between African countries as every state will fear losing valuable pieces of territory. It will make that the primary international issue for decades setting back cooperation on peacekeeping or a common market.  If African unity is the ultimate objective then borders should not matter.

Would create odd borders.  Unfortunately ethnic groups don’t all live in a block with clear dividing lines between them and the neighbouring group. Borders reflecting ethnicities will be squiggly. Often there will be enclaves. Even enclaves may not be enough to get everybody from each ethnicity in the ‘right’ nation. This is shown in the former Yugoslavia where when a nation for Kosovars was created Serbs were suddenly on the wrong side of the border.  This is the problem with not going based upon administrative borders. The question is immediately raised; how finely grained should the border be calibrated? A border cannot be moved to suit every individual.

Violates current states sovereignty  One of the core principles of sovereignty is that of territorial integrity. In the process of decolonisation this was expressed through the principle of uti possidetis, that the administrative divisions of the previous state should form the borders the new states so as to prevent gaps in sovereignty and the conflict that would create. [1] The OAU in 1964 went so far as to solemnly declare “that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence.” [2] Any alteration to borders would be attacking this principle. No African state is going to accept a change that is likely to redraw many of their borders, open disputes with neighbours and possibly create new states.  [1] Shaw, 1997, p.356  [2] OAU, 1964

Solving the conflicts and preventing violence is the first step to real African unity and cooperation. Redrawing the borders is a radical solution that has yet to be tried as it will makes stronger and reduce the threat of secession movements it should make African leaders more willing the work with neighbours.

In addition to meeting the demands of some independence movements, there could be a decrease in the number of such organisations due to reduced prospects. If it is unlikely to get a whole province then they may be less inclined to attempt to secede. [1]  There have been conflicts in Kivu, DR Congo, but the Banyamulenge the main group involved only makes up around 4% of the population [2] – would they desire to split from Congo if they were not likely to take the whole province?  [1] Ratner, 1996, p.591  [2] Wikipedia

Not all rebels have disarmed; the FDLR group has said it will disarm but has not done so. [1] The disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme faces coordination and financial problems. There is a security threat from volatile border regions that might reverse the whole DDR effort as militias and military units struggle for control over resources and terrorise the local population. MONUSCO can't protect the repatriated civilians, which may mean any demobilisation is only temporary. If violence flares then so will guns be taken up once more.  [1] Mvano, Chrispin, ‘U.N. Congo peacekeepers question Rwandan rebel disarmament claim’, Reuters, 4 February 2014,

There has been disarmament and demobilisation  In a war-torn society MONUSCO helps with disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR). DDR is of crucial importance for the future stability of the DRC. They have used the latest technology and decades of UN experience with visible success. Thousands of ex-combatants have already been returned to their homes and reintegrated into the lives of their communities. By March 2011 almost 210,000 ex-combatants had been through the demobilisation process – out of an estimated total of 300-330,000. [1] And almost 32,000 of 39,000 child soldiers had been reunited with their parents. [2]  [1] ‘Democratic Republic of Congo: Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) and reform of the army’, Amnesty International, 25 January 2007,   [2] ‘Demobilization and Reintegration in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’, The World Bank, 11 March 2013,

The presence of the UN has not stopped human rights abuses. A recent UN report has highlighted that the Congolese army itself has been involved in such abuses particularly sexual violence. Convictions by the ICC are welcome but prosecuting a tiny number of leaders is a drop in the ocean of criminality that occurred, and still occurs in the DRC.

Elections have been a success  The elections process is moving ahead well. While elections cannot be said to be an unqualified success there have been two general elections, in 2006 and 2011. Local media is vibrant and competitive. And there were a large number of candidates. In the 2011 elections the observers from the African Union and other organisations welcomed “the successful holding of elections” and “the spirit of cooperation and solidarity”. [1] Moreover the whole election process is moving ahead; the country’s first ever local elections are planned for 2014. [2] This will provide the people with much more say over their daily lives. In a country with little centralised power like the DRC local elections are as important as national ones.  [1] African Union et al., ‘Joint Declaration on the presidential and parliamentary elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo’, au.int, 30 November 2011,   [2] Enough Team, ‘A First for Congo: Local Elections Announced for 2014’, enough, 26 November 2013,

Elections do not show the UN is moving Congo towards becoming a functioning democracy. In 2011 President Kabila has changed the election system to strengthen his own chances of re-election. The elections were hardly free and fair; the AU election monitors have every incentive to praise the elections but even they noted violence occurring. The US state department said “we believe that the management and technical execution of these elections were seriously flawed, lacked transparency and did not measure up to the democratic gains we have seen in recent African elections.” [1] The Carter Center found “multiple locations… reported impossibly high rates of 99 to 100 percent voter turnout with all, or nearly all, votes going to incumbent President Joseph Kabila.” [2] Worse the elections were marred by violence with at least 18 people killed in the run up to the vote. [3]  [1] Nuland, Victoria, ‘State Department on Results of Presidential Election in DRC’, US State Department, 14 December 2011,   [2] ‘Carter Center: DRC Presidential Election Results Lack Credibility’, The Carter Center, 10 December 2011,   [3] Callimachi, Rukmini, ‘Congo Elections 2011: Violence Kills At Least 18 People’, Huffington Post, 2 December 2011,

As recently as January 2014 the United Nations Security Council noted in a resolution “that the situation in the DRC continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security”. [1]  In the border regions of Ituri and Kivu armed fighting still goes on despite the supposed defeat pf M23. In December 2013 the bodies of 21 slaughtered civilians were found with the finger of blame pointing at the National Army for the Liberation of Uganda (NALU) and the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) showing that the fight is not yet fully won; there are still groups fighting. [2]  [1] ‘Resolution 2136 (2014)’, United Nations Security Council, 30 January 2014,   [2] UN News Service, ‘Congo-Kinshasa: UN Boosts Attack Force in East After Gruesome Massacre of Civilians’, allAfrica, 16 December 2013,

Convictions by the ICC show international justice in action  There has been some justice for past crimes. The former warlord Thomas Lubanga [1] and warlord and politician Jean-Pierre Bemba [2] have both been put on trial in the Hague for war crimes. Lubanga was found guilty of using child soldiers and given a 14 year sentence. [3] Additionally rebel General Laurent Nkunda has also been arrested in neighbouring Rwanda although there have as yet been no charges against him [4] the government of the DRC wishes to extradite him. showing that accountability is being introduced and providing a warning for current militia leaders.  [1] ‘Trial Reports: Lubanga Trial’,   [2] ‘Trial Reports: Bemba Trial’,   [3] Wakabi, Wairagala, ‘Lubanga Given 14-Year Jail Sentence’, the Lubanga Trial, 10 July 2012,   [4] Nienaber, Georgianne, ‘What Happened to Congolese General Laurent Nkunda?’, Huffington Post, 20 January 2012,

Peace may finally be at hand  With the Ceasefire Agreement of Lusaka in July 1999 the so-called "Africa's World War" ended. Foreign occupiers (Rwanda, Uganda, Angola, Zimbabwe…) officially removed their troops from the territory under the sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). MONUSCO has been involved in the process of peace-building ever since the Lusaka Agreement. The agreement ended the international element of the fighting leaving just conflicts with rebel militias. This too is now close to being finished. In November a peace deal was signed between the government and M23 in Kenya as a result of aggressive UN action. [1] With a deal struck with the biggest remaining rebel group DRC is close to permanent peace.  [1] ‘DR Congo government 'signs deal with M23 in Kenya'’, BBC News, 12 December 2013,

While a factional, corrupt government that can’t control its territory is an impediment to peace it is not the United Nations main responsibility. MONUSCO has done what it can in coordination with other United Nations agencies, donors and non-governmental organizations, providing assistance for the reform of security forces, and the re-establishment of a State based on the rule of law. It has more than 2,000 civilian staff helping to build institutions. In the years after the Lushaka agreement revenue collection doubled from 6.5% in 2001 to 13.2% of GDP in 2006 showing that the government bureaucracy is being put back on its feet even before the conflict is completely ended. [1] It also shows the government does still have control. As a result international investment has started to flow in and life is better for the large majority of Congolese, especially in the calmer western areas.  [1] Harsch, Ernest, ‘Building a state for the Congolese people’, Africa Renewal, January 2008,

MONUSCO is working on improving the humanitarian situation in the DRC. They deliver humanitarian help and medical equipment. For example the peacekeepers regularly build health clinics. [1] Quick impact programmes are specially meant to address humanitarian issues and work with the population affected. Without the work of the UN, the desperate situation of the Congolese people would be even worse.  [1] ‘MONUSCO Builds and Equips a Medical Clinic in Mahagi, Ituri District, Oriental Province’, MONUSCO, 12 September 2013,

Resources still flow out of the country  There is considerable evidence of a continuation of criminality linked to exploitation, including fraud, smuggling, counterfeit money, extortion, and tax evasion. Many natural riches are flown directly out of the country without being taxed – or worse being taxed by rebel groups. FRPI for example collects a tax of 3-5g per week from mines within their control. It is estimated by the UN that $383-409million worth of gold was smuggled out of the country in 2013. [1]  Reports indicate that criminal networks with political links transport and sell ‘unofficial’ quantities of minerals and other forms of wealth – such as ivory as a result of poaching, in return for arms. Child and slave labour is still being used – it has been estimated that in small mines up to 40% of the miners are children. [2]  [1] Alusala, Nelson et al., ‘Final report of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo’, United Nations Security Council, S/2014/42, 23 January 2014,  , pp.36, 37, 42, 46  [2] ‘Child Miners Speak’, WorldVision, May 2013,  , p.10

Allegations of misconduct by peacekeepers  UN troops have sometimes perpetrated violence themselves. 63 soldiers were expelled in 2005 from the mission due to being involved in abuses. In 2008 100 Indian blue helmets were accused of paying for sex with underage girls. The allegations have continued with a reported attack and gang rape of a 15 year old in February 2011. [1]  Moreover the effort to professionalise the Congolese army has also had little impact; the 391st Commando Battalion trained by US special forces has been accused of taking part in the rape of 97 women and 33 girls in November 2012. [2] If even those meant to keep the peace are perpetrating violence the mission has to be considered a failure.  [1] Caplan, Gerald, ‘Peacekeepers gone wild: How much more abuse will the UN ignore in Congo?’, The Globe and Mail, 3 August 2012,   [2] Whitlock, Craig, ‘U.S.-trained Congolese troops committed rapes and other atrocities, U.N. says’, Washington Post, 14 May 2013,

The government is not in control  The government is a place of constant ethnic frictions that impede the performance of its duties. [1] Corruption is rife; the world bank gives DRC a control of corruption rate of only 5%. [2] But the biggest problem is that the government can’t exercise control over the country. The vastness of Congo, and its lack of any roads or rail links between population centers, ensures this is the case. People have no trust in the democratic structures and display no national feeling. Instead loyalties are to the more than 200 ethnic groups. Some of which are shared with neighbouring countries – which are geographically closer so loyalties lie more with those countries than the DRC government. This is also a problem with other resources such as tin. [3] The UN has been able to do little to prevent government corruption, or to encourage greater national feeling.  [1] ‘Annan disquieted by rising factionalism in DR of Congo Government’, UN News Centre, 30 March 2004,   [2] Worldwide Governance Indicators, ‘Country Data Report for Congo, Dem. Rep., 1996-2012’, The World Bank,   [3] Herbst, Jeffrey, and Mills, Greg, ‘DRC: The only way to help Congo is to stop pretending it exists’, Congo DRC News, 26 July 2013,

An ongoing humanitarian crisis  Although gradually improving the humanitarian situation in the DRC remains critical. Congo is lacking hospitals, access to safe water and adequate sanitary facilities. Life expectancy remains low at the age of 50.6 for women and 47.3 for men, and child mortality is 109.5 per 1000 births [1] . The country is constantly facing different epidemics; measles and even plague, [2] with HIV/AIDS a major threat. The humanitarian situation is unlikely to improve quickly when the DRC is not fully at peace. Even when this does occur DRC will still be one of the poorest countries in the world with little infrastructure.  [1] United Nations Statistics Division, ‘Democratic Republic of the Congo’, World Statistics Pocketbook,  accessed 5 January 2014  [2] Piarroux, R. et al., ‘Plague Epidemics and Lice, Democratic Republic of the Congo’, letter Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol.19 No.3, March 2013,

While such incidents are abhorrent and the UN has recognised “that an ugly stain is left on these heroic efforts by the appalling misconduct of a minority of peacekeepers” [1] such instances do not jeopardise the overall mission. Few minor instances should be treated as criminality not equated with a country in civil war.  [1] Annan, Kofi, ‘In Africa, Annan stresses that peacekeepers must adhere to conduct standards’, UN News Centre, 30 January 2005,

The recorded economy of the DRC and its real GDP are showing signs of growth. The UN Panel of Experts has finally provided detailed information about the involvement of a range of African, European and North American businesses in illegal or illicit exploitation of natural resources in the DRC. Sanctions have been implemented to help stop these practices. [1] With the support of the UN, measures have been implemented intended to increase the control of the ministry of finance over state expenditure, and new statutes have strengthened the independence of the Central Bank.  [1] ‘Resolution 2136 (2014)’, United Nations Security Council, 30 January 2014,

There is no reason to believe that African opinions are disregarded when in the UNSC. Three out of 15 members is not particular disproportionate.  First of all, many decisions are taken in the United Nations General Assembly, a completely democratic body, in which the African Union due to its 54 members has a lot of influence. Therefore Africa is not underrepresented on economic and development issues.  Moreover the UNSC is usually following local concerns; the African Union has a chance to intervene on African security issues first like every other regional organisation. Indeed the AU is increasingly providing peacekeeping and even intervention as in Somalia. [1]  [1] African Union Peace and Security, ‘Somalia (Forward AMISON HQ)’, African Union, 12 September 2012,

The UNSC mostly deals with Africa  Africa’s goal is to be fully represented in all the decision-making organs of the UN, particularly in the Security Council, which is the principal decision-making organ of the UN in matters relating to international peace and security.  In 2013 the majority (23 out of 41) of UNSC resolutions concerned Africa. [1] Beyond 2013 almost 70% of issues considered are African; further 90% of peacekeeping personnel are in Africa. The African continent is keen to ensure that their opinion is considered on prospective embargos and military interventions. At the moment African countries are “preached to rather than consulted as equals” this must change. [2]  [1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolutions adopted by the Security Council in 2013’, un.org, 2013,   [2] Spies, Yolanda K., ‘The multilateral maze and (South) Africa’s Quest for Permanent United Nations Security Council representation’, University of Pretoria,  , p.99

Despite Africa’s demands for increased influence, they are not in a position of power and it is within their interest to maintain positive relations with the developed powers.  They have numbers but despite their economic growth in the past decade Africa is still more dependent than any other region on foreign help. The budgets of Ghana and Uganda, for example, are more than 50 percent aid dependent. [1] Moreover, they need foreign troops in order to maintain order and fight rebel groups. In 2013, there were 15 peacekeeping missions in Africa playing a necessary role in maintaining order in countries such as the CAR. [2]  [1] Ayodele, Thompson et al., “African Perspectives on Aid: Foreign Assistance Will Not Pull Africa Out of Poverty” Cato Institute, 14 September 2005   [2] “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign,

An African voice would change priorities for the better  An African state with veto power in the UNSC would have much more leverage to get African positions listened to. This is something that is particularly important as Africa is the region that is most commonly on the UN agenda. An African permanent member would likely alter the priorities of the Council for the better. It would be the first UNSC member without nuclear weapons, indeed if it were South Africa it would be a state that had given up nuclear weapons so would be in favour of disarmament. [1] There might be more attempts to solve the ‘root causes’ of conflicts rather than just providing a response when a conflict breaks out as Rwanda promoted as president of the UNSC in 2013. [2] An African member might also be more interested in development issues, pushing on climate change etc. It would provide more of a view from the South.  [1] Graham, Suzanne, ‘South Africa's UN General Assembly Voting Record from 2003 to 2008: Comparing India, Brazil and South Africa’, Politikon, Vol.38, No.3, 2011,   [2] Kanyesigye, Frank, ‘Rwanda Sets Priorities for UNSC Presidency’, AllAfrica, 2 April 2013,

Countries on the UNSC do already take an interest in the Africa, illustrated by French troops helping local democratic governments form Mali and CAR defeat various outlaw rebel groups. [1]  Secondly, simply giving a veto to an Africa nation, does not guarantee that they will promote beneficial policies. South Africa for example has been accused of using UNSC membership to defend human rights abusers, South Africa’s response was that human rights "have always targeted mainly the developing countries". [2]  [1] “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, Jan 24th 2013   [2] Humphreys, Joe, ‘SA defends human rights voting at UN’, The Irish Times, 20 November 2007,

The current UNSC Membership is outdated  The composition of the council is outdated and must adapt to a much-changed world in the 21st century.  It is clear that there is growing discontent among African countries regarding the current structure of the UNSC. “We don’t understand why you have three countries out of five countries on the Security Council as permanent members with a veto coming from Europe,” Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, Zimbabwe’s Foreign Affairs minister has said. [1] South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane appealed for United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reforms and inclusion of Africa with at least two permanent seats, he made it clear that South Africa expects a UNSC seat when reform occurs. [2] The United Nations is meant to present sovereign states equally. The current membership was created in 1945 when there were 51 member states; most of them European, now there are 193 of which almost a third are African. On numbers alone in the current UNSC Africa should have between 4 and 5 members of which 1-2 should be permanent. The current distribution is selfish reflecting an imperialist past.  [1] Phiri, Gift, “African nations push for permanent UNSC seat”, Al Jazeera, 26 September 2013,   [2] Nkoana-Mashaban, Maite, ‘South Africa demands permanent African seats in UNSC’, South African Foreign Policy Initiative, 12 August 2013,

Assessment of fees for the UN is not done on the basis of the influence of the member within the UN, rather it is done through a formula based on national income. The payment is for membership, not to buy influence. [1]  As far as peacekeeping forces are concerned, South Africa is already a prominent contributor. In the UN’s assessments of present troop contributions for peacekeeping efforts South Africa is 10th. Its record in promoting peace on the continent includes playing leading roles to end conflicts in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and most recently in Ivory Coast. [2]  [1] Committee on Contributions, ‘Regular budget and Working Capital Fund’, United Nations, 2013,   [2] African Union Monitor, ‘Africa and the UN Security Council Permanent Seats, Pambazuka News, Issue 204, 28 April 2005,

There is no evidence that an African state would constantly use the veto if they had it. No African state has the kind of interests around the world the current members have so a veto is only likely to be wielded over African issues. Such a veto will simply be ensuring that the African side is put before the council.  Moreover an African veto would not prevent the council from being useful; it won’t even have the effect the cold war did. Since 1990 62 UNSC resolutions were adopted per year, during the cold war only 15 were on average. If the UNSC could operate then it can operate with more veto members now. [1]  [1] Okhovat, Sahar, ‘The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform’, Sydney University, CPACS Working Paper no.15/1, December 2011,  p.12

International competition for seats on UNSC  African countries are not the only ones who wish to have a chair at the P5 table. There are more financially and military prominent countries who also have expressed their desires for having a veto power. [1] Among them, the most important are Germany and Japan who are, the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget.  Offering an African state permanent membership to the UN, would likely offend Germany and Japan. The reason UNSC reform has not gone ahead is that all potential members have other powerful countries that would be opposed to their membership. Thus for example Japan is opposed by China. And the G-4 (Japan, India, Germany, Brazil) are generally opposed by the 'coffee club' of 40 mid-size countries led by Argentina, Pakistan, Italy, Mexico, South Korea and Spain. [2]  [1] Parashar, Sachin, “Insistence on veto may delay UNSC reform process”, Times Of India, 16 January 2012   [2] Alam, Mohammed Badrul, ‘For a Rightful Place: UNSC Reforms and Japan’, SSPC, 12 July 2005,

Who should get the seat?  There is not just competition from countries outside Africa but also internally. If there is only to be one permanent African member or even two who should it be? With no defined criteria for UNSC membership any African state could stake a claim. There are however three or four serious contenders. South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt have declared themselves contenders and are leaders of their sub regions. [1] Ethiopia is also a similarly sized state and if thinking about the future DR Congo has immense potential if its conflicts are ever resolved. How would these countries resolve their competing interests with only one position on offer?  [1] Spies, Yolanda K., ‘The multilateral maze and (South) Africa’s Quest for Permanent United Nations Security Council representation’, University of Pretoria,  , p.106

Proportionality  When looking at contributions to the UN, in 2010 no African countries are in the Top 27. [1] Those who fund an organisation deserve to lead it and have their opinion count the most. Of course, there is the need for a democratic council such as the UNGA, where all the countries, regardless of contribution deserve a right to vote, but when it comes to the UNSC, the veto power is just a privilege the African countries have not earned yet. Imagine creating a union to which a few states provide contribute the most resources, but are prevented from acting by another member who actively contributes nothing. This sort of power is unjustified.  Peacekeeping and other activities the UN undertakes in Africa require money. No African state would want these operations to be diminished as Africa would be the region that has most to lose. But in return the continent has to accept the funders will get more say over the UN.  [1] Browne, Marjorie, and Blanchfield, Luisa, ‘United Nations Regular Budget Contributions: Members Compared, 1990-2010’, Congressional Research Service, 15 January 2013,  , p.23

More vetoes mean less action  The reason there are only a few states with veto power is to prevent most states from being able to block essential security action that is in the international interest.  More members increase the chances of vetoes and deadlock. There have been 263 vetoes since the founding of the UN with vetoes having been used by every permanent member. The veto is used to protect national interests not for the good of the international community. [1] States provide veto cover for censure against those they consider allies or even trading partners. Thus the most common veto in the last couple of decades has been by the USA to prevent censure of Israel. China and Russia on the other hand have prevented action against Syria and Sudan despite crises in these countries. [2]  Give more countries vetoes and it will be used more often. Even worse an African country would have very different interests so would be vetoing different proposals. Thus for example in the past the USSR and USA have vetoed the admission of new members from Angola to Vietnam. An African veto might be wielded to discourage secession movements by for example vetoing the membership of South Sudan.  [1] Okhovat, Sahar, ‘The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform’, Sydney University, CPACS Working Paper no.15/1, December 2011,  pp.11-12  [2] United Nations, ‘Security Council – Veto List’, Dag Hammarskskjöld Library, accessed 20/12/2013

A dispute over who which African state obtains membership is a sideshow. What matters is the principle that an African state should have permanent membership.

That there should be competition for a seat at the highest international table is no surprise. However this is not a reason against reform. Nor should Germany and Japan be considered stronger contenders than an African country; why should Europe get a third and Asia a second permanent member before Africa has one?

Additional crimes in the remit of an African Criminal Court could cause more problems than they solve.  Drug trafficking was rejected from the remit of the ICC [1] because it would overburden the court, which is intended to deal with international crimes. While the idea of prosecuting coups sounds good, in practice it would raise the same persecution complexes amongst leaders as the ICC does.  An AU court will also be subject to more local fractious politics and power struggles, rather than the bulk of the membership being from outside the region.  [1] See , Kiefer, Heather, “Just Say No: The Case against Expanding the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction to Include Drug Trafficking”, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 2009,  at p164

An African Criminal Court would be better  Instead of the ICC structure, the African Union has proposed an African Criminal Court. An ACC could not only bring justice home to Africa, by creating a court which will not appear to African nations as being imposed by outsiders, but also be able to have additional remits to address other issues in Africa that the ICC does not have powers to deal with, such as coups, corruption and drug trafficking [1] . An African Criminal Court may also have a chance of being seen as more legitimate than the ICC, which had only 39% support in Kenya in July 2013 [2] .  [1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012,   [2] Ipsos Synovate, “The ICC Issue and Raila’s Political Future”, Ipsos Synovate

The principle of complementarity means that the ICC is only a backstop court – it only takes on a case when a state is unwilling or unable to have it dealt with in its own national courts [1] .  If the ICC were a tool for external interference, it is solicited by the states in that most situations follow on from referrals by the domestic governments.  Referrals by the UN Security Council can happen irrespective of if a state is a party (hence the Libya and Sudan situations) – just like the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda were created in 1994. Regardless this will only happen with the assent of Russia and China so ensuring that referrals are not following a ‘western imperialist’ agenda.  [1] Rome Statute, Article 17

The ICC has an anti-African bias  Every person indicted by the ICC so far has been an African, for events which occurred in Africa, all bar one case, the Libya situation (in which no trials have started and seem a long way off), are in sub-Saharan Africa.  The ICC has not brought actions against anyone involved in conflict in Colombia, or for the conflict in Sri Lanka or for human rights abuses around the world. The ICC is simply selectively prosecuting.

Almost all the cases involve self-reference – the only ones that did not are UN Security Council references, done in the same way as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda were set up. The other case, Kenya, was set up when the ICC prosecutor used its power in the Rome Statute. This only occurred after the Kenyan parliament failed to implement the recommendations of the Waki Commission, which it set up.  While horrible events occurred in Sri Lanka, the ICC does not have the ability to prosecute unless the case is referred to the court by the UN Security Council, or the Sri Lankan government, which is unlikely – it is not a kangaroo court that can make up jurisdiction to hear a case for political reasons [1] . Colombia is still being investigated [2] .  [1] Rome Statute, Article 22  [2] Office of the Prosecutor, Report in to Preliminary Examination Activities, 2013,

Justice is more than just a road to peace; it is a goal of its own. [1]  For most African states this should not be a cause to leave the ICC as they are unaffected by ICC indictments affecting a peace process. Even for those whom it does affect it is only transitory until a solution is reached. Such concerns moreover could be better dealt with by ensuring that the ICC puts in place a mechanism that recognises that in some instances peace can come first.  [1] Human Rights Watch, “Perceptions and realities: Kenya and the International Criminal Court”, hrw.org, 14 November 2011,

Tool for external interference.  The ICC creates a way that foreigners, and in particular the west with its tendency towards intervention, can remove and imprison African leaders [1] .  Uhuru Kenyatta, the President of Kenya, who has been indicted by the court, has referred to it as a “toy of declining imperialist powers” [2] .  The court is largely funded by Western countries, with the European Union providing over half the cost. So it should not be surprising if the west has a lot of power over the court. Moreover the west is dominant in the United Nations Security Council so potentially controls both the methods of referring a country to the ICC without its permission.  [1] Monbiot, George “Imperialism didn’t end. These day’s it’s known as international law”, The Guardian, 30 April 2012,   [2] Kenyatta, Uhuru, “Uhuru: ICC is a toy of declining imperial powers”, CapitalFM Blogs, 12 October 2012,

Detriment to peace process  The ICC has not been particularly effective in dealing with the situation in Uganda, the ICC prosecutions having been a distraction to local community reconciliation and leading to further violence [1] .  Similarly, the situation in Darfur has not been helped by ICC involvement, with mass destruction of villages by people already indicted by the International Criminal Court [2] . Due to his indictment, a diplomatic solution has become harder as Rome Statute signatories are under a legal duty to arrest Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, although many have just ignored this. [3]  [1] Sinclair, Jessical, “The International Criminal Court in Uganda”, Undergraduate Transitional Justice Review, 2010,   [2] Human Rights Watch, “Sudan: Satellite images confirm villages destroyed”, hrw.org, June 18 2013,   [3] Cooper, Belinda, “The ICC: The Politics of Criticism”, World Policy Journal, 4 December 2013,

Independent nations are capable of trying war crimes themselves.  The ICC is an unnecessary intrusion on national sovereignty. It should be up to each state to determine its own legal system as to how criminal matters should be prosecuted.  The principle of complementarity is no guarantee as it is up to the ICC itself to determine if the state is unable or unwilling, meaning it could take over a case for its own ends.

Impunity has occurred in some cases, due to the ICC system not leading to prosecutions, such as in Sri Lanka.  At any rate, the ICC is not needed – African courts can deal with individuals, not a foreign one.

ICC is cheaper  Africa bears little of the cost of the ICC – by far its largest contributions come from the European Union, and its member states.  This, coupled with the fact that the ICC is cheaper than the ad hoc tribunals due to economies of scale, means that justice can be delivered to war criminals and those who commit crimes against humanity in an affordable manner – saving resources for helping the victims.

ICC necessary to provide fair trials  Domestic legal systems will often suffer from a lack of judicial independence and potentially politicised prosecutions, and are also open to allegations of victors’ justice, or whitewashes by a judiciary biased towards the winners of the conflict.  The ICC, as an effective court and with an independent judiciary, provides a suitable and unbiased climate for these cases to be heard in. While it is difficult to give any former head of state a fair trial, it is even more so in cases involving states divided along ethnic and political fault lines where any conviction could be seen as one based on continuing hatreds rather than evidence and criminal procedure.  In addition, the principle of complementarity means African states can prosecute on their own if they wish.

No impunity  The ICC means an end to impunity. It has meant that warlords such as Germain Katanga have been able to be prosecuted for things like using child soldiers, which are universally reviled.  What the African Union leaders are simply advocating by withdrawal from the ICC is impunity for themselves. They see one of their own – Uhuru Kenyatta, who has to face very serious allegations over his part in the mayhem after the 2007 elections which killed over a thousand people – being prosecuted and then claim it is selective. The only selection going on is that those who do not have a case to answer are not being prosecuted.

Is justice something to be subjected to simple financial parameters?  Even so, what is the ICC cheaper than? It may be cheaper than individual criminal tribunals like the ICTY and ICTR, but that assumes that such tribunals are desirable. It should be left up to individual states to bring action.

Moral responsibility is not about comparisons if it were then what about those European countries that have not been open armed like in Hungary they have made it illegal to help Syrian refugees [1] . Riot police in Hungary have used teargas and water cannon to send them off. [2] Saudi Arabia has been doing enough to account for its moral responsibility; it has given residency to 100,000 Syrians. [3]  [1] Frayer, Lauren, ‘Risking Arrest, Thousands of Hungarians offer help to refugees’, NPR, 29 September 2015,   [2] Weaver, Matthew, and Siddique, Haroon, ‘Refugee crisis: Hungary uses teargas and water cannon at Serbia border – as it happened’, theguardian.com, 16 September 2015, www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/sep/16/first-refugees-head-for-croatia-after-hungarys-border-crackdown-live-updates  [3] The Guardian, ‘Saudi Arabia says criticism of Syria refugee response ‘false and misleading’, 12 September 2015,

The Gulf states have a moral responsibility to take in Syrian refugees  It is a moral responsibility for gulf states to take in Syrian refugees both in terms of common humanity and as they all belong to the same culture and regional organisations (i.e. The Arab League). The numbers taken by the gulf states look particularly irresponsible looking it as a comparison to the number that European countries have taken in. Amnesty International has accused the gulf states of offering zero resettlement places. [1]  [1] Amnesty International, ‘Facts &amp; Figures: Syria refugee crisis &amp; international resettlement’, 5 December 2014,

Taking in refugees is not the only thing that countries can contribute in combating the Syria refugee crisis. Gulf countries are known to have donated a total of around £589m in addition to other aid they have delivered. This is vital to make the camps that have sprung up along Syria’s borders liveable.

The Gulf states are a convenient place to settle Syrian refugees  With language being the basis of communication, and most of the gulf state’s population speaking in Arabic, which is the language widely spoken by Syrians the Gulf states are a natural choice to take in refugees. Syria and the Gulf states also have similar cultures. Both of these make it easier for refugees to interact with natives, build up a social network, and find work. Studies from the US have implied that it is best to send migrants (refugees) to places where there is such a network they can quickly plug into which improves the prospects of the migrants getting jobs. [1]  [1] Beaman, Lori A., ‘Social Networks and the Dynamics of Labour Market Outcomes: Evidence from Refugees Resettled in the U.S.’, Berkeley University, 15 November 2006,  , P.31

The affinity as a result of joint linguistic and cultural ties between Syrians and the gulf may be of little use if the refugees are heavily restricted in where they live or can do. If they are put into camps with little contact with the outside world the refugees could simply be cut off from this social network. Syria’s neighbours have generally been unwilling to integrate refugee populations; Jordan has had Palestinian refugees for almost half a century yet nearly 370,000 are still in refugee camps. [1]  [1] ‘Where we work; Jordan’ United Nations Relief and Works Agency, 1 July 2014,

Unfortunately the refugee crisis is not happening at a good time economically for the Gulf. Oil prices have slumped. As a result there is a turbulent economy with many losing their jobs. [1] There is high levels of competition for those jobs that do exist and in the gulf people often get their jobs through influence (Wasta, as it is known in gulf countries) of acquaintances/friends, which would serve to shut refugees out of the jobs market.  [1] Reuters, ‘FGB announces 100 job cuts in UAE’, Gulf News, 24 November 2015,

European countries have taken in a huge number of refugees while gulf states have taken none  There were 1,294,000 claims for asylum in Europe in 2015 with more than a fifth of these coming originally from Syria. [1] Although many Arab states have shouldered their share of the burden, particularly neighbouring Jordan and Lebanon, the Gulf at the same time have taken in almost nil refugees. The Gulf states are rich countries, particularly by comparison to their neighbours that are taking up the burden. Per capita income in Jordan is $5,160 compared to $25,140 in Saudi Arabia and $44,600 in UAE as such they can afford to do much more. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts’, 18 February 2016,   [2] World Bank, data.worldbank.org,

Gulf countries could benefit from refugees  Just like Gulf countries have greatly benefitted from expat immigration, the U.A.E being a great example of such growth where the expat population is estimated to be 84% of the UAE population [1] , Gulf countries in the same way can make use of Syrian refugees immigrating. Syrian refugees can provide cheap labour on the Gulf states ambitious construction projects as well as helping to provide an educated workforce that can help diversify the gulf states economies away from oil.  [1] Al Qassemi, Sultan Sooud, ‘Give expats and opportunity to earn UAE citizenship’, Gulf News, 22 September 2013,

The effort to fund and arm the rebels has not shown any result, it’s been over 4 years and yet nothing has solved the problem. Rather the situation has got steadily worse with moderate opposition first losing out to Daesh, and then to Assad since Russian air support tipped the balance. Arming rebel groups simply helps to perpetuate the civil war and ensure that refugees cannot return home.

Refugees can’t be choosers in a situation where their country has been destroyed. A survey conducted among refugees arriving in Germany showed that around 68% of the people fled just to save themselves from the imminent threat. [1] The Gulf States may not be a model of democracy and human rights but migrants would be considerably safer than in Syria.  [1] Von Martin, ‘Survey amongst Syrian refugees in Germany – Backgrounds’, adopt a revolution, 7 October 2015,

ISIS could infiltrate to Gulf States  The 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris show that ISIS has the ability to infiltrate countries through refugees. Although the participants in these attacks had been living in France and Brussels some had also been to fight in Syria and at least one, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, returned along the migrant route. [1] This shows that influxes of refugees could pose great threat to gulf countries and Daesh has already claimed terrorist attacks in Kuwait. [2] Even before the rise of ISIS gulf states were concerned about the security risks posed by migrant workers with Bahrain’s Minister of Labour Majid Al-Alawi stating migrant workers are a strategic threat. [3]  [1] Holehouse, Matthew, and Samuel, Henry, ‘Terrorist ringleader got into EU as ‘refugee’’, The Telegraph, 20 November 2015,   [2] Cafiero, Giorgio, ‘The ‘Islamic State’ Attacks Kuwait’, Huffington Post, 1 July 2015,   [3] Rahman, Anisur, ‘Migration and Human Rights in the Gulf’, Middle East Institute, 2 February 2010,

The Gulf states want to solve the root of the refugee crisis; getting rid of Assad  Gulf countries have been trying to fix the problem politically rather than taking in a few refugees, which would be beneficial to most of the Syrians? The vast majority of Syrians would prefer to go home to a Syria with the civil war over and preferably with Assad gone. The gulf starts, are the main powers working to see this happen. While the US has helped arm some rebel groups the funding for this was provided by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have gone further than the west in terms of providing arms. [1]  [1] Mazzetti, Mark and Apuzzo, Matt, ‘U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels’, The New York Times, 23 January 2016,

The Gulf states are themselves not bastions of freedom  Syrians are leaving Syria as a result of a civil war born out of the Arab Spring, it was an attempt to gain more freedom within a dictatorship. [1] Such a population is unlikely to wish to move to a country where freedoms are often restricted. All the countries of the Gulf are monarchies, often with only the barest touch of democracy electing rubber stamp parliaments. Organisations such as Human Rights Watch have highlighted the violence which many migrants suffer and large numbers are exploited. [2]  [1] Ali, Jasim, ‘Gulf states need to aim higher on freedom parameter’, Gulf News, 4 September 2015,   [2] Begum, Rothna, ‘Gulf States Fail to Protect Domestic Workers From Serious Violence’, hrw.org, 16 October 2015,

The incidents that occurred in Europe were involving native Europeans themselves, although they did travel to and back from Syria.  Just like Europe could have home grown terrorists, the same likeliness applies to the gulf states. In fact statistics even show that one of the highest number of recruits for Daesh has been those from Saudi Arabia. [1]  [1] The Economist, ‘It ain’t half hot here, mum’, 28 August 2014,

This infrastructure still costs money, whatever event it is around: a state could launch an infrastructure drive without a football tournament that would be much more focused on the real needs of the people. Foreign investment can have significant costs, such as preferential access to natural resources. The work can often wind up being done by foreign contractors so that it creates no local jobs, as happened when Angola hosted the tournament [1] . In the case of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise China does not just get the benefit of the name; the finance provided was a loan, and the construction was done by the Shanghai Construction Group meaning much of the benefit went to China. [2]  [1] Capstick, Alex, “Angola uses football to showcase economy”, BBC News, 2010,   [2] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012,

Legacy of infrastructure  The benefits of hosting these events for African nations include the ability to concentrate on infrastructure for the event. In addition to sporting infrastructure, which could last well in excess of 50 years, homes, hospitals, roads and schools have been constructed in Gabon’s host cities [1] . The Chinese government assisted funding of some of this; [2] it co-financed and helped construct the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise, the biggest stadium.  [1] Yilmaz, Cetin, “Gabon works hard for 2012 Cup of Nations”, Hurriyet Daily News,   [2] Murphy, Chris, “African ambition: tiny nations host football feast”, CNN, 2012,

There were only two host cities in each country, however. This is understandable: the African Cup of Nations does not use as large a number of venues as other tournaments. The 2013 edition in South Africa used a larger, fifth, venue for three matches only, and the 2015 event will revert to four venues.

The ACN in Gabon shows what can be done by smaller African nations  A key reason for hosting any big sporting event is that it puts the host in a shop window. Unless the event is a disaster (as, arguably, Angola’s tournament was due to the gun attack on the Togo team), which it was not, it creates an opportunity for the nation to show itself as being an advanced society, capable of big events, “getting things done” and as a place to do business. All of this is positive for the economies of Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. The African Development Bank notes that Economic growth was 7% in 2011 and 5.7% in Gabon in part because of “massive investments undertaken for football’s Africa Cup of Nations 2012”. [1]  [1] African Economic Outlook, ‘Gabon Economic Outlook’, African Development Bank Group, accessed 28/1/2014,

Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries.  The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.

The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators. [1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese. [2]  [1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012,   [2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011,

Benefits spread across the country  The benefits of these events, unlike hosting an event such as an Olympic Games (which would be outside the reach of Gabon or Equatorial Guinea, especially with the increasing trend of the IOC to select major world cities in medium or high income countries), is that more than one site in a country can host different parts of the tournament. This provides a platform for a focus on broad based development across the entire nation, rather than one-sideded development focused on one city. In Gabon’s case there was both construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise in the Capital and a rebuild of a stadium in Franceville for €76.2 million [1] .  [1] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011,

Helps small businesses  There is a big benefit for small businesses in hosting the large sporting events. The hosting of the tournament in 2012 has been credited by African Economic Outlook with playing a role in the “robust” economic growth in the country in that year turning the country around from negative growth in 2009 [1] . The 2013 Africa Cup of Nations was credited with 10,000 jobs and helping the tourist sectors of the South African economy, [2] Gabon would have received a similar boost.  [1] NN, “Gabon”, African Economic Outlook, no date,   [2] NN, “Africa Cup of Nations 2013 to boost SMEs in South Africa”, MSME News Network, 2013,

Few countries in Africa meet with approval on the part of Freedom House.  At any rate, sport and politics are supposed to be separate. Also, human rights concerns could be advanced by placing these countries under the spotlight, rather than the usual position of them being ignored

There are always other things that any sum of money could be spent on. Every nation, even ones with large economies and high development standards have other things to spend money on.  The reason why many nations desire to host prestigious sporting events, giving them varying level of government support, at local or national government levels, is to change perceptions of the nation or region by advertising it. It also leads to regeneration and infrastructure investment in the host areas – all things with good long term benefits that can be applied to the entire nation.

Empty seats  Organizers in Gabon had to hand out free tickets to fill stadia [1] . This not only makes the tournament appear unpopular to TV viewers, it reduces the revenues of the event.  It would be better for the sport if the Africa Cup of Nations was held in countries that are likely to sell out more of the matches; this means countries with bigger populations than Gabon and Equatorial Guinea that can pull in a domestic audience.  [1] Sport24, “Empty seats plague AFCON”, Sport 24, 2012,

Showcasing countries with poor human rights records  Allowing a country to host a major sporting event gives them a big boost in international prestige. Repressive regimes to not deserve this.  Equatorial Guinea, a dictatorship run by Teoodoro Obiang, is one of the world’s worst human rights offenders, with the worst possible scores for civil liberties and political rights according to Freedom House [1] .  Gabon, while rated by Freedom House as better than Equatorial Guinea, also has a bad human rights record, with “harsh prison conditions, lengthy pretrial detention, ritual killings, police use of excessive force, … widespread government corruption … and forced child labor [sic]” [2] .  [1] Freedom House, “Equatorial Guinea”, Freedom House   [2] US State Department, Gabon 2012 Human Rights Report,

Cost could be spent on other things  Gabon’s government invested €370 million in the games. [1] Even though it is one of the more stable West African countries, there are still many people living in grinding poverty – nearly 20% of the population, according to the World Bank [2] . While infrastructure development is welcome, it is a better use of money to lift people out of poverty rather than for three weeks of football.  It can also have other negative effects on the day to day lives of individuals, for example in South Africa when it hosted the world cup tolls were increase [3] .  [1] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012,   [2] World Bank, “World Development Indicators”, World Bank Databank,   [3] Sands, Darren, “In South Africa, the African Cup of Nations is big business”, Black Enterprise, 2013,

Ticket sales, while good for revenue, are not crucial. The African Cup of Nations has never been an event with large scale sellout crowds for every match like a World Cup.  Disposable incomes are lower in Africa compared to the rest of the world. This coupled with the vast size of the area covered by the confederation means lower numbers of travelling fans. Expectations should be managed: the higher demand is for matches with the host team involved. In the tournament the following year (held earlier due to CAF changing the years in which the tournament is held to odd years, to avoid clashes with World Cups and Olympics) in South Africa, the bronze medal match got 6,000 spectators [1] .  Even the Olympics, when held in London, did not sell out every ticket for every football match, meaning some sections of seating were covered over [2] .  [1] ESPN, “2013 African Nations Cup Fixtures and Results”, ESPN, 2013,   [2] Magnay, Jacquelin, “”London 2012 Olympics: 500,000 football tickets removed to ensure full stadiums [sic]”, The Telegraph, 2012,

While membership in the European Union might contribute to peace, economic cooperation and good diplomatic relations being a member is neither the cause such stability nor is it sufficient on its own. There are countries outside the European Union that are stable states – such as Norway and there are countries within the EU where membership is no longer creating stability and possibly even undermining it such as in Greece where being dictated to by other member states is one cause behind the anti-government riots in the country.  Once both the EU is ready/willing to expand and the countries have fulfilled the criteria for joining, membership can be extended, but it should not be considered to be a quick fix to create international stability.

EU expansion is good for current members politically.  Expansion means extending a project which has ensured unprecedented levels of peace and cooperation among former enemies in western Europe for nearly half a century. This was the original purpose of the European project. The European Union started out as the European Coal and Steel Community which shared these important strategic resources that were necessary to fight a war. It was argued that this integration is the only way to keep France and Germany, enemies that had fought three wars in the previous eighty years, from attacking each other. Entrenching peace, democracy and economic integration throughout the continent is to the benefit of all European nations, the most recent two wars; World War I and World War II expanded to include the whole of Europe and much of the rest of the world. The European Union also means that there is no concern that there will be conflict. This both allows members of the European Union to spend less on defence – only the UK, France and Greece meet NATO’s 2% of GDP target [1] and frees up European forces for Peacekeeping missions such as those in the in the western Balkans in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, but also further afield, for example 3700 troops were deployed as an EU force in Chad in 2008-9. [2]  [1] Defence Dateline Group, ‘As Europe Wakes to Defence Spending Shortfall, NATO Risks Losing US Investment’, Defenceiq.com, 14 March 2011,   [2] Eufocus, ‘The EU and Peacekeeping: Promoting Security, Stability, and Democratic Values’, Stacy Hope ed., November 2008,

That there were immense trade increases during the period when the new member states were joining does not necessarily show causality or that these same increases would not have been created without EU membership. Development and economic integration is something that will occur regardless of whether applicant countries join the European Union or not. There would likely have been a similar growth in trade if these states had joined the network of free trade agreements such as the European Economic Area instead of full membership of the European Union.  The 0.3% of GDP figure for the financial transfers from the old to new member states the proposition gives may be accurate but 0.3% of GDP per year is not insignificant. Germany paying 0.3% of its GDP would still be almost 7.5 billion Euros. It is also questionable whether further expansion would be as beneficial as the most recent expansions as the new members would be getting progressively poorer and poorer compared to current members. Macedonia’s GDP per capita for example is less than 10% of the 15 pre enlargement member states. They are therefore going to benefit current member states through trade less while costing more.

EU expansion is right.  It is right to extend the economic and political benefits enjoyed by existing EU members to the rest of Europe. States in eastern Europe are still recovering from the “dead hand” of communist rule imposed after deals between the USSR and the USA and Britain at the end of World War II. Many within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union such as Belarus and increasingly Ukraine have reverted to more authoritarian governments. These states should not be abandoned by their western neighbours. Europe has just as much responsibility to those states within Europe that have so far been left out the European Union’s enlargement as it did to those countries of Central and Eastern Europe that were accepted in the most recent enlargements.

European Union expansion is not a moral process. No one in Europe is trying to claim some kind of ‘civilising mission’. The remaining countries that are outside the European Union cannot be said to be countries that the members of the European Union had abandoned to Russian rule in the same way that could be said of Poland from 1945. Instead these were either within Yugoslavia which largely escaped Soviet control or were already within the borders of the USSR before World War II.  The sheer fact that a country is on the European Continent is not enough for a country to be admitted. Neither is it true that EU countries have a duty to give membership in order to help. The EU is already involved in aid, reconstruction and development programs all over Europe and should not have further obligations.

While an argument for cooperation (including logistic and financial support) between the EU and neighbouring states, it is not an argument for granting full EU membership to these states. While the prospect of membership may motivate countries to introduce reforms, premature accession can cause this progress to grind to a halt, as seen with the corruption in Bulgaria still affecting government and there being very little chance of prosecution. [1] This is because once a state joins the European Union the EU no longer has much influence over that state. Once a state is a member the methods of punishing that state are constrained. This is because where previously their path to membership could be slowed of halted once they join this is no longer possible. It is no longer possible to impose effective economic sanctions against these states. For this reason some kind of association outside of the European Union itself would be more effective at encouraging states that are outside the European Union to become fully functioning democracies.  [1] Novinite.com, ‘WikiLeaks/Stratfor: Corruption in Bulgaria is Part of Society’, 28 February 2012,

EU expansion is good for current members economically.  The current economic crisis within Europe masks its immense success in turning new member states into prosperous economies while also benefiting those who were already members. Between 1999 and 2007 trade between the new and old member states grew from 175 billion Euros to 500 billion, this outweighs the cost of EU financial assistance to the new members which only amounts to between 0.2-0.3% of EU GDP. [1] For example British exports to the 12 new member states were worth £11.6billion in 2009 compared to £4.5billion in 1999 whereas the Dutch government estimates that the benefits of enlargement to each of its inhabitants was 650 Euros. [2]  Admitting new members is also necessary over the long term in order to counter the aging that is occurring in Europe. Every member of the European Union has an aging population and a fertility rate below the replacement rate of 2.1. Encouraging economic growth in countries that are old and getting older is difficult because they are less inclined to take risks and be innovative. [3] This means that Europe needs more young workers; these can be gained either through immigration from the rest of the world or through admitting more vibrant economies into the European Union. Turkey is a good example of the kind of country the EU needs to allow to join; its economy is growing rapidly, even faster than China’s in the first half of 2011, [4] and the median age of the population is still only 25. [5]  [1] ‘Good to know about EU Enlargement’, European Commission – Directorate General for Enlargement, March 2009,   [2] David Lidington, ‘European Union Enlargement: Tulips, Trade and Growth’, Foreign &amp; Commonwealth Office, 9 March 2011,   [3] Megan McArdle, ‘Europe’s Real Crisis’, the Atlantic, April 2012,   [4] Ergin Hava, ‘Robust private sector fives Turkey fastest H1 growth worldwide’, Todays Zaman, 12 September 2011,   [5] Euromonitor International, ‘Turkey’s Population Young and Rapidly Expanding’, 24 January 2012,

Expansion furthers EU ideals.  The prospect of joining the EU has been an impetus for reform in many ex-communist countries, driving changes (e.g. legal reforms, privatizations, human rights) that are desirable in their own right. The progress made in a few years by the first wave of eastern European states to join the European Union was impressive and membership was their deserved reward. Conversely, if the prospect of EU membership was now denied to those states that are still hoping to join in the future, these states are likely to be unwilling to implement the unpopular reforms that the European union would like. Even in countries that are not on any EU lists of applicant or potential members the door to enlargement has a positive influence. The prospect of joining the European Union has tempted even those who might naturally be inclined to look the other way. Viktor Yanukovych was the Pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine yet he has continued on the path towards EU membership since taking office for example creating the legislation necessary for an EU-Ukraine free trade zone. [1]  Enlargement is a unique opportunity to encourage nations to take a path which will lead them to becoming prosperous developed democracies. Most states are unwilling to accept lectures on where they are going wrong and would, like Russia has for example done, accuse western nations of violations against its sovereignty if there are attempts to encourage civil society, democracy or more westernized economies. Vladimir Putin has many times made statements referring to western NGO such as “the activities of "pseudo-NGOs" and other agencies that try to destabilize other countries with outside support are unacceptable.” [2] However these are much more palatable if the end result is membership in the European Union and the reforms are accompanied by European expertise and money, per-accession assistance currently totals 12.9 billion Euros. [3]  [1] ‘Yanukovych: Laws for creation of Ukrainian-EU free trade zone will be adopted in June’, Kyiv Post, 24 May 2010,   [2] Putin, Vladimir, ‘Russia’s Place in a Changing World’, Moskovskiye Novosti, 27 February 2012, Trans. Igor Medvedev,   [3] 2007-2013.eu, ‘Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. (IPA)’, 2006,

According to the principle of free movement of people, citizens of EU may work and study anywhere in the EU. This is a very important chance for every individual and should be embraced. By spending part of their education or training in another EU country, they acquire an insight into other work environments and gain skills that are invaluable in later life. Closer cooperation and sharing experience with other European countries will bring democratic traditions and modern way of living to the society of new member states. Indeed there have been suggestions that far from their being a brain drain in the long run such migration results in a brain gain. The possibility of migrating to a richer nation means that individuals are much more likely to increase their education or learn skills with the intention of migrating. This decision to increase their human capital is a decision that would not have been made if the possibility of migration was not present. Of course in the short term much of this gain will migrate abroad as intended some will not and others will return home later. The result is therefore that both the source country and the receiving country have more highly skilled workforces. [1]  [1] Stark, Oded, ‘The New Economics of the Brain Drain’, World Economics, Vol 6, No. 2, April – June 2005, pp.137-140, p.137/8,

Conflicts of interest between member states are inevitable. Britain has consistently been one of the outlier states even though it has been a member since 1974 and has many interests in common with the other old members of the EU. It has remained outside the Eurozone and the Schengen agreement and disagrees on policies such as a tax on financial transactions. New members in the Balkans for example are unlikely to be less cooperative than the UK. Moreover these conflicts of interest are most acute in foreign policy, such as the conflicts of interest over policy towards Russia, where so far the EU does not demand a common position from members so this should not be a concern.

The European Union is no longer in a financial position to be taking in new members.  The financial crisis and European Union member states’ having to bail each other out means that there will be less money available for any new members. The bailouts have cost the EU more than $500 billion plus financing the European Stability Mechanism with $650 billion. [1] Hence current prospective entrants will not have such auspicious conditions for adoption as there were for all previous entrants into the EU. This means that all the benefits will have to come from the extension of Free Trade, something which could happen without full membership. Joining the EU as full members would at the same time work against these poorer countries’ competitive advantages. European labor regulations will make many workers in these countries less competitive and stringent environmental regulations will impose a cost that countries at their level of development cannot afford. For example Croatia will require an extra 10.5 billion Euros to implement the EU’s environmental regulations. [2]  [1] Alessi, Christopher, ‘The Eurozone in Crisis’, Council on Foreign Relations, Backgrounder, 14 February 2012,   [2] ‘EU environmental regulations will cost Croatia €10.5 Billion’, Macedonian Intl News Agency, 27 December 2011,

Expansion would be unpopular.  As expansion moves outward to places that are further and further away from the western European countries and into countries that are culturally less ‘European’ there is bound to be less enthusiasm for allowing them to join. Turkey is the country most likely to be a victim of public opinion against membership. Polling in 2010 showed 52% against membership and only 41% backing it if voting in a referendum. The main reason for being against was Turkey being “a Muslim country… not compatible with the common Christian roots” of Europe. [1] The trend has been for a decline in support for further enlargement falling from a high of 49% in 2004 to 41% two years later in 2006. [2]  [1] EU Business, ‘Europeans split over Turkey EU membership: poll’, 24 January 2010,   [2] Antonia M. Ruiz-Jiménez, José I. Torreblanca, ‘Is there a trade-off between deepening and widening? What do Europeans think?’, European Policy Institutes Network, Working Paper No.17 April 2008, p.3

There will be an even greater brain drain from poorer countries to richer.  As the EU expands allows poorer and poorer countries to join there are likely to be increasing problems with internal migration creating a brain drain. The EU will not in the future be able to be nearly as generous in terms of funds to develop new members’ economies. If any new members are allowed freedom of movement their will almost certainly be even greater migration flows than there were as a result of the 2004 enlargement. Poland for example despite being the only European country to avoid recession has still had a net loss of 1.4million people who have stayed abroad more than a year. [1] If the talented and skilled from a country that is experiencing rapid economic growth are staying abroad when the rest of Europe is in the middle of a downturn how many more would move from the poorer potential members such as Macedonia?  [1] Marcin Sobczyk, ‘Poland Loses 1.4 Million People to Brain Drain’, Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2010,

Expansion will create conflicts of interest between members.  Continuing expansion will mean a dilution of common national interests between the member states. National interests are to a large extent based upon geography and the economy. The EU-15 could be said to have both a unity of purpose; preventing another war between France and Germany as well as similar cultures, similar levels of wealth, and even a similarity in social policy. This has meant that the EU-15 member states had a lot of common interests so could agree to continuing integration. Newer member states have very different post World War II national experiences, shaped in particular by communist occupation. This makes many new EU members less willing to share sovereignty or contemplate the Union deepening. Moreover as the European Union gets bigger and more geographically diverse other interests diverge. For example some countries such as Germany are already inclined to conciliate Russia while others have been much more outspoken. This was particularly highlighted during Russia’s conflict with Georgia in 2008 where Poland strongly supported Georgia. [1]  [1] Andrew Curry, ‘Old Europe vs. New Europe Will Poland Split EU over Russia Policy?’, Spiegel Online, 14 August 2008,

Previous enlargements were unpopular as well with support in the low 40s percentage points in 2001 however this rapidly increased to above 50% as enlargement approached before falling back, possibly as a result of media attention towards the possible negative consequences such as immigration. [1]  Therefore basing policy on public opinion years, possibly decades before a country would actually be joining the EU is not helpful as opinion is fickle and could easily change in the intervening period. Moreover public opinion is likely to be based upon prejudices, for example with Turkey opposition is based on it being a Muslim country but this ignores that Turkey is in fact secular with an Islamic culture in a similar way to France being a secular state with a Christian culture.  [1] Antonia M. Ruiz-Jiménez, José I. Torreblanca, ‘Is there a trade-off between deepening and widening? What do Europeans think?’, European Policy Institutes Network, Working Paper No.17 April 2008, p.3

First of all while many members of the EU are experiencing low or even negative growth the bailouts don’t actually make Europe poorer as they have so far been loans that will have to be paid out. Even if current members are unwilling or unable to give large subsidies to any members that may join the European Union in the future there will still be large economic benefits to joining. The principles of European integration, such as free competition or free movement of goods and capital, will foster the transition from a post-socialist economy to a free market economy in any new member states. The removal of custom barriers will enable producers to cut production costs, which will result in export increases. In addition, integration into the EU will encourage foreign investment. It will create new jobs and will bring new technologies and experience into East-central European industry and trade. New member states inevitably engage in a catch up phase where grow rapidly. The ten new members who joined the EU in 2004 grew from having an income per capita of 40% of the EU15’s average in 1999 to 52% in 2008 with most of the growth coming after membership where GDP growth was 5.5% from 2004-2008 compared to 3.5 % in 1999-2003. [1]  [1] European Commission, ‘Five Years on an enlarged EU – A win win result’ Press Conference, Europa.eu, 19 February 2009,

Further expansion is not in NATO’s interests. The alliance is based on the principle that the security of one is the security of all, so that all members will go to war if any one member is attacked. This is a very serious commitment and should not lightly be extended to new nations. The irresponsible manner in which Georgia provoked a conflict with Russia, ignoring US warnings, shows the danger of being sucked into quarrels in which most NATO members have no strategic interest. It was obvious from this conflict that Georgia could not defend itself so the burden would fall on NATO. [1] Like the breakaway regions of Georgia, Ukraine also contains many Russian-speakers who look to Moscow for protection, especially in the Crimea which hosts Russia’s Black Sea fleet. [2] If Ukraine had been a member of NATO when Russia moved troops into Crimea then NATO would be a dangerous confrontation with Russia.  [1] Tayler, Jeffrey, ‘Russia: Back to the Future’, the Atlantic, September 2008,   [2] Varettoni, William, ‘Crimea’s Overlooked Instability’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.34, No.3, Summer 2011, pp.87-99,  , p.89

Expansion is in the interests of NATO  Expansion to include Georgia and Ukraine is in the interests of NATO. After more than a decade without a clear role, the alliance now once again stands for the principle of solidarity between western liberal democracies. The hopes of the 1990s for a new world order in which a democratic and liberalising Russia would see partnership with NATO and other western clubs as strongly in its own interest died during the Presidency of Vladimir Putin. Russia once again poses a threat to Europe and needs to be contained or at least shown that NATO has not forgotten about it. This is shown by President Putin’s continuing lashing out at foreign countries for funding NGOs and plans to boost defense spending. [1] Extending NATO up to Russia’s southern border will signal the West’s strength and determination and force Russia to respect the alliance and its members.  [1] Cullison, Alan, ‘Putin Warms West on Interference’, The Wall Street Journal, 28 November 2011,

In retrospect, the decision to welcome the former Soviet states in the Baltic into NATO appears foolish. They continue to have a prickly relationship with Russia, which has some legitimate concerns about the treatment of large Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia, and about the siting of US nuclear defences. Their entry into NATO was forced upon Russia, which naturally saw it as an aggressive move designed to humiliate it, and marked the point when its pro-western policy shifted to a more nationalist and confrontational approach. [1] It also weakened the unity of NATO as there are quite legitimate doubts as to whether all the alliance’s members would really go to war with Russia over the integrity of, say, Estonia. Given this history, it would be madness to compound the problem by extending NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine.  [1] Fraser, Malcolm, ‘Ukraine: there’s no way out unless the west understands its past mistakes’, theguardian.com, 3 March 2014,

The people of Ukraine and Georgia want to join  Many people in both Ukraine and Georgia wish to join NATO, and that is the best reason for welcoming them into the alliance. NATO is an alliance of democratic states and should respond positively to the request of a sovereign nation. In Georgia a non-binding referendum on whether to join NATO showed 77% of voters in favor of joining. [1] Polls show that some 50% of Ukrainians in 2002 said that would support Ukraine’s membership in NATO if a referendum on this issue were held. [2]  Both states are at risk of being pushed around by Russia, partly because their desire to adopt “western” democratic values is at odds with the more autocratic values of Russia’s leadership. They also fear that Russia has designs on their territory and sovereignty, knowing that many in the Russian elite have never fully accepted the collapse of the old Soviet Union. These fears have been realised with Russian forces in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea. Joining NATO offers Georgia and Ukraine the protection of a proven alliance and a clear route to European Union membership that has already been travelled by other former Soviet states. Ukraine and Georgia as European states have a right to join NATO if they would satisfy all criteria for NATO membership. [3]  [1] NATO, ‘Backgrounder, Deepening relations with Georgia’, NATO Public Diplomacy Division, 2011, p.15,   [2] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine.” Post-Soviet Affairs, 24 (4), 2008, p. 376.  [3] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘Puzzles of EU and NATO Accession of Post-Communist Countries.’ Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 12 (3), 2011, p 309.

It is far from the settled will of the Georgian and Ukrainian peoples that they wish to join NATO. Georgia’s President Saakashvili did wish to join, but after his disastrous attempt to regain control of South Ossetia was unable to bring his country with him. Saakashvilli was defeated in parliamentary elections and ran up against his term limit at the end of 2013 [1] opening the way towards better relations with Russia. Public opposition to NATO membership in Ukraine since the US-led war in Iraq 2003 outweighed support for joining the alliance. [2] Ukraine is split over NATO membership, with most of the Russian-speaking East of the country firmly opposed to the idea, and only about 30% support overall. [3] The crisis of Ukraine’s pro-western coalition over how to respond to the conflict in Georgia showed how divisive the question is; the President firmly supported Georgia while the PM kept quiet. [4] In any case, NATO membership should not automatically be extended to every nation which wishes it, but only offered when the current members of the alliance judge it to be in their strategic interest to do so.  [1] Traub, James, ‘The Georgia Syndrome’, ForeignPolicy, 13 August 2010,   [2] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine.” Post-Soviet Affairs, 24 (4), 2008, p. 376.  [3] Atwell, Kyle, ‘Two Different Paths to NATO: Georgia and Ukraine’, Atlantic Review, 7 November 2008,   [4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25,  , p.16  [4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25,  , p.16

There is a strong precedent for expansion  There is a strong precedent for letting Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are also former Soviet states, and Russia objected to their entry into NATO quite as much as it objects today about its Black Sea neighbours. [1] Yet Russia was not allowed a veto over their futures, and it soon got over its annoyance, continuing to participate in joint forums with NATO and to cooperate with the USA over Afghanistan, North Korea and nuclear non-proliferation. So NATO is already committed to the defence of states in Russia’s near-abroad, and should not fear further expansion.  [1] Black, Stephen J., ‘NATO Enlargement and the Baltic States: What Can the Great Powers Do’, Strategic Studies Institute, November 1997,

Dramatic and depressing as events in Georgia in 2008 were, the loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia actually make Georgia better suited to NATO membership than before. There would have been a clear danger of allowing Georgia into NATO if the status of these breakaway regions was unsettled, with the obvious potential for conflict with their Russian patron. Once Georgia can be brought to accept the permanent loss of these territories to Russia, then it becomes a much more united country, without any other obvious grounds for Russia’s future interference. This is similarly the case with Crimea; The Russian Black Sea Fleet based in a NATO member would have clearly been a risk.

We do not need to buy Russia cooperation by sacrificing Georgian and Ukrainian sovereignty. The West would like Russian cooperation in a whole range of areas, but this isn’t a zero sum game where if one side wins the other must lose out. Russia should also worry about issues such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, and the threat posed by failed states, so it is in its own interests to work with international partners to find global solutions. It also wants World Trade Organisation membership to continue its economic growth, especially if oil and gas prices should fall. For these reasons Russia will not make its whole foreign policy dependent on the expansion of NATO, but can be relied upon to continue existing partnerships because they are of mutual benefit.

The West is reliant on Russia’s Gas reserves  NATO’s European members have an additional reason not to offend Russia by continuing to expand the alliance in defiance of Moscow. Much of Europe depends on imports of Russian gas for their energy needs, Russia currently supplies 25% of European gas and this may rise to as high as 55% by 2020. [1] Unfortunately the Kremlin has made clear over the past three years that it is prepared to use its control of energy as a political weapon. It has already limited the flow of energy to states (e.g. Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia) who have annoyed it on several occasions, and may well be prepared to turn lights, heating and factories off across Europe in retaliation for interference in its near abroad. [2]  Russia’s energy riches in a time of high oil prices also mean that it is far richer and self-confident than at any time since the fall of communism. The profits of its energy wealth have also enabled its military to be strengthened. This means that even if Moscow backed down in response to western assertiveness in the past, it is now determined to overturn past humiliations.  [1] Paillard, Christophe-Alexandre, ‘Rethinking Russia: Russia and Europe’s Mutual Energy Dependence’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 63, No.2, Spring/Summer 2010, pp.65-84,   [2] Weir, Fred, ‘Why Russia is cutting off gas supplies to Belarus’, The Christian Science Monitor, 21 June 2010,

NATO is divided on how to deal with Georgia  The conflict in Georgia showed how NATO is already badly divided over how to respond to Russia. Old European states such as Germany and Italy are much readier to accommodate Russian interests than America, [1] which is supported by newer NATO members such as Poland and the Czech Republic. The same fault has been seen in relation to the response to Russian moves in Crimea; Germany has been much more cautious. [2] The United States faces a danger that if it pushes for NATO expansion in the face of Russian objections, it will split the alliance completely.  [1] Traynor, Ian, ‘Nato allies divided over Ukraine and Georgia’, guardian.co.uk, 2 December 2008,   [2] Dempsey, Judy, ‘Europe Is Completely Divided Over How to Respond to Russia’, Carnegie Europe, 4 March 2014,

The West needs to deal with Russia  Western countries should seek to compromise with Russia, as they need its cooperation in a whole range of areas. Global efforts against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, energy security and organised crime will all fail without Russian participation. Russia’s veto power on the United Nations Security Council also means that alienating Moscow could frustrate international efforts to bring security and freedom to states such as Sudan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Iraq. In particular the west needs Russian help in Syria; the UNSC has only been able to get humanitarian resolutions on the country when Russia has been cooperative. [1] And NATO depends on Russian goodwill to allow supplies into Afghanistan via the safer northern route, [2] cooperation that is likely to be withdrawn if Georgia and Ukraine remain candidates for membership.  [1] BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: UN Security Council agrees aid resolution’, 23 February 2014,   [2] Cullison, Alan, ‘Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes’, The Telegraph, 28 November 2011,

Russian strength is illusory – the country’s wealth is highly dependent on the energy exports and its economy is very vulnerable to a fall in oil and gas prices. Russia needs to sell its oil at $115 per barrel for the budget to balance. [1] Despite recent hostility to foreign oil firms attempting to operate in Russia, in the long term the country also needs western investment and technology if it is to maintain its energy output by opening and exploiting new fields. Indeed, Europe cannot be held hostage to Russian energy policy – who else could Russia sell its oil and gas to? Russia’s apparent military strength is also deceptive – its army and air force actually performed badly in Georgia and are no match for the modern forces available to NATO.  [1] Nikishenkov, Oleg, ‘Oil muddles Russia’s budget debate’, themoscownews, 16 May 2011,

Both countries are among the most prosperous economies in the entire world and have nothing to gain from EU membership. Through their EEA and EFTA memberships, as well as bilateral deals with Brussels, both Norway and Switzerland have access to the Single Market and are fully integrated into the European economy. While it may be true that the European Union is generous to Norway and Switzerland it is also in the EU’s interest to add Norway and Switzerland to the European Common Market even if not as full members. The chances of the European Union cancelling such agreements are remote as international agreements and trade rely on trust between partners so other partners of the EU would worry that their treaties might also be cancelled.

Benefits of joining the European Union  Both Norway and Switzerland already gain from their economic association with the European Union, but they would realise much greater benefits if they formally joined the organisation. Being imperfectly integrated into the European economy means that consumers pay higher prices for goods and services than citizens of EU countries. Businesses are sheltered from full competition, which can lead to complacency and a loss of global competitiveness. And the nature of their relationships with Brussels means that their economies are inherently fragile – bilateral agreements could be cancelled by either side at any time. This would have little impact on the wider EU-economy, but would devastate much smaller Norway or Switzerland. The risks this involves were brought home in 2008 when Swiss voters had to approve an extension of the freedom of movement under the Schengen agreement to new EU-members Romania and Bulgaria; if the referendum had been rejected, the EU would have cancelled the whole bilateral deal on Schengen. [1] So unless the two countries stay in step with the EU as it moves forward towards integration, they may lose many of the benefits they have already acquired. Given that in recent deals the EU has been relatively generous in the expectation that Switzerland and Norway will be encouraged to join the Union, there is a further risk that future treatment will be much less sympathetic if Brussels recognises that this is not going to happen.  [1] EurActiv.com, ‘Populists defeated in Swiss EU labour poll’, 2009

While it is true that trading freely with the EU requires acceptance of many of its rules, neither country has given up control over those areas they consider key policy areas. These are the areas that Norway and Switzerland most important such as agriculture, fishing (highly important for Norway) and foreign affairs. The Swiss in particular have done well out of bilateral deals with the EU – would their concerns in areas such as banking and farming be listened to as carefully once they were inside the club? How much are the concerns of smaller states taken seriously in the EU today?

It would be easy to assimilate into the EU  Both Switzerland and Norway would be warmly welcomed within the EU family and guaranteed a speedy entry into the Union. As advanced economies with strong legal and political institutions, they would be easy for the EU to assimilate, especially given their close involvement in the Single Market already. Both would be net contributors to the EU budget, and would strengthen the EU at a time when it is still coping with poorer new members and would-be members in Eastern Europe. And by contributing financially to the EU in this way, Switzerland and Norway will benefit from increasing trade as Eastern and Central European states rapidly gain in prosperity with support from EU regional transfers.

There is little room for small states in a globalizing world  Both countries would benefit from pooling sovereignty in an increasingly globalised world. For relatively small states true independence is no longer possible, with countries like Switzerland and Norway at the mercy of bigger economic forces. Thus Switzerland for example had to bail out its biggest bank UBS with $5.23 billion In 2008 as well as taking on $50 billion of toxic assets. [1] UBS and Credit Suisse the banks that were bailed out held assets worth 680% of GDP so Switzerland could have faced a similar crash as Iceland did. [2]  [1] Gow, David, ‘Switzerland unveils bank bail-out plan’, 2008  [2] Theil, Stefan, ‘What the Swiss Did Right’, 2010

Being small may well be the best way of avoiding the effects of globalization. Globilization is not only transferring power up from the state level to a more globalized level but also down to the local level. This works to the advantage of small states and as a very decentralized state this is particularly likely to benefit Switzerland. It is notable that most the world’s wealthiest states in per capita terms are small states despite globalization supposedly meaning that countries need to create immense markets to survive. [1] In practice small states are able to rapidly change to the changing economic environment. Iceland itself is a good example, despite the crash it experienced it is recovering and is turning against the idea of EU membership as its finance minister Steingrimur Sigfusson says "You are quicker turning a small boat around than a big ship. And that is, I think, what is being proven: that the small, vibrant Icelandic economy, including having our own currency, makes adapting quicker." [2]  [1] Alesina, Alberto, ‘The Size of Countries: Does it matter?’, 2003, p.308  [2] Henley, Paul, ‘Iceland has doubts about the euro as economy recovers’, 2011

It is clear why the EU would like to welcome the rich Swiss and Norwegians within its embrace, but why would either country want to sign up for a project which would involve their citizens’ taxes being given away to other countries? EU waste and fraud are legendary, so it is easy to understand why voters have consistently rejected giving up their taxes to Brussels. As latecomers they are not in a strong position to bargain over entry terms, and can expect to become major net contributors, especially as their farmers are unlikely to gain much from the Common Agricultural Policy. Estimates of the cost of membership for Switzerland were set between SFr3 billion and SFr8 billion in 2004 – more than its entire defense budget.

There is no moral obligation upon either state to join the EU. Both can continue to play a full part in promoting peace and stability outside the organization. As a NATO member with a firmly internationalist outlook, Norway already makes a big contribution to peacekeeping around the world. Indeed its valuable role as an arbiter in bitter disputes such as the Israel-Palestine and Sri Lanka-Tamil conflicts might be lost if it was merely a small part of a big power bloc. Switzerland too already contributes to building stability in the Balkans, in partnership with EU countries. But its long tradition of neutrality would be clearly compromised by EU membership, especially as a Common Foreign and Security Policy, voiced from Brussels by a High Representative on behalf of all member states, is rapidly becoming a reality.

Norway and Switzerland already implement many EU policies  Both Norway [1] and Switzerland [2] have agreements with the EU allow them the access to its enormous market that they need to survive economically, but at the same time they have to abide by EU rules that they have no influence over making. Norway in particular, as an EEA member must accept all EU single-market, employment, environment and competition rules. Switzerland meanwhile is under pressure as the European Union wants changes to EU law to be adopted automatically by the Swiss. [3] Both contribute to the EU budget as European Free Trade Area members contribute to operational and administrative expenditure. [4] Norway contributes 340million Euros per year. [5] If they joined the EU, they would at least be given a say in the regulations they have to implement, and as their presence would strengthen the relatively more free-market camp led by the UK, Ireland and Denmark, they are likely to be happier with the rules that then result.  [1] The European Community and Iceland, The Principality of Liechtenstein, Then Kingdom of Norway, ‘Agreement on the European Economic Area’, 1994  [2] European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation, ‘EC Switzerland Free Trade Agreement’ 1972  [3] Pop, Valentina, ‘EU looking to reset relations with Switzerland’, 2010  [4] Efta.int, ‘EEA EFTA Budget’, 2011  [5] Norway Mission to the EU, ’10 Basic facts about the European Economic Area’

The EU shares the same values as Norway and Switzerland  The European project has been a great political success in first ensuring, and then extending democracy and stability within the European continent. As strong democracies Switzerland and Norway surely belong within the EU family, and should play their part in advancing stability and European values in the future, for example in the Western Balkans. Swiss fears about compromising their neutrality should not be an issue – EU states like Ireland and Austria prize their neutrality too. And for the EU, the entry of both Norway and Switzerland at the same time would help to maintain present balance between NATO members and neutral states.

Replacing their currencies with the Euro would also benefit both Switzerland and Norway. Over the past ten years the Euro has gained in strength and credibility, and is now clearly the world’s second currency after the dollar. The high volatility of sterling shows the danger of trying to maintain your own currency as a national virility symbol, while Iceland shows the risk small countries face when financial trouble strikes. For Switzerland, switching to the Euro would allow it to capitalize on its banking expertise by becoming a true rival to London as Europe’s financial center. For Norway, the Euro would help the country avoid “Dutch disease” – where a strong oil and gas industry pushes up the currency to the point where other businesses are severely hurt.

Many other countries in the European Union are proud of their sovereignty, Britain for example was also initially reluctant to join the EU and has worried about losing sovereignty ever since. All the Eastern European states have been dominated by outside powers much more recently than Norway has and yet welcome the EU. Many commentators believe that the EU is moving towards being much more based upon regions and small states, something which would fit closely with Swiss and Norwegian membership. [1]  [1] Alesina, Alberto, ‘The Size of Countries: Does it matter?’, 2003, p.313

CAP and Fisheries policies would damage traditional industr  By remaining outside the EU itself, neither has to sacrifice key elements of its domestic economy to Brussels in a way countries like the UK do. For cultural and environmental reasons both countries protect and subsidise their small family farms, which would not be possible inside the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. Norway’s fishing industry also occupies an important place within the national psyche, and Norwegians are proud that good fisheries management within their 200 mile exclusion zone has left their fish stocks much healthier than those of EU neighbours who have fallen victim to the Common Fisheries Policy. And Swiss banking continues a proud tradition of independent financial expertise that might be lost to London if the country was just another part of the EU.

Requirement to join the Euro  Even if EU membership were in the interests of Switzerland and Norway, the requirement that all new members join the Euro provides a strong argument against joining the Union itself. At present, both countries have strong currencies, with the Swiss Franc a major international reserve currency in its own right. Through the Krone and Franc they can control their own monetary policy to suit economic conditions. By contrast, small EU states are at the mercy of the European Central Bank, having to endure interest rates that may be right for Germany or France, but which are too tight or too loose for Ireland or Belgium. This explains why EU countries such as Denmark and the UK have so far refused to join the Euro. Norway and Switzerland may also wonder whether they want to yoke themselves to profligate debtor countries like Italy, Greece, whose falling credit ratings are placing monetary union under strain at present. And neither Norway or Switzerland has the financial problems of Iceland, although the credit crunch has required Switzerland to support its international banks – in ways which EU membership might well have prevented.

Strong traditions of Sovereignty  Both Norway and Switzerland greatly value their sovereignty and do not want to give it up to Brussels. The Swiss have a tradition of proud independence stretching back to the middle ages, while the Norwegians still remember what it was like to be politically dominated by Denmark and Sweden. In both, voters have consistently shown that they have no wish to compromise their sovereignty by joining the European Union. The Swiss particularly fear their tradition of more direct democracy would be threatened with EU membership, as laws from Brussels could not be overturned by referendum as at present. This is already having an effect on EU-Swiss relations with Switzerland unwilling to have automatically adopt evolving EU law. The Swiss would be equally worried about the role of the European Court of Justice which decides if countries infringe European law. [1]  [1 ] Pop, Valentina, ‘EU looking to reset relations with Switzerland’, 2010

Just as a high degree of reliance upon free economic markets was instrumental to the growing prosperity in the modern era of the First World nations, so too a free economic market at the international level would tend to enhance the growth and development of a strong world economy. As for national government anti-cyclical policy, although it is clearly justified in crisis conditions of deep depression or hyperinfla­tion, too often in the past it has been applied injudiciously, so that it aggravates rather than ameliorates cyclical swings. Owing to the various lags in policy determination and implementation described by the famous economist Milton Friedman, often expansionary policy takes full effect in boom periods, while contractionary policy takes full effect in recession periods. This problem might well hold at the global level if there were a world government in existence attempting to apply world anticyclical policy. To the extent that the world government ventures beyond anticyclical policy into the realm of overall regulation and control of the business economy, it is likely to repeat and amplify the self-evident errors and excesses the national governments have made in this area.

Economic globalization suggests the need for political globalization  Economic interaction among the nations of the world, in the form of trade, investment and migration, has reached such a point today that it is meaningful to think of “the world economy.” Economic globalization suggests the need for political globalization in the form of a world government. Following the seminal work of John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression of the 1930s, it has become widely accepted within the economics profession that a certain amount of interventionist national government policy is essential to maintaining a proper balance between the twin economic evils of unemployment and inflation. Just as judicious national anticyclical policy is beneficial to national economies, so too a judicious world anticyclical policy, as implemented by a functioning world government, would be beneficial to the world economy. A world government would also improve the overall functioning of the global economy by means of regularizing various circumstances of international economic interaction (for example, in the area of patents and copyrights), and by working to reduce various trade impediments (such as tariffs and quotas) imposed by national governments.

Although the problems of resource depletion and environmental deterioration are indeed serious global problems, it is unreasonably optimistic and idealistic to believe that a world government, in and of itself, would be an effective instrument toward the reduction of these problems. The world government would likely promulgate resource use and environmental protection policies that would be acceptable to some countries, but totally unacceptable to other countries. Another consideration is that in a fundamental sense, resource depletion and environmental deterioration are caused by rapid population growth. A world government might try to control population growth by such draconic means as the notorious “one child” policy in the People’s Republic of China. This would be totally unacceptable to a very large majority of the contemporary human population.

There are successful precedents for supra-national bodies  The history of the European Union (EU) in the post-World War II era provides an encouraging example of what might be done at the global level through a functioning world government. It is widely agreed among economists that the relatively high degree of prosperity and security enjoyed today by the people of the Western European nations is in no small measure the result of the gradual evolution from the original limited-purpose, six-member European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) to the general-purpose, 27-member EU of today. In the early 1940s, many of the EU nations of today were locked in devastating warfare. The fact that these same nations are today harmonious components of a quasi-state polity demonstrates the capability of people to change their customary modes of thought and behavior when there exists a sufficient incentive to do so.

A world government would reduce the probability of a catastrophic nuclear world war  Ever since the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 during the closing days of World War II, the threat of global devastation through nuclear world war has hung over human civilization like a Damocles’ sword. The threat of global nuclear destruction peaked during the most perilous years of the Cold War during the 1950s through the 1970s, and it gradually subsided thereafter. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, many people came to believe that the threat has entirely disappeared. But this is false complacency. Although national arsenals of nuclear-tipped ICBMs have declined in the two decades since the end of the Cold War, they still exist at levels that would cause unimaginable death and destruction were they unleashed in a world war. The history of human civilization throughout the ages demonstrates the strong propensity among human beings toward hostility, violence and warfare—whatever the potential cost. As long as the international political system is based upon the sovereignty of nation-states, the threat of nuclear world war will always be there.

A world government is not needed to prevent nuclear world war, because such a war would be so catastrophic that the common sense of humanity will prevent it from ever happening. From the earliest days of the nuclear arms race, and especially after intercontinental ballistic missiles were perfected in the 1960s as the principal means of delivery of nuclear bombs, a delivery system for which no plausible defense could be devised, it was recognized that all-out world war was no longer a viable option in the contemporary world, simply because such a war would almost inevitably entail Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Not only would the immediate death and destruction be overwhelming, but the long-term effects from radiation and possible nuclear winter could be even worse. In the MAD world, the populations of all nations, especially those of the major powers, are held hostage in a sort of perpetual “Mexican standoff.” As paradoxical as it may seem, the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic delivery systems has created the most effective deterrent to unrestricted warfare ever seen in the history of the human race. The inescapable horrors of a nuclear war guarantee that such a war will never happen.

The basic flaw in this argument is that throughout modern history. Western Europe has always been far more homogeneous, in terms of economics and culture, than the world as a whole is at the present time. The immense human and material losses of World War I and World War II created a far more intense motivation in the post-war era toward change than exists at the present time over all the nations of the world, since most nations today have not experienced the horrors of war at first hand for a very long time. Moreover, in the aftermath of World War II, the Western European nations were motivated to a higher level of harmony and mutual cooperation owing to the fear that if they did not cooperate, they would become mere pawns in the strategic and potentially deadly game being played between the United States and the Soviet Union.

International relations specialists have long concluded that for a successful political amalgamation to take place, the people of the various regional components of that amalgamation must have a great deal in common. The history of nation-states demonstrates, for example, that a common language is a strong unifying force. But there must be other strong commonalities aside from language. There cannot be extreme differences in economic conditions among the regions, or extreme differences in political beliefs and ideologies, or extreme differences in cultural attitudes and social mores. When we look at the world of nations today, we cannot avoid acknowledging the existence of extreme differences in all of these areas. Aside from economics and political ideologies, the most obvious factors are the multiplicity of languages and religions. We are forced to conclude that a successful political amalgamation among such a wide assortment of dramatically diverse nations is virtually impossible.

A world government would enhance the probability of mitigating global environmental problems  A world government would enhance the probability that effective means will be developed and implemented toward ameliorating the global problems of resource depletion and environmental decay. In a world divided into a host of jealously independent and self-righteously sovereign nations, national leaders tend to point the finger of blame for these problems at other nations, and to resist international efforts toward resource conservation and environmental preservation. As the mutual accusations and recriminations go on and on, the problems are left to fester. If a world government existed, it might muster sufficient respect and possess sufficient authority to enable the nations to arrive at a workable consensus on how to share equitably the short-term costs and inconveniences necessary to securing long-term sustainability of resources and preservation of environmental quality.

A world government would foster a constructive cosmopolitanism  A world government would give people a higher focus for their political loyalties than their respective nation-states, and thus facilitate the development of a higher degree of cosmopolitanism than is possible under the sovereign nation-state system. This would benefit the practical operations and effectiveness of the world government. The greater the sense of community among the citizens of a polity, the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, and the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, the greater the sense of community among its citizens. This suggests an interactive, snowballing relationship over time between the sense of community of the citizens of the world federation, and the efficiency and effectiveness of its practical operations. From relatively low sense of community and low effectiveness in its early stages, over many years of gradual evolution, the world federation would eventually achieve a very high level of community spirit and practical effectiveness.

Although it is a popular form of entertainment to malign generic bureaucracies, professional sociologists define a bureaucracy in neutral terms as any large-scale, hierarchical organization that practices specialization and division of labor in its operations. According to this definition, such organizations as armies, navies, business corporations, the International Red Cross, and numerous others, are classified as bureaucracies no less than national tax collection agencies—the archetypical target of “bureaucracy haters.” It is important to understand that bureaucracies do not arise from nowhere, but are a tangible consequence of perceived needs and shared purposes. With that in mind, it can further be argued that a world government would not necessarily increase the total bureaucratic burden on the human population of the world. Some functions currently handled by separate national government bureaucracies might more cost effectively be handled by an analogous world government bureaucracy.

Although post-World War II world government proposals were mostly for an unlimited world government descriptively designated the “omnipotent world state,” there has been considerable evolution in world federalist thought since the immediate post-war period. More recent proposals envision a limited federal world government subject to significant restraints that would effectively eliminate the danger of global tyranny. Among these are proposals that discontented member nations may withdraw peacefully, at their unilateral discretion, from the federation, and that member nations are allowed to retain independent control over armed forces. In addition to these provisions, a sensible voting scheme in the world legislature would preclude the poor countries enforcing their preferences on the rich countries, and vice versa. In any case, excessive emphasis on the heterogeneity of nations tends to obscure the fact that in reality—despite the obvious differences in language, race, religion and culture—a considerable amount of consensus has already been achieved among the global human population on some critical elements of ethical behavior and social organization. The existence of a federal world government would facilitate further development of the friendly, cooperative and mutually supportive impulses within people.

A world government would be ineffective in practice  From the early 1990s, at about the time of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union, there has developed an immense literature on global governance in the post-Cold War era. It is agreed by many if not most international relations authorities that the existing institutions of global governance, comprising the United Nations and several others, are achieving as much as can reasonably be expected given the extreme diversity of the contemporary global human population, its widely differing perceptions, viewpoints, and policy preferences. If this diversity is hampering efforts to improve the global human prospect, this is unfortunate, but there is no reason to expect that a formal world government would not be similarly hampered. Furthermore, significant improvements can be made, such as the proposed Global Parliamen­tary Assembly (GPA) that would convert or replace the UN General Assembly with a directly elected assembly—without going to the premature extreme of full-fledged world government. Many other ideas short of world government were offered by the Commission on Global Governance of the early 1990s. Many of these are viable and attractive options for making progress without an excessively risky departure from the status quo. Thus there is no need to make a reckless giant step into world government, when there are more cautious baby steps that could be taken toward improving international harmony and cooperation.

There is no feasible transition path to a world government model  Some eminent international relations authorities have argued that no feasible transition path of a benign nature exists from the present situation of national sovereignty, to a world government. A nuclear world war might change this situation: such a war might so shock and horrify the global human population that it will turn to world govern­ment in desperation. This outcome is possible, of course, but it is equally possible that after a nuclear Armageddon had occurred, the scattered and demoralized survivors would be neither capable of nor interested in world government. Quite likely the surface of the world would become sub-divided into a host of autonomous principalities presided over by dictatorial war lords. It would seem that in a post-nuclear war world, there would be just as much chance of severe political fragmentation taking place as there is of further political consolidation.

The forces of nationalism are too strong to permit the loosening of state sovereignty any further  The force of nationalism is so strong in the contemporary world that no national population will be willing to turn over any substantial part of its national sovereignty and autonomy to a world government. There is too much apprehension among the great majority of people around the world that a world government would promulgate and enforce policies that would disadvantage their specific national interests. Most opinion leaders and national government officials believe that they have a vested interest in the status quo. One evidence that interest in world government has declined to a vestigial level is that the World Federalist Association (WFA), which was quite active throughout the Cold War, was recently absorbed by Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), an organization principally devoted to preserving and supporting the United Nations, and which studiously avoids any mention of world government in its literature.

A world government would add another, laborious level of bureaucracy  A world government would add another layer of bureaucracy to a world which is already laboring under a heavy burden of bureaucracy. Were a world government bureaucracy to be added to what already exists at the national, regional and local levels, it would be accurate to describe the situation as “bureaucratic suffocation” or “bureaucratic strangulation.” Of their nature, bureaucracies stifle creative thought and innovation. A world government would be subject to so many conflicting viewpoints and attitudes that its bureaucracy would necessarily have to impose an overwhelming deluge of requirements, restrictions, forms and reports on the citizens. The citizens would be effectively hamstrung, and be (figuratively speaking) more or less trussed up in straitjackets. So even if—by some remote chance—the world state did not immediately degenerate into a brutal police state, its massive bureaucracy would in some ways constitute a virtual police state. The problem of bureaucracy alone argues against a world state.

The fact that some international relations authorities do not have the imagination required to perceive a feasible transition path to world government is not necessarily strong evidence that such a path does not exist. The principal reason why the idea of world government is not being pursued vigorously at the present time is that it is assumed by the large majority that world government could only be realized in the form of the omnipotent world state. But if a sufficient amount (a “critical mass,” so to speak) of awareness of the limited world govern­ment option is achieved, the situation could change dramatically within a short period of time. If there was sufficiently widespread and strong support for world government, it could be established by the same sort of international conference that established the United Nations. As for world government coming about through nuclear world war, no sane and sensible world federalist gives this any credence.

There is no popular support for such a body  There is too much economic, political and cultural heterogeneity in the contemporary world to permit the establishment of a democratically organized, authoritative and effective—yet benign—world govern­ment. This was especially the case during the Cold War era with its virulent opposition between communist and non-communist economic, political and social ideologies. But it is still the case. For example, if a democratic world government were established, it would likely want to create a global welfare state, but this would be unacceptable to citizens of the rich countries because of the excessive taxation necessary to provide welfare benefits to the citizens of the poor nations. Another possibility is that the world government would be effectively controlled by the rich nations (despite appearances of democracy), and thus it would implement policies of uncontrolled trade and investment. These would be unacceptable to the poor nations because they would be regarded as a return to the exploitative con­ditions of the colonial era. Thus a serious effort to establish a world government in the real world would almost certainly lead to widespread armed resistance, and this might well escalate into the very nuclear world war that the world government was supposed to prevent. That would be the ultimate irony.

While it cannot be denied that interest in world government is currently at a low ebb, among both the general public and international relations professionals, it is arguable that a principal reason for this is relatively low familiarity with alternatives to the “omnipotent world state” concept developed in the immediate aftermath of World War II. In time, as greater familiarity develops with the more recent proposals for a limited federal world government being developed by the younger generation of world federalists, the situation might change. The more recent proposals envision a world government that would exercise far less power and authority relative to the member nations than would the omnipotent world government of earlier, “old-fashioned” world federalist thought. There would be far less likelihood of these newer blueprints leading to unmanageable conflicts between national interests and global interests.

There is no doubt that the processes of global governance have improved since the decline of the Cold War in the early 1990s as a result of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union. But it is unduly naïve to suggest, as do some global governance enthusiasts, that the United Nations and other international institutions amount to a virtual global government that is as effective as an actual world government would be. Close examination of actual events at the international level shows that national interests tend to trump global interests again and again. As for “baby step” proposals such as the Global Parliamentary Assembly, these are uninspired and uninspiring. So long as the UN General Assembly (or its equivalent) remains a purely consultative body confined to issuing resolutions with no power of enforcement, then it makes very little difference whether its members are elected by the national populations, or appointed by the national governments. A full-fledged world government, as an institutional reality with legislative, executive and judicial branches, the high officials of which would be directly elected by the global constituency, would constitute a quantum leap forward that would excite the human imagination. So long as it is properly limited according to the more recent, post-Cold War world federalist proposals, it would not constitute a meaningful threat to the legitimate national interests of the member nations.

Officially talks are ongoing so an agreement is still possible. Moreover a failure to reach an agreement does not mean that Germany should act unilaterally. Restraint will in the long term mean Germany is much more likely to negotiate an agreement with the United States as they will be more willing to listen to an ally who has not tried to prosecute US intelligence officials.

No chance of an agreement with the USA  The German government has been working towards a ‘no-spy agreement’ with the United States. It however looks unlikely that such a deal will every become a reality with officials saying “we won't get anything” and “the Americans lied to us” about the chances of an agreement. [1] German officials have also been disparaging of Obama’s new announcements on restrictions of the NSA; Roettgen, a member of Merkel’s party says “The fundamental question is, should security services be able to do everything they’re technically able to do, Obama essentially said ‘yes’”. [2] If Germany can’t get an agreement then it has no choice but to act unilaterally.  [1] Medick, Veit, and Meiritz, Annett, ‘’The Americans Lied’: Trans-Atlantic ‘No-Spy’ Deal on the Rocks’, Spiegel Online, 15 January 2014,   [2] Donahue, Patrick, ‘Germany Says Obama’s Spying Pledges Fail to Address Concerns’, Bloomberg, 20 January 2014’,

Politics is about action. The German government has to take some action on the issue of NSA surveillance and German privacy or it will look weak. Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich went to Washington in July but was accused of “returning empty-handed” and having “not moved a single step forward on any of the key points”. [1] The stonewalling by the United States provides an opportunity for opponents to Damage Merkel’s new government as well as potentially to show gaps between the SDP and CSU. Merkel has been invited to visit Washington at some point in 2014 by President Obama, [2] Merkel can’t afford for her own diplomacy to have as little result as Friedrich’s.  [1] Deutsche Welle, ‘SPF, Greens slam Interior Minister Friedrich after US surveillance talks in Washington’, dw.de, 13 July 2013,   [2] Reuters, ‘Obama invites Merkel to visit during call about trade, NATO’, 8 January 2014,

Illegal under German law  Monitoring communications in Germany’s capital – including the communications of government leaders like Merkel would be illegal under German law. Numerous politicians, such as then interior minister Hans-Peter Friedrich have stated that those “responsible must be held accountable”. [1] There are even those, such as Gregor Gysi from the far left Left Party who say “The fact that the German government and the Federal Prosecutor isn't acting shows that their fear of the US government is greater than their respect for our legal system.” [2] When an act is illegal the state has a moral responsibility to prosecute that act. It should not be OK for another state to break the law simply because it is an ally and there is a desire to keep relations cordial.  [1] McGuinness, Damien, ‘US bugged Merkel's phone from 2002 until 2013, report claims’, BBC News, 27 October 2013,   [2] Spiegel Staff, ‘Probing America: Top German Prosecutor Considers NSA Investigation’, Spiegel Online, 20 January 2014,

Of course spying on another country is illegal, but everyone does it. Le Monde in July had a report on The Direction Générale de la Securité Extérieure (DGSC) having systematically collected “the electromagnetic signals transmitted by computers and phones in France, as well as the digital streams going back-and-forth between the French and abroad. All communications are being spied on: emails, SMS messages, phone records, Facebook and Twitter updates, which are all then stored for years”. [1]  [1] Follorou, Jaques, and Johannès, Franck, ‘Exclusive: French Intelligence Has Its Own Version Of PRISM’, Worldcrunch, 4 July 2013,

Doing nothing makes Merkel and Germany look weak  Politics is about action. The German government has to take some action on the issue of NSA surveillance and German privacy or it will look weak. Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich went to Washington in July but was accused of “returning empty-handed” and having “not moved a single step forward on any of the key points”. [1] The stonewalling by the United States provides an opportunity for opponents to Damage Merkel’s new government as well as potentially to show gaps between the SDP and CSU. Merkel has been invited to visit Washington at some point in 2014 by President Obama, [2] Merkel can’t afford for her own diplomacy to have as little result as Friedrich’s.  [1] Deutsche Welle, ‘SPF, Greens slam Interior Minister Friedrich after US surveillance talks in Washington’, dw.de, 13 July 2013,   [2] Reuters, ‘Obama invites Merkel to visit during call about trade, NATO’, 8 January 2014,

If countries will not act on narrow issues involving privacy freedoms and internet surveillance even when their head of government is on the receiving end then what hope is there for the broader picture? There is no point in proclaiming everyone should follow the law then we would have no crime if there is no mechanism to punish those who commit crime. Germany should not let the NSA get away with its actions or it will surely do the same again in the future.

A failure by the United States to agree to a no spy agreement already damages relations. One of the leaders of the SPD, Thomas Oppermann, has said “failure of the agreement would be unacceptable” and would “change the political character of relations.” [1] If the US is willing to damage relations by stonewalling then should the Germans really be considering US diplomatic feelings in the matter? The United States gains from its relations with Germany as well as the other way around. Stopping intelligence sharing as a result of a prosecution would be acting against US interests in fighting terrorism.  [1] Deutsche Welle, ‘Impasse at US-Germany ‘no-spying’ talks?’, dw.de, 14 January 2014,

Will the investigation get anywhere; who should be prosecuted?  The biggest problem facing an investigation by a prosecutor is whether there is any point in the investigation. Who could be relevant witnesses? Would any of them cooperate? [1] Ultimately who do you prosecute? Germany might be able to bring some of the US staff in Germany who conducted the surveillance to trial but it seems most unlikely that they would be able to get anyone higher up the chain. Is the person who authorised the surveillance really likely to be extradited? It seems unlikely, so why bother?  [1] Spiegel Staff, ‘Probing America: Top German Prosecutor Considers NSA Investigation’, Spiegel Online, 20 January 2014,

Investigating a sideshow  The issue of the United States bugging Merkel and whether Germany can reach an agreement to prevent spying in the future is really a sideshow. The bugging of one person no matter how important does not matter. Much more important is the protection of the internet and internet freedom. This German Interior Minister de Maiziere [1] says is what is most important and Germany can work with the USA on it “There are organized criminals, who are interested in our transactions. There are business models that aim to sell individuals' profile images, and so on… The protection of the Internet, against whomever, that is our common purpose, and not just this fixation on the NSA.” [2] Germany should not be fixing on what the NSA has done but be looking at the broader picture.  [1] NB the German government changed on 17th December with a resulting reshuffle  [2] Deutche Welle, ‘German Interior Minister de Maiziere warns over NSA 'fixation'’, dw.de, 10 January 2014,

Damages US-German relations  An investigation would have serious repercussions for German-American relations which would be seriously against German interests. Germany needs the United States as an ally in NATO and both are currently disengaging from deployments in Afghanistan. Much more important might be the impact on intelligence sharing between Germany and the United States. Intelligence officials are concerned “They could simply shut off the faucet,” with the Americans simply no longer providing intelligence to Germany. This would immediately impact German security by making it more likely terrorists could attack German interests. [1] Germany should accept the Obama’s assurances “As long as I am the President of the United States, the German Chancellor need not worry about that [surveillance of Merkel]”. [2]  [1] Spiegel Staff, ‘Probing America: Top German Prosecutor Considers NSA Investigation’, Spiegel Online, 20 January 2014,   [2] Reuters, ‘Obama Tells Merkel, Germans He Will Not Wiretap’, Huffington Post, 18 January 2014,

There is a big difference between justice not being done because the United States refuses to cooperate and justice not being done because German prosecutors could not get the evidence to bring charges. If the former there is at least a chance of a trial, possibly in abstention, where all the evidence can come out.

The reality is that antibiotics and similar medicines are mostly sold to Monopsonistic governments and don’t represent the profit base of big Pharma. Instead they have focussed on products such as Prozac that are high-profit by their nature, while thirty-year old antibiotics are left to become ever less effective against evolving viruses. [i] .  [i] Gouge, Deborah, ‘Big Pharma Abandons Antibiotics: An Opening For Small Biotech’, Seeking Alpha, 13 May 2012.

ACTA promotes medical research  Companies that accept huge research costs – such as the pharmaceutical industries – need the surety of knowing that they will have some payback for that research. Without that there is little point in them undertaking the research in the first place and medical science will suffer.  It’s easy to say that manufacturing a pill only costs two cents – the reality is that a trial alone can cost upwards of $100m with the whole research and development per approved drug costing billions. [i] The framework  for doing that is one that requires a profit for investors and security for researchers.  Allowing for generic medicines to undermine that end point profit discourages the necessary blue-sky thinking and ground-breaking research as they’re risky and may not see a financial return. As a result, those medicines that are proven ‘sellers’ need to make the profit for the long-term investment that will be required for cures for cancer, AIDS and other global killers. Stopping pharmaceutical companies from making a healthy profit on established antibiotics and similar medicines means that they then don’t have the financial muscle to be able to fund the long development and large amount of research necessary to create the drugs of the future. If they then believe those drugs will quickly be recreated and turned into generics they will give up researching entirely.  [i] Herper, Matthew, ‘The Truly Staggering Cost of Inventing New Drugs’, Forbes, 10 February 2012.

Were proposition’s case true then it would raise the question of why no consumers groups have been involved in the negotiations or representative of cloth and other manufacturers in the developing world – or for that matter the originators of design techniques more generally. The only people consulted were the stakeholders of extremely wealthy brands; mostly price-gougers with appalling records in terms of how they spend that money as it relates to the payment of workers or suppliers. This agreement serves purely for the protection of a wealthy few and against the interests of the overwhelming majority in the industries they represent.

Piracy in an Internet age.  In an age of such easy global communications, the threat of piracy is far greater for creative industries than it has ever been before. There is a huge difference between a few cheap video copies and global downloads available free of charge. With sites making movies that cost millions available for free, it poses a real threat to major studios. For example The Institute for Policy Innovation believes the global music industry loses $12.5 billion a year due to piracy resulting in 71,060 lost jobs. [i]  The fact that these sites are so popular demonstrates that music and movies are popular but that people are unwilling to pay real cost of producing that quality of product.  The reality is that creative material is produced not just by a handful of millionaire actors and producers but by thousands of screen-writers, technicians and backroom staff; all of whom have to be paid. To do that studios, music producers and publishers need some guarantee of a return on their initial investment.  [i] Siwek, Stephen E., ‘The True Cost of Sound Recording Piracy to the U.S. Economy’, The Institute for Policy Innovation, 21 August 2007.

We should be wary of any figures set on losses to the economy as a result of piracy, mostly because the coinsumer who is downloading pirated materials will simply use his dollars elsewhere. [i] There have also been studies that show that these same people who illegally download also spend more on legal downloads. [ii] Moreover this should really be seen just as a spur to innovate. Those who benefitted from film were happy enough with the impact that cinema had on theatre, music producers happy enough with the impact that musical electrification, global distribution methods and broadcasting had on the music industry. Objecting that new technologies require some new thinking is ridiculous and smacks of protectionism from industries that, increasingly, seem to have lost the battle of ideas. ACTA is anti-competitive and aims to protect the interests of outdated approaches against new and imaginative thinking.  [i] Raustiala, Kal, and Sprigman, Chris, ‘How Much Do Music and Movie Piracy Really Hurt the U.S. Economy’, Freakonomics, 12 January 2012.  [ii] Michaels, Sean, ‘Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music’, guardian.co.uk, 21 April 2009.

ACTA is needed to protect brands  There is a genuine value to a brand – in part because, for clothing companies for example, it is a mark of quality as much as it is of origin. However even if that were not the case, the brand identity of a company is part of its legal property and should be protected in the same way and stock or cash against theft.  The very fact that people are so keen to buy branded clothing and other products – even when pirated – demonstrates that there is a value to those brands.  ACTA doesn’t seek to control people’s rights to wear any pair of jeans or trainers or other type of product. It simply says that if someone wants to own Levi jeans or Nike trainers they should pay the price set by Levis or Nike. If they don’t want to pay the premium then they are at liberty to buy different unbranded products.

The EU [i] has described this agreement as a balance of the interests of all stakeholders – including customers or other users. Nobody is banned from freely sharing their own ideas, inventions or research; merely from ripping off that of other people. The oppositions need not worry about the articles it mentions as they are targeted not at individuals but at other commercial outfits.  What is described as privatizing data is in fact increasing functionality and ensuring interoperability. Ask anyone who uses an Apple device or have become accustomed to using Microsoft Outlook and they will testify that their products work best when used together with other similar products. By allowing other organisations to copy these services you are only harming consumers.  [i] European Commission, ‘ACTA – Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement’, 4 July 2012.

Government is about taking tough decisions rather than pandering to majoritarian whims. Legislation such as this protect industries in the creative, IT, manufacturing and medical sectors. The support it has garnered among trades union demonstrates that they, at least, recognise that it is about protecting jobs. It is no surprise that many people prefer to buy products that are cheap – or better, free – but government has a responsibility to protect the livelihoods of its citizens with rather more enthusiasm that the right to download free movies. It would be interesting to see where the democratic deficit goes when entire industries start collapsing because of counterfeiting.

Creativity will suffer if ACTA is brought in  Many within the creative industries have developed business models that work with the Internet. A few giants – frequently not producing the most artistically acclaimed work – are simply trying to defend their monopolistic profits. The idea that any of the companies involved in these negotiations are serious about protecting creativity is undermined both by the products and their response to anything new or threatening to their corporate interests. Instead this is holding up the process of creative destruction, whereby new better ideas sweep away the old that will be outcompeted, [i] by standing in the way of this in the digital world ACTA is stifling both creativity and the economy. The opposition to this legislation has come from actual creatives – programmers, artists, performers and others as well as researchers academics and more. It is being promoted by the very commercial interests that also seek to suck the life-blood out of genuine art, research and ingenuity [ii] .  This is all about protecting the commercial interest of those corporations that have ceased to have much to do with any of these processes and simply want to make the most out of what they already control through copyright. It is and remains profoundly anti-competitive and a retrograde step in terms of developing any artistic, scientific or intellectual field. By securing, through copyright, established technologies, paradigms, and industries, the agreement undermines the very competition that so many of its proponents claim to endorse. Indeed the only thing it can be demonstrated to do is to allow organisations to steal widely held information by slapping a copyright or brand on it.  [i] Cox, W. Michael and Alm, Richard, ‘Creative Destruction’, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2008.  [ii] Creative Freedom Federation, New Zealand.

ACTA attacks free software and privatises data  ACTA represents a fundamental attack on the right to produce or host free software. It is written in such a way as would protect the rights of corporations such as Microsoft to build systems that require updating while, at the same time undermining freeware software such as Linux. Its provisions that can both punish (art 12:1) and pass enforcement over to ISPs (art 8:1) who therefore have an incentive to restrict free software. Article 27:6 specifically attacks computer programs that are providing a free alternative and those that may affect digital rights management programs. [i] [ii] In doing this it creates a culture of surveillance and represents a fundamental attack on freedom of expression and basic principles of democracy as it would commercialise the right to access and distribute information.  The rights to free expression are recognised in virtually every codification of basic human rights – on which this agreement is mostly silent. It will make impossible the free distribution of programmes and other computer tools and re-asserts, as did GATS, the primacy of corporations through a right to protect things that they didn’t think of but wished they had.  Already they have the advantages of massive budgets and huge legal departments, this agreement simply distorts the playing field still further in their interest.  [i] ‘Speak out against ACTA’, Free Software Foundation, 19 June 2008.  [ii] ‘ACTA: threats to Free Software’, hugo’s blog, 21 April 2010.

ACTA is anti-democratic  This has been a secret stich-up between a handful of, mostly Western, governments and massive corporations or their representative trade organisations. It has notably failed to receive democratic support and poses a genuine threat to freedom and equality offered by the Internet. So far it has been signed by fewer than 40 nations and has failed to receive democratic approval [i] in any of them; it is the child of national and business elites but has failed at every hurdle where the public was watching hence it has not been ratified by any legislatures and in some cases such as in Mexico been thrown out almost unanimously. [ii] [iii] Where it has been signed, it has mostly been met with protests from politicians and public alike. If the proponents of this measure are so sure of its virtues, the obvious solution would seem apparent; put it to a vote.  It proposes the creation of an international body with no democratic accountability [iv] at all as it just has representatives from each party to the treaty but no accountability to any other body and seeks to undermine public involvement in both formal and informal ways with the management of information in the modern world. Opposition to this agreement has been at least as ferocious as previous attempts to remove the democratic input of the inhabitants of the planet into decisions that affect their lives – such as the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The Agreement has run into issues of constitutionality in the EU, US and elsewhere with legislatures questioning whether national executives have the right – let alone the capacity – to implement the measures of the Agreement. Any government that attempted to ratify the agreement would be likely to face stiff opposition from both parliamentarians and the public – to date that has been insurmountable [v] .  [i] Various articles from around the world  [ii] ‘Dictámenes a Discusión y Votación‘, Senado de la Republica LXI Legislatura, 22 June 2011.  [iii] Hernandez, Daniel, ‘Mexico signs anti-piracy treaty, setting up battle with activists’, Latimes blog, 13 July 2012.  [iv] Chapters four and five, Council of the European Union, ‘Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’, 23 August 2011.  [v] Mason, Daniel, ‘European Opposition to ACTA grows’, Public Service Europe, 13 February 2012.

The major corporations, which seem to exercise the opposition so greatly, are also major employers and major investors. In addition to which counterfeiting is a much greater threat to small corporations that are dependent on one good idea and lack the financial muscle to protect that idea, for example Ifttt, an internet startup was cloned by a Chinese company, Linggan, while it was still in beta. [i] The people that have something to fear from this agreement are those with no ideas seeking to skim a profit off the energy and effort of others [ii] .  Importantly protecting intellectual property rights can also encourage innovation, by ensuring that start-ups keep creating new ideas and are sure they can profit from them. We need to ensure that there are sufficient incentives for entrepreneurs, of which intellectual property is one important component.  [i] Sam, ‘Speedy Chinese Clone Copies Startup Still in Beta’, TechinAsia, 23 August 2011.  [ii] A list of supporters

There is little evidence that the Ba’ath Party would have tolerated a handover of power to Saddam’s sons. Even in North Korea, the issue of Kim Il Sung’s succession became fraught, and hotly contested amongst the North Korean political elite.. However, the issue of who should run Iraq was and should remain a matter for the Iraqi people. The current puppet regime has little power outside Baghdad and, frankly, not that much inside, this lack of central control is as damaging as too much would be as is shown by the failure of Somalia and resulting civil war and piratical attacks. [i]  In many ways the war has encouraged the world’s rogue states to pursue nuclear weapons as, in an era of ‘pre-emptive defense, they are the only surety against invasion and overthrow [ii] . Iran is continuing to persue nuclear weapons even without the threat of Iraq on its borders, instead it is worried about Israel and the United States. One more threatening state would therefore have made little difference. [iii]  If the aim of the war was to insure against future threats then leaving a nation bitter and resentful, where barely a family has not lost someone to the conflict, a radicalized younger generation, emboldened militant clerics and a weak central government seems a very strange way to go about doing it. The West will almost certainly have to return to Iraq within a generation, if not a decade.  [i] Blair, David, ‘Somalia: Analysis of a failed state’, The Telegraph, 18 November 2008  [ii] Francis Fukuyama. “Iraq May Be Stable, But The War Was Still A Mistake”. Wall Street Journal. 15 August 2008.  [iii] BBC News, ‘Q&amp;A: Iran nuclear issue’, 23 January 2012

Although there has been a huge cost in human life the alternatives may well have been worse Saddam had made quite clear his intention to hand over power to his sons  Without intervention there is little doubt that Saddam or one of his still more murderous sons would be running Iraq. Even though there were no WMDs, it seems reasonable to assume that neither Saddam nor his sons would have ignored Iran’s attempts to secure fissile material and develop a bomb. Iraq had attempted to build a nuclear reactor in the 1970’s but it was destroyed by Israel in 1981 [i] and Iraq and Iran had fought a far for most of the 1980s for political dominance in the Gulf and the Shi’ite, Sunni religious divide. [ii] So we would now be watching an arms race in the Middle East between the two with Israel on a hair trigger.  This wasn’t just about removing one tyrant; the regime had dynastic ambitions, and a failure to act would have created the equivalent of North Korea. However, this particular hermit kingdom would have been sitting on top of the second largest reserves of oil in the world. It would, therefore, have the capacity to create the sort of fear and chaos Kim Jong Il can only dream of.  [i] BBC On This Day, ‘1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor’.  [ii] Pipes, Daniel, ‘A Border Adrift: Origins of the Iraq-Iran War’, The Iraq-Iran War: Old Conflict, New Weapons, 1983

By empowering the Shi’a majority, the outcome of the war has provided an obvious link to Iran, an equally obvious threat to Israel and has implication for nations “from Lebanon to Pakistan. [i] ”  The weakness of this government represents a far greater threat to security and regional stability than any dictator, however bloodthirsty. Iraq looks set to join the other lawless regions of Asia such as the Pashtun Valley as an obvious place for terrorists and Criminals to base themselves.  [i] Vali Nasr. “Regional Implications of Shi’a Revival in Iraq”. The Washington Quarterly • 27:3 pp. 7–24. The Centre for International and Strategic Studies and the Massachusetts Institute for Technology. Summer 2004.

Saddam Hussein is gone and Iraq is now functioning as one of very few democracies in the Middle East  It's important to be clear that this debate is looking at the results of the Iraq war and, by any definition Iraq is in a much more stable and secure position than it was in 2003 when American, British and other international troops arrived in the country.  Whatever one thinks of the initial justifications for the war there is no doubt that the country, the region and the world are better and safer places without Saddam Hussein [i] . It is easy to criticize the allies but it is worth bearing in mind that the alternative was leaving in power a man who had committed genocide was a vicious and brutal dictator under whose regime extra-judicial execution and detention, mass-murder and torture were commonplace [ii] .  [i] Richard Miniter. “Was the Iraq War Worth It?”. Hudson New York. 2 September 2010.  [ii] Interview with Donald Rumsfeld. Inside Politics. NPR. 14 February 2011.

In the unlikely event that something resembling a democratic government survives in Iraq after the international troops leave then that would, of course, be welcome.  However, some context is required to establish whether the price was worth paying. Over a trillion dollars, 4,000 American dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis, US reputation destroyed in the region to establish a puppet government whose only real chance of survival is a continued American presence in the country.  The alternatives are all unpleasant – a theocratic regime allied to a nuclear Iran, a simple meltdown of the state or the emergence of a new strongman along the lines of Saddam's regime.  Assuming the US can't sign up in perpetuity then one of these outcomes seems likely and those lives and resources will have been squandered for no reason whatsoever [i] .  [i] Francis Fukuyama. “Iraq May Be Stable, But The War Was Still A Mistake”. Wall Street Journal. 15 August 2008.

His removal provides stability and security not only for Iraq but for the Middle East as a region  The Middle East is a tinder box at the best of times. Having an unpredictable megalomaniac sitting in the middle of it was dangerous, not only for Iraqis but for other peoples in the region. Hussain was a danger to the Middle East as he had proved many times, through his invasion of Iran [i] which was followed only a couple of years later in 1990 by an invasion of Kuwait which sparked the Gulf War [ii] and his use of scud missiles on Israel which was otherwise uninvolved in the conflict. [iii]  It was better to remove this threat than risk being drawn into a multi-player conflict when he next attacked a neighbor.  [i] Pipes, Daniel, ‘A Border Adrift: Origins of the Iraq-Iran War’, The Iraq-Iran War: Old Conflict, New Weapons, 1983  [ii] BBC on this day, ‘1990: Iraq invades Kuwait’.  [iii] CBC Digital Archives, ‘Scud vs. Patriot missiles’, 19 January 1991

The sands of Iraq are as soaked in blood as they are in oil. For once the Iraqis have actually got something out of their mineral wealth, which has otherwise served as a curse for over a century.  There has been a functioning civilization around the Tigis-Euphrates Valleys for at least ten thousand years it was only with the discovery of oil and the importation of the Industrial Age that this began to function as a curse.  For once their oil wealth has worked to their advantage, leading to the removal of a dictator rather than the imposition of one. As the troops step back it seems likely that Iraq has the opportunity to become that rarest of things; a Middle Eastern, oil producing state that is democratic and stable. As a result they can negotiate with oil consuming nations on an even footing.

An entire generation has been turned against the West and fundamentalist clerics have gained enormously in influence  The aftermath of the war has been to create an entire people with no reason to love the West and more than100,000 reasons to hate it as a result of an estimated 105-115000 dead. [i] The country is teetering on the brink of civil war, with the leader of the sunni block having said Iraq is heading towards a “sectarian autocracy that carries with it the threat of devastating civil war” [ii] unemployment is rife and the reputation of the ‘liberators’ lies in tatters [iii] .  It is not hard to see how this combination is likely to lead to chaos in Iraq and insecurity for the West. Millions of young people with a perfectly justifiable grudge, little education, no job and a desire to do something to make things right. [iv]  It is difficult to imagine a situation more likely to produce violence, terrorism and instability.  [i] Iraq Body Count  [ii] Loney, Jim, ‘Iraq on the brink of ‘devastating civil war’: Former PM Allawi’, National Post, 28 December 2011  [iii] Malou Innocent. “The Iraq War: Still a Massive Mistake.” Christian Science Monitor. 5 April 2010.  [iv] Benmelech, Efraim et al., ‘Economic Conditions and the Quality of Suicide Terrorism’, Journal of Politics, Vol. 74, No. 1, January 2012, pp. 113-128

Even if the outcome is a stable democratic Iraq, the war was still a costly, illegal, ideologically-driven mistake  The cost of the Iraq war has been astonishing both in the lives and treasure spent and the resentment and chaos stored up for the future. Even if the result had been Switzerland on Sinai, it would still not have been worth it. There have been more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths [i] . It has been the most expensive US war other than WWII in constant 2011 dollars, costing more than $400 billion more than Vietnam, [ii] and what is left is a failed state in the making.  The war was poorly conceived, recklessly enacted and devastatingly badly concluded. The secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted the war fought “on the cheap” using a much smaller force than the pentagon or independent analysts thought was necessary. [iii] With the allies now withdrawing from Iraq the world’s best hope is that the US and its allies will be sufficiently cowed by public opinion as to never try such folly again. That, perhaps, would be a benefit.  [i] Iraq Body Count  [ii] Daggett, Stephen, ‘Costs of Major U.S. Wars’, Congressional Research Service, 29 June 2010  [iii] Weinraub, Bernard, and Shanker, Thom, ‘A NATION AT WAR: UNDER FIRE; Rumsfeld’s Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield’, The New York Times, 1 April 2003

The war was illegal and the removal of Saddam should have been left to the Iraqis Yet another puppet regime is not what the Middle East needs  Events from the Arab Spring have demonstrated, more graphically than anything else could have done, that Arab peoples are more than capable of dealing with their own dictators and do not need to be patronized by fading imperial powers.  Imagine what the situation in Iraq would be now following a genuinely democratic uprising rather than the imposition of yet another puppet regime by the West. Since the creation of the state of Iraq as a modern state by the British in 1932, a succession of rulers, of various stripes of dictatorial ruthlessness, have been brought in to ensure that the oil wealth continues to flow to Washington, London and other foreign capitals.  The allies were never interested in Iraqi freedom, this was yet another grab for oil and the results look set to be the same round of misery and tyranny for the people of Iraq.

Iraq now has a professionally trained army and police force accountable to a democratically elected government and, through them, to the people.  Unusually among Arab nations the security forces should now act as upholders of the law rather than the personal armies of local and national strong men used to settle grudges and silence dissent.  The torture chambers are closed and the courts are functioning. There is, of course, work still to be done in terms of creating jobs but at least those jobs will go to people on the basis of ability rather than political loyalty.  Iraq still faces problems but is better equipped to deal with them than it has been in a century and more.

A U.S. dovetailing of interests in Central Asia is unlikely to last. September 11th moved Central Asia from being an area of peripheral importance to being a central US interest. [1] There is nothing to say that it will not sink back to being peripheral in the future. The Taliban were both sheltering extremists such as al Qaeda and exporting disorder to surrounding states. [2] As George Bush put it “make no mistake about it, the new war is not only against the evildoers, themselves; the new war is against those who harbor them and finance them and feed them.” [3] But with al Qaeda diversifying, terrorism no longer so high up the agenda and the United States drawing down in Afghanistan US and Russian interests are set to diverge.  [1] Boris Rumer, The Powers in Central Asia, Survival, vol. 44, no.3, (Autumn, 2002), pp.57-68, pp.63-64.  [2] Rajan Menon, ‘The New Great Game in Central Asia’, Survival, vol.45, no.2, (Summer, 2003), pp.187-204, p.188.  [3] At O'Hare, President Says "Get On Board", Office of the Press Secretary, September 27, 2001,

Desire to stabilize Central Asia  September 11th brought a change in how the United States dealt with the autocratic rulers of Central Asia, bringing policy more into line with Moscow’s interests. The US changed from promoting democracy in the region to trying to keep the region stable by supporting the incumbent regimes. For example Uzbekistan was given US political, military and economic support despite human rights violations. [1] There were also secondary US interests that were not related to terrorism such as attempting to limit the production of drugs and the corruption this causes. President Putin recognised that “Terrorism and drugs are absolutely kindred phenomena.” With Russia’s immense drug problems “We have a conspicuous growth of the share of highly concentrated drugs, and in the first place Afghan heroin” [2] The promotion of “peace and stability to Afghanistan” and the promised aid to “rebuild Afghanistan and the region economically,” were also recognised by George Bush as US interests in the region. [3] There has therefore in the aftermath of 9/11 been a dovetailing of interests in central Asia and in particular Afghanistan and on the war on drugs.  [1] Lena Jonson, Vladimir Putin and Central Asia The Shaping of Russian Foreign Policy, (I.B. Tauris, London, 2004), p.64.  [2] Speech by President Vladimir Putin at a Meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Moscow, September 28, 2001  [3] Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on Afghanistan, Office of the Press Secretary, November 13, 2001,

Even if both agree that fighting terrorism is in both their interests this is not a reason for cooperation when views about how to tackle the problem divide. While both have used military force in their attempts to defeat terrorism both have criticised the other’s force as being excessive. The United States continued to be critical of the situation in Chechnya where 45000 civilians were killed and 200000 made refugees. [1] September 11th was a gift to Putin as it transformed perceptions of the situation in Chechnya. [2] Chechnya was effectively legitimised by September 11th as it was similar to what the United States would fight in Afghanistan. [3] However the western media continued to be sceptical about terrorism in Russia for example that Chechen militants were the bombers of the apartment blocks, rather than it being rogue elements of the Russian security services, or even originated from the Kremlin. [4] Moreover the two diverged over the need to invade Iraq to fight terrorism; Russia opposed the invasion in the Security Council. In short Russia and the United States cooperate in Afghanistan but this does not translate into wider cooperation against terrorism. Terrorism is also no longer the number one foreign policy priority of the United States which is ‘pivoting’ to Asia and away from the Middle East. [5]  [1] Kramer, Guerrilla, pp.210, 214.  [2] Claire Bigg, Five Years After 9/11: The Kremlin's War On Terror, Radio Free Europe, 2006,   [3] Oksana Antonenko, ‘Putin’s Gamble’, Survival, Vol.43, no.4, (Winter, 2001-02), pp.49-60, p.51  [4] World: Europe, Russia's bombs: Who is to blame? BBC News, September 30, 1999,   [5] Clinton, Hillary, ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011,

Russian and the US have many areas where they can cooperate.  In 2009 President Obama stated “I believe that on the fundamental issues that will shape this century, Americans and Russians share common interests that form a basis for cooperation.” [1] This makes the real question ‘how to cooperate’ rather that whether there should be cooperation. Military transparency, particularly on nuclear weapons is necessary. “Russia and the United States matter to one another, and how well or how poorly we manage our interactions matters to the rest of the world. The two of us control more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, and our leadership can do more than anyone else’s to help secure nuclear material globally and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.” [2] This continued cooperation on nuclear issues in particular has been demonstrated with the signing of the ‘New START’ treaty on 8th April 2010.  There are many other areas where cooperation between the America and Russia is vital as well. As is demonstrated by the geopolitical situation “Russia sits astride Europe, Asia and the broader Middle East – three regions whose future will shape American interests for many years to come. And in an era in which common challenges” so cooperation is necessary for the United States, but also for Russia as it would not want the US acting without its cooperation. According to Undersecretary of State Burns there are also many issues “non-proliferation, climate change, energy security, the struggle against terrorism, and many more – demand common action more than at any other period in human history, the United States and Russia have a lot more to gain by working together than by working apart.” [3]  [1] Barak Obama, Obama’s Speech in Moscow, President addresses New Economic School graduation, 7/7/09,  accessed 20/4/11  [2] William J. Burns, The United States and Russia in a New Era: One Year After "Reset", Remarks to the Center for American Progress, Washington DC, 14th April 2010,  accessed 10/4/11  [3] William J. Burns, The United States and Russia in a New Era: One Year After "Reset", Remarks to the Center for American Progress, Washington DC, 14th April 2010,  accessed 10/4/11

Even assuming that US-Russian there are many areas where the US and Russia could cooperate this does not mean that it will happen. Cooperation between the United States and Russia would have been even more vital to the world at the end of World War two when both were superpowers and both had common interests in keeping Germany and Japan down yet this did not lay the ground for cooperation between the two. Instead there was a forty year cold war. Now whole Burns may consider the challenges in Europe, Asia and the Middle East to be common interests Russia may instead choose to cooperate with others such as China and consider US interests to be counter to its own

Although the United States would like to get its hands on Russia’s vast economic resources it is not a good place to do business. Russia was accused of being a ‘virtual mafia state’ by US diplomats in a wikileaked cable. [1] According to then US Ambassador to Russia Russia needs to “support the “sanctity” of commercial contracts and agreements; create a “transparent, stable and enforceable” tax and license regime; improve and enforce intellectual property rights protection; act decisively on “pervasive bureaucratic red tape and over-regulation”; bring corruption under control; reverse the “worrying trend” in Russia towards control over the mass media” [2] before it becomes a place that the US can really do lots of business with. The economy may therefore be more of a source of conflict than cooperation as The United States tries to push Russia into being more open and less corrupt against the wishes of the Russian elites.  [1] Luke Harding, WikiLeaks cables condemn Russia as ‘mafia state’, guardian.co.uk 1/12/10,  accessed 28/4/11  [2] Alexander Vershbow, “Opportunities in U.S.-Russian Economic Relations,” United States Embassy Moscow, 22 May 2003.

Shared experience of terrorism  A shared experience of terrorism means both have long term reasons to cooperate against it. Russia already had experience with terrorism with a string of bombings in the summer of 1999 which the Russian government blamed on the Chechans. [1] As a result of this on-going Chechen terrorism the Russian government was keen to cooperate in any counter terrorist effort there may be. Russian officials such as Sergey Ordzhonikidze spoke of the grief they shared with the American people “The hearts of Russians who know first-hand what terrorism is like are also filled with grief for all those who fell victim to terrorism in other parts of the planet.” [2] President Putin himself agreed with this immediately after the 9/11 attacks “[Russia is] deeply shocked by the reports of the tragic events that occurred today in the United States. The barbaric terrorist attacks against innocent people evoked the anger and indignation of the Russian people.” [3] Both the terrorists who had been attacking Russia and the 9/11 attackers were motivated by an extremist version of Islam, this gives both Russia and the United States a mutual interest in combating this terrorism wherever it may be occurring. This continues to give both Russia and the United States an interest in solving the problems that create terrorism such as the Israel-Palestinian conflict and keeping the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. That both understand the other’s motivations makes this link much stronger.  [1] Mark Kramer, Guerrilla Warfare, Counter Insurgency and Terrorism in the North Caucuses: The Military Dimension of the Russia-Chechen conflict, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.57, No.2, (March, 2005), pp.209-290, p.212  [2] Statement by Sergey A. Ordzhonikidze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, on agenda item 166 of the 56 session of the UN General Assembly: Measures to eliminate international terrorism New York, October 1, 2001  [3] Russian President Vladimir Putin telegram of condolence to US President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001,  accessed 20/4/11

Economically compatible  There is a huge potential for economic cooperation between two of the biggest states in the world. Russia desperately needs investment and technology to modernize its economy. The USA can offer this and more. It has helped Russia to get into the World Trade Organization, [1] to integrate it into the global economy, put pressure on Russian companies to drop their corrupt ways and adopt modern modes of operation. Russia also has plenty of chips to bring to the table. Pumping seven million barrels a day, Russia is second only to the Saudis in oil production. The Bush team saw Russia as a source for crude oil should U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia deteriorate, this is why at the Moscow summit in May, 2002, Bush and Putin launched “an energy dialogue to strengthen the overall relationship between our countries, and to enhance global energy security, international strategic stability, and regional cooperation.” [2] The United States has invested whenever it could in Russian oil and gas despite the difficulties private companies like Yukos have faced with government tax demands. For example in October 2001, Exxon Mobil announced that the Sakhalin 1 project was profitable and outlined the company’s plans to invest $30 billion by 2030. [3]  [1] Kirk, ‘Full Statement by Ambassador Kirk Regarding the Invitation to Russia to Join the WTO’, Office of the United States Trade Representative, December 2011,   [2] William Ratliff, ‘Russia’s Oil in America’s Future: Policy, Pipelines, and Prospects, Hoover Institution, 1/9/03,  accessed 04/5/11  [3] Tamara Troyakova and Elizabeth Wishnick, ‘Integration or Disintegration: Challenges for the Russian Far East in the Asia-Pacific Region, p.18.  accessed 6/5/11

"Kupchan: Russian Opposition to Kosovo Independence ‘Perplexing’". (Charles A. Kupchan, CFR Senior Fellow for Europe Studies). US Council on Foreign Relations. December 18, 2007 - "But on the question of Kosovo, direct Russian interests are difficult to discern, and therefore it appears that Russia’s backing of Serbia is part of a more muscular Russian policy, and a desire to stand up to the United States and the EU across the board. The problem with Russia’s position is that it has the potential to lead to bloodshed.  The Russian support for Serbia’s unwillingness to sign off on Kosovo’s independence makes it more likely that Serbs still in Kosovo will not accept a declaration of independence. It makes it likely that the northern part of Kosovo might secede from an independent Kosovo. It makes it more likely that paramilitaries in Serbia might resort to violence if this process moves forward. In that sense, the Russian position is quite problematic. And it remains to be seen whether the Russians follow through on their hints that they might recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia in retaliation for Kosovo’s independence. Some even suggest that they might send troops into the southern military districts of the Russian Federation, possibly precipitating violence in Georgia."

This is a problem with perception, not with the fundamentals on the ground. The United States can reassure Russia that missile defence and the expansion of NATO is not directed at Russia. NATO has accommodated Russia by not expanding into the Former Soviet Union (excluding the Baltic states) so there is little reason for Russia to feel encircled. On Missile defence President Obama has also listened to Russian concerns and has scaled it back. Interceptors will be on warships rather than in former Warsaw bloc countries Poland and Czech Republic this helps to show Russia that the focus of missile defence really is on defending against Iran and North Korea rather than Russia. [1]  [1] Sanger, David E., and Broad, William J., ‘New Missile Shield Strategy Scales Back Reagan’s Vision’, The New York Times, 17 September 2009,

Russian and US strategic interests conflict  Contradictions between Russian and U.S. interests will always exist. The United States is not Russia's ally, and it can be confidently predicted that it never will be. While politically the two countries sometimes temporarily need each other to face global challenges, as long as it does not harm them politically or economically, militarily they will remain positioned as strategic enemies. NATO is a good example of this. While the United States believes NATO brings peace and stability Russia feels directly threatened by NATO expansion into states that were once a part of the Soviet Union such as the Baltic states or the possibility of expansion to Ukraine or Georgia. [1] There have even been suggestions that Russia’s 2008 conflict with Georgia was to prevent Georgia proceeding down the path to NATO membership with US encouragement. A view partially substantiated by President Putin himself “it has become absolutely clear that the desire of Georgian authorities to join NATO is motivated not by their ambition to form part of a global security system and contribute to the strengthening of international peace. Tbilisi's NATO bid is determined by other considerations, namely an attempt to embroil other nations in its bloody undertakings… from a legal point of view, Russia's actions in South Ossetia are totally legitimate.” [2] As a result America's relations with Russia will never resemble its relations with France or Great Britain. U.S. strategic nuclear planning will always envisage a potential Russian nuclear attack on targets on American territory. Likewise, Russian planners will not rule out an American attack on Russian targets.  [1] Neuger, James G., and Alison, Sebastian, ‘Putin Says NATO Expansion Is Direct Threat to Russia (Update 2)’, Bloomberg, 4 April 2008,   [2] President Putting quoted in ‘South Ossetia – The Stakes’, globalsecurity.org,  accessed 27/4/11

Russian and US economic interests conflict  Good economic relations are possible only as long as long as The USA believes that Russia is genuinely trying hard to bring its economy into line with the Western world. Both Putin and Medvedev have emphasised that the country’s economic interests will always determine Russian foreign policy. Most particularly foreign policy has been driven by oil and natural gas. This has involved a conflict with the United States over the construction of pipelines. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (BTE) gas pipelines are specifically built to diversify European energy supplies away from dependence on Russia but were only built due to unequivocal US support. [1] Building these pipelines is directly against Russian interests. Russian economic interests include, amongst other things, close trade links with autocratic regimes, particularly in the former USSR, and exporting weapons and nuclear technology to China and Iran. In the example of Iran Russian economic interests have meant that Russia has blocked US efforts to get sanctions. [2] An area of particular conflict with the US is the Russian building of an $800million nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Similarly Russia sold Iran $1.7 billion of arms between 2002 and 2005 including anti-aircraft systems so making any potential attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States much more dangerous. [3] Thus, close economic cooperation between two states whose economies are driven by very different goals is improbable.  [1] ‘Pipeline politics? Russia and the EU’s battle for energy’, EurActive.com, 20/8/09,  accessed 6/5/11  [2] Tony Karon, ‘Iran Diplomacy: Why Russia and China Won’t Play Ball’, Time, 22/3/06,  accessed 6/5/11  [3] Mark N. Katz, ‘Russian-Iranian Relations: Functional Dysfunction’, Mideast Monitor, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2009,  accessed 6/5/11

Russia’s near abroad  Russia and the US have a fundamental divergence over the notion of spheres of interest. Russia only accepts any other country playing a role in its near abroad very grudgingly and will attempt to get other great powers out whenever possible. In the aftermath of 9/11 Russia could not prevent American intervention in Central Asia therefore it was sensible to make sure it was co-opted to serve Russia’s own interests, namely to be against international terrorism, rather than being directed against Russia herself. By doing so Russia could preserve her influence in the region. As America was willing to take on the costs of maintaining the security of the region Russia could retrench and cut costs. [1] Yet Russia began to force the US out as soon as was possible, for example forcing the closure of a U.S. airbase in Kyrgyzstan. [2]  Russia has sometimes seemed to purposefully take the opposite side to the US in Eastern Europe. An example of this occurring was over the possibility of independence for Kosovo almost a decade after the conflict that forced Serbian forces out of the country. According to Charles Kupchan “on the question of Kosovo, direct Russian interests are difficult to discern, and therefore it appears that Russia’s backing of Serbia is part of a more muscular Russian policy, and a desire to stand up to the United States and the EU across the board.” [3]  [1] Lena Jonson, Vladimir Putin and Central Asia The Shaping of Russian Foreign Policy, (I.B. Tauris, London, 2004), pp.172-174  [2] Schwirtz, Michael, ‘Kyrgyzstan Insists U.S. Base to Close’, The New York Times, 11 June 2009,   [3] Bernard Gwertzmann, ‘Interview Kupchan: Russian Opposition to Kosovo Independence ‘Perplexing’, Foreign Affairs, Dec 2007,  accessed 27/4/11

No countries economic interests exactly match yet that does not lead to conflict. The European Union and United States have had several trade wars, for example over the EU giving preferential treatment for Caribbean producers of Bananas, [1] but are still close partners in NATO. The reset is having an effect in bringing Russia and the US closer together economically, Vice President Biden argues that trade between the two countries has a long way to grow and economic interests will get closer. “One way to realize the potential of that relationship is to bring Russia more fully into the international trading system. That is why we strongly support Russia’s effort to join the World Trade Organization.” [2] This would reduce and help manage any economic conflicts between both powers meaning that they will not get in the way of good relations.  [1] Business:The Economy WTO approves banana sanctions, BBC News, 19/4/99,  accessed 6/5/11  [2] Joseph R. Biden Jr., ‘The Next Steps in the U.S.-Russia Reset’, The New York Times, 13/3/11,  accessed 6/5/11

Missile defence shows Russia is still suspicious of U.S. motives.  Russia has been suspicious of most US actions fearing they are directed against Russia. This suspicion is in part born out of the cold war, Russia is much weaker than the USSR was and is worried about any US expansionism. The expansion of NATO to include former Soviet states such as Lithuania has resulted in one Russian news organisation declaring "Generations of Russians feel betrayed by NATO's expansion." [1] The United States’ missile defence proposals have been a continuing sore in relations. In 2007 then President Putin compared the proposed siting of anti-ballistic missile systems in Eastern Europe with the Cuban Missile Crisis, “The situation is quite similar technologically for us. We have withdrawn the remains of bases from Vietnam and Cuba, but such threats are being created near our borders.” [2] It is clear from this that Russia will not be able to cooperate with many things that the United States considered to necessary. Things like NATO expansion and missile defense which the United States considers to be defensive Russia believes are aimed at Russia, either to encircle it or to negate Russia’s main strategic asset; its nuclear arsenal.  [1] Russia Today "Generations of Russians feel betrayed by NATO's expansion"   [2] President Putting quoted in Philip Coyle and Victoria Samson, ‘Missile Defence Malfunction: Why the Proposed U.S. Missile Defences in Europe Will Not Work, Ethics &amp; International Affairs, Vol.22, No.1, (Spring 2008),  accessed 6/5/11

The strategic interests of Russia and the west will not always conflict. In the post-Cold War, post-September 11 world, the political presumptions that require a substantial reliance on nuclear forces do not exist, and, in fact, cannot exist. 9/11 showed that national interests can change. The terrorist attacks instantly moved terrorism to the top of the US security agenda involving recognition of it as a global and military problem. [1] Russia and the United States now must jointly face a host of wider problems, from environmental degradation to the growth of ethnic violence, and the challenges to nation-states posed by globalization. Global problems are not decreasing, but, quite the opposite, there are new ones looming on the horizon; this will forge a long-term close economic, scientific and political relationship between Russia and the United States. The National Security Strategy of September 2002 recognised that closer relations are built on common national interests; They [Russian policy makers] understand, increasingly, that Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas. [2]  [1] Iver B. Neumann, ‘Russia as a Great Power’, in Jakob Hedenskog et al (eds.) Russia as a Great Power Dimensions of Security under Putin, (Routledge, London, 2005), pp.13-28, p.18  [2] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America September 2002,  pp.26-27. Accessed 20/4/11

International negotiations take place with many organisations that are not states in their own right. When the leaders of nations meet with trades union or corporations, pressure groups or networks it does not endow those bodies with statehood.  Likewise, regional governments and authorities routinely meet with national and international representatives without requiring representation at the UN. If Palestine were to be given voting rights at the General Assembly then one might as well give them to the International Olympic Committee, which already enjoys permanent observer status [i] .  Put simply, having global recognition does not make an entity a state.  [i] “UN General Assembly Approves Olympic truce for London Games 2012”. 17 October 2011.

Palestine is a legal entity and deserves to have its voice heard on an equal footing with Israel  Nobody can dispute that Palestine functions as a nation, its citizens are governed within the jurisdiction of a government that is one of the closest observed in the world. Abbas has as much right to speak for the Palestinian people as any other world leader does for theirs and that reality is reflected in the fact that he and other members of his administration negotiate with other nation states and international bodies. Palestine is for example a member of numerous International Organisations the most recent of which is joining UNESCO in November 2011. [i] If Palestine can be treated as a state for the purposes of signing international treaties and negotiating with the Israeli [ii] and other governments then it is only sensible that it should be awarded the benefits and status that come with statehood, of which recognition by the UN is one.  [i] UNESCO, ‘Palestine’, unesco.org, 2011,   [ii] Jewish Virtual Library, ‘Israel-PLO Recognition’, 9 September 1993,

In law this point was settled with the creation of the state of Israel. The map of the Middle East, as with much of the rest of the world, was redrawn at the end of the second world war. The resulting nations, many of them newly created following the collapse of the European empires, formed the constituent members of the UN. The very fact that the Palestinians have successfully mounted their case to the international community in a way that, for example, Kurds or Australian Aboriginals have not, would suggest that they have no need of a seat at the UN to be heard.

Palestine has its own infrastructure and government and is, in all meaningful ways a state  In any meaningful way Palestine is a state. It may well be one at war with a neighbour and in dispute over its boundaries but the only reason it has yet to be recognised is that it would be politically inconvenient for the US, Israel and their allies.  There are plenty of nations that do not function in line with European and North American concepts of statehood, Afghanistan for example, however they take their seat at the UN and add their voice to the choir of nations [i] . There are even other member states that are not recognised by every other member state, Israel is not recognised by 33 UN members [ii] and the People’s Republic of China is not recognised by 23 UN members. [iii]  [i] John Quigley. “Statehood for Palestine: International law in the Middle East Conflict”. Cambridge University Press, 2010.  [ii] Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, ‘Background Note: Israel’, U.S. Department of State, 10 December 2010,   [iii] Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, ‘Background Note: China’, U.S. Department of State, 6 September 2011,

Regardless of what people may wish, Palestine is not a state. It is probably the most recognised issue in twentieth century politics that the statehood of Palestine is a matter of dispute. The United Nations is the forum for those states that recognise each other’s existence to debate matters of mutual concern, it is not an opportunity from grandstanding and point-scoring over matters that are still under dispute.  Absolutely any group can design a flag, appoint a president, elect a congress, print stamps and undertake all sorts of similar activities, that does not make them a state. When squatters in a London road in 1977anounced that they were declaring a unilateral declaration of independence from the UK [i] they were not recognised as a state just because they wanted to be. Although the stakes are much higher in the case of Palestine, the principle is the same.  [i] Wikipedia. Frestonia.

The issue of Israel/Palestine has been a major one for the UN for sixty years, it is simply unfair that one of the parties represented and the other one is not  The territory claimed by both the state of Israel and the state of Palestine is contested. These matters should be settled by the UN but this is not possible when one of the parties is represented but the other is not. It is simply against the principles of natural justice – let alone the precepts of international law – for only one party in any dispute to be fully represented where the other is not.  Essentially, this is a fraud that has been perpetrated for over sixty years, in the interests of politics, justice has been ignored; Israel has been given recognition when Palestine has not, which body has the right to speak for the populace of that disputed territory should not be a matter imposed from outside but for the inhabitants of the land itself.

Palestine is a unique case; the UN removed its statehood during the creation of Israel. They are, perhaps ironically, Ishmael and Isaac to the UN’s Abraham. One recognised and the other shunned.  The issue of statehood for Palestine was a misstep created at the inception of the UN as fallout of the decline of the British Empire and the emergence of American hegemony. If this were an entirely new issue of the world scene then many of the caveats raised by opposition would by justifiable but the reality is that this is simply a case of clearing up an old injustice.

Exactly the same point could be made of any number of member states. It is highly questionable as to whether the authority of the central governments of Afghanistan or Pakistan extends into much of their territory, it certainly doesn’t in Iraq or many of the nations in central Africa.  Much of Latin America is under the control of warlords and drug barons but nobody would suggest that they should be represented at the United Nations. Effective political control is ceded to devolved authorities in many nations but they are not recognised as states. Political confusion is no reason no ignore the existence of a state.

The Palestinian cause has no shortage of advocates in the UN this would add nothing to the discussion  The entire Arab League is already perfectly capable of speaking for the Palestinian cause in the United Nations. There are established nations whose leaders have not addressed a full meeting of the General Assembly as frequently as leaders of the Palestinian cause, even the leader of the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas has addressed the General Assembly as he did in September 2011. [i] It is the only geo-political issue that routinely impacts upon the conduct of the elections of other nations, the plight of the Palestinian issue is the stuff of newspaper headlines around the world while other, arguably more serious, concerns go unvoiced. It is difficult to see how admitting Palestine as a member state would bring any more focus to the issue in practical terms.  [i] ‘Full transcript of Abbas speech at UN General Assembly’, Haaretz.com, 23 September 2011,

The UN has historically recognised statehood when nations achieve it, not when they ask for it or wish it  Establishing statehood is a matter for international law and, as things stand, Palestine is not a state. Since 1990, 34 new countries have been created – mostly as a result of the collapse of the former USSR [i] . Palestine is not among them and does not look set to be any time soon. There have been many separatist movements in countries all over the world from the Basque region to Aceh. These often have similarly legitimate grievances as the Palestinians but the UN does not recognise them. Any one of those nations, or at least movements within them may have wished for recognition by the UN but they did not receive it because the UN is bound to recognise what is, not what might be.  [i] Matt Rosenburg. “New Countries of the world”. 10 July 2011. About.com

The Gaza Strip and West Bank cannot agree on a government so who should the UN recognise, Hamas or Fatah?  If the Palestinian people cannot agree on who speaks for them then what is the rest of the world to make of the situation? One of the defining attributes of statehood is a single, stable government that can, in some meaningful way, be said to have control over the lands within that designated territory. This was set out in article 1 of the Montevideo convention that a state should possess “a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” [i] Only the permanent population criteria is unequivocally met by Palestine.  The Palestinian Authority can barely be said to speak for itself let alone the people it claims to represent. By recognizing one faction over another, the UN would be taking sides in an internal, domestic affair. Abbas is not asking the UN to recognize Palestine, he’s asking it to recognize him rather than Hamas.  [i] International Conference of American States, ‘Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States’, 26 December 1933,

The United Nations fulfills a number of roles but perhaps its foremost function is to act as an arbiter in international disputes. To do that effectively it needs to reflect the opinions of the international community and deal in realpolitik. As things stand that would make it impossible for the organisation to take what would be seen as a partisan stance.  Recognising the existence of a state which could at best be described as aspirational, and at worst as a fantasy, would put an intolerable burden on the UN’s ability to act as an impartial agent in negotiations.

The United States has far too often relied on the use of force and coercion. For much of the Cold War and thereafter, America covertly and openly helped overthrow and wage war on governments that it perceived to be hostile to its national interests. From Latin America to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, coercion and war has often been America’s primary foreign policy tool. Moreover, this continues to the present time. Not only has Iraq highlighted America’s propensity to use force, but even the more internationally backed “war on terror” has featured unilateralism and controversial military practices such as “drone attacks,” which many say are counterproductive and undermine the importance of a law-based rather than militaristic approach to tackling terrorism.[6] Even in nominally ‘multilateral’ bodies such as the WTO and the UN, the US has often gotten its way through bribes, backdoor deals and coercive measures.[7]  [6] Howard, Michael (2002), ‘What’s in a name? How to Fight Terrorism’, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002.  [7] Wade, Robert (2004), ‘The Ringmaster of Doha’, New Left Review 25, January-February 2004.

The US had led the world through consent rather than coercion.  An important part of the liberal international order the US maintains is that power is diffused and is based on negotiation, strategic bargaining and the exercise of power through mutually-agreed rules and institutions. Globalization and the liberalization of the global economy has been actively supported by many nations in the world, some of whom—such as China, Japan, and Germany—have even used it to compete economically with the United States. Other states have also enjoyed significant decision-making powers in international institutions. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions are made on the basis of a ‘one country, one vote’ system.[4] This consensus-based exercise of power has provided the US with a relatively large degree of legitimacy in world opinion, often outstripping the global approval ratings of other major powers.[5]  [4] Ikenberry, G. John. “Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order”, Foreign Affairs, March/April (2004), 144-156  Mark Beeson &amp; Richard Higgott (2005), “Hegemony , Institutionalism and US Foreign Policy : theory and practice in comparative historical perspective” Third Word Quarterly , Vol.26, No. 7.  [5] Gallup, ‘Worldwide Appeal of U.S. Leadership Tops Major Powers’, March 24, 2011.  , Accessed 12th May 2011.

Rather than promoting a progressive global agenda, the United States has often undermined effective cooperation and coordination between countries as a result of unilateralist and self-interested policies. Thus, it has often regarded the United Nations as an ineffectual rival to its national interests – leading the country to disasters such as the Iraq war and undemocratically vetoing internationally-backed initiatives in the UN Security Council, such as those critical of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Rather than showing leadership, the US has also obstructed international efforts to tackle climate change, as seen by George W. Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol and President Obama’s signing of the deeply flawed Copenhagen Accord.[8]. Many instances have also shown America’s willingness to pursue its own commercial interests at the expense of vital international issues. One example of this was George W. Bush’s protectionism in protecting the “intellectual property rights” and the high price of drugs (including Anti-AIDS drugs) of US pharmaceuticals, which damaged the international fight against AIDS.  Furthermore with regards to international terrorism, the UNSC worked through the Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) which had a minor US presence and was set up to tackle terrorism from the root causes rather than using military might.  [8] On the Copenhagen Accord, see The Independent, ‘Obama’s climate accord fails the test’, 19 December, 2009.  , Accessed 13th May, 2011.  [9] Mann, Michael (2003), Incoherent Empire, (London), pp. 58-59.  Mokhiber, Russell and Robert Weissman (2003), ‘The Two Faces of Bush in Africa’, Common Dreams, July 2003.  , Accessed 14th May 2011.  United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee.

The US has used its power to promote democracy, human rights and international law  The collapse of the Soviet Union and the victory of liberal democracy over communism have provided the US with more impetus to actively promote democracy, human rights and international norms and law. Under President Clinton, the Leahy Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1998 and the Religious Persecution Act of the same year demonstrated this change in priorities. Democracy promotion also became a core element of George W. Bush’s National Security Strategy of 2002, and has been a key motivating factor in President Obama’s response to the Arab Spring, where the US has supported democratic forces against dictators such as Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Colonel Gaddafi of Libya. The US under Obama has also provided leadership in the UN Human Rights Council[12], and holds governments to account through The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour (DRL), which also forges and maintains global partnerships to promote human rights and democracy.[13]  [12] Brookings, ‘U.S. Leadership at the U.N. Human Rights Council: A Foreign Policy at Brookings Event’, February 2010.  , Accessed 14th May 2011.  [13] U.S. Department of State, ‘Human Rights’.  , Accessed 14th May 2011.

The US used its power to establish a set of open global institutions which have been broadly beneficial.  As Robert Cox argues, American hegemony has been successful because the US has been able to maintain its dominance through a high level of global consensus by establishing a broadly accepted rules-based liberal international economic order, and has been able to shape other states’ preferences in a manner that has awarded sufficient benefits to these states while ensuring the dominance of the US.[1] This has been what John Ikenberry terms America’s “liberal grand strategy,”* which has enabled the US to construct a relatively benign and highly institutionalized multilateral system based on open markets, free trade, and the provision of ‘public goods’, such as collective security and an open international trading regime.[2] This has allowed other countries to prosper economically and also in terms of their security; the rebuilding and success of Japan and Germany provides important examples of this.  [1] Cox, Robert. ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations, Millennium, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983, pp. 162-175.,  Cox, Robert. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, in R.O. Keohane (ed.) NeoRealism and its Critics, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)  Where the US has used military force, it has largely done it to uphold human rights and international peace, security and prosperity.[2] Ikenberry, John G. (2002), ‘America’s Imperial Ambition’, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2002.  *liberal grand strategy is a terminology that describes the USA’s long term policy goal- to promote its system to other countries.

While the liberal order the US has constructed has benefited its allied economies in Western Europe and Japan, for much of the developing world the benefits have been few and far between. For example, many African and Asian nations have suffered tremendously from the spread of free market capitalism and the “structural adjustment programmes” imposed on them by the American-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rather than helping poorer nations, the West (led by America) has often practiced selective freed trade, whereby the markets of the developing world were opened up to foreign companies as the United States and its Western allies subsidized and provided unfair advantages to sectors of their own economies that were not as globally competitive, such as farming. This crippled the agricultural industries of many developing countries and made them dependent on importing food, directly contributing to many recent food crises. What is more, the US and its allies have manipulatively achieved this through nominally “multilateral” and “fair” institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO).[3] Many countries have not received the benefits of this so-called “benign” open, liberal order.  [3] Bello, Walden (2005). Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire, (London),  Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2002), Globalization and its Discontents (New York: W.W. Norton).

On closer inspection, it is evident that while many of these interventions espoused humanitarian principles, they were primarily designed to advance US strategic and geopolitical interests. Critics have been right to argue that the Iraq war was fought to gain strategic control of Middle Eastern oil and to dismantle the state-dominated economic structures of the region. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq, and overthrowing a dictatorship could not have been a primary consideration, given America’s support for authoritarian regimes and dictatorships across the world (such as Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia). These contradictions can be seen in the recent Libya conflict, where the US suddenly endorsed regime change despite years of supporting Colonel Gaddafi. Other ‘humanitarian interventions’ have similarly been motivated in large part by self-interested strategic and geopolitical considerations.

The US has provided global leadership in tackling important issues such as terrorism.  America’s hegemonic power has enabled it to provide global leadership on important international concerns. Because the US is affected by the same problems as many other countries in an increasingly inter-connected world (for example climate change, terrorism, epidemics, oil crises, economic recessions, the illegal drugs trade, and nuclear proliferation) it is in its interests to promote policies that are broadly globally beneficial. The US is able to utilize its considerable economic and diplomatic clout to convince its allies to back important multilateral international initiatives. One example of this was George W. Bush’s initiative on HIV/AIDS in the developing world. The United States has also used its power to unify the global effort against terrorism and provide collective security and considerable aid to various nations, as well as leading the international effort to prevent failed or weak states (such as Somalia and Yemen) falling into the hands of terrorists.

Where the US has used military force, it has largely done it to uphold human rights and international peace, security and prosperity.  Examining the use of American military power following the end of the Cold War shows us that the United States has pursued an agenda of tackling serious threats to international peace, security and prosperity—whether they emanate from rogue states and sponsors of terrorism, oppressive dictators, or war criminals. Humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently Libya highlight the importance of these considerations to America’s military strategy, and the willingness of the US to put aside narrow geopolitical interests in order to pursue humanitarian goals, to the benefit of much of the world.[10] America’s military dominance and ‘command of the commons’ (sea, space and air) has also allowed it to provide global collective goods and to maintain an open international order, which is vital to international prosperity.[11]  [10] Rieff, David (2003), “Liberal Imperialism”, in Andrew Bacevich (ed.), The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, (Chicago, 2003)  [11] Posen, Barry R. “Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony”, International Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Summer 2003), pp. 5-46.

This argument misleadingly presents the nature of US influence as essentially coercive. In fact, it is America’s “soft power”—or the ability to get what it wants through the attractiveness of its culture and political institutions—that has been instrumental in spreading American values.[25] People across the globe—from Singapore, South Korea, and Japan to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait—are fascinated by and have emulated what John Agnew terms America’s “Market-Place society,” defined by mass consumerism, the influx of American cultural products and the displacement of traditional social standards.[26] In this context, arguments of “cultural imperialism” exaggerate the level of control the US has over the process, as well as the extent to which conflicts arise.[27] The desirability of American culture and institutions in the eyes of many of the world’s people ensures that soft, and not hard, power has universalized American values.  [25] Nye, Joseph (2004), “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 119, No. 2 (2004), pp. 255-270.  Nye, Joseph (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Basic Books, 2004)  [26] Agnew, John (2005). Hegemony: The New Shape of Global Power (Philadelphia)  [27] Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies (2003), Why Do People Hate America? (Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd.), p. 130.

US support for democracy has been at best hugely inconsistent, and at worst criminally apathetic. During the Cold War, the US overthrew various democratic governments (for example Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s) and supported dictatorial regimes. This has continued into the post-Cold War era, as the US support for the coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in 2002 demonstrated. While the US professes support for democratic forces in the Arab world, it has also continued to give vital assistance to the strategically-important dictatorships of the Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have been responsible for grave human rights abuses in response to recent peaceful protests[14].The US also continues to support states such as Israel which violate international law, and also routinely flouts international law itself—as seen by wars such as Iraq, the treatment of terrorist suspects and breaches of the Geneva convention [15], the undermining of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the violation of countries’ sovereignty with ‘drone’ attacks. Clinical realpolitik, and not the pursuit of democracy and human rights, determines the use of US power.  [14] Goodman, Amy (2011), ‘Barack Obama must speak out on Bahrain bloodshed’, The Guardian: Comment is Free, April 2011.  , Accessed 14th May 2011.The US is not a hegemon at all, but an imperialist power-an empire.  [15] Chatham House, ‘Extraordinary Rendition: A summary of the Chatham House International Law Discussion’.  , Accessed 15th May 2011.

The US has used its power to undermine the sovereignty of other nations, often through coercion and violence.  As Samuel P. Huntington has written, the US suffers from “benign hegemon syndrome.”[19] Its self-perception as an exceptional, virtuous superpower is at odds with the violent history of its foreign policy. Since the end of World War II, it has sought to overthrow over forty governments, and to destroy numerous populist-nationalist movements.[20] Its interventions in other countries have substantially increased following the end of the Cold War and the absence of a rival power balancing against it; one study has shown a 60% increase with an average of two interventions per year.[21] In addition, the US often interferes in the internal affairs of other countries; including through perverting elections, applying sanctions to change behaviour or influence domestic politics, propping up opposition forces, and even trying to assassinate foreign leaders (for example, Fidel Castro and more recently, arguably, Colonel Gaddafi). Therefore, while it may see itself as a benign hegemon, many see America as a rogue superpower.  [19] Huntington, Samuel P. (1999), ‘The Lonely Superpower’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 1999.  , Accessed 17th May, 2011.  [20] Blum, William (2002). Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (London).  [21] In Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies (2003), Why Do People Hate America? (Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd.), pp. 67-68.

The US has established an unjust system of unequal relationships in order to exploit developing countries.  While Western Europe and Japan may have been awarded a privileged position in the international order the US constructed following the end of World War II, developing countries were incorporated as “subordinate elements in the global capitalist system.”[32] The global South has in effect been controlled and exploited through nominally multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, which are designed in a way that provides wealthy countries with de facto control. The United States has also set up a “hub and spoke” system to deal with subordinate states, which is built around bilateralism, client states, ‘special relationships’, and patronage-oriented foreign policy, which serves to translate America’s power advantage into concessions from other states.[33] When subordinate states have failed to comply, they have often faced US intervention—from Guatemala, to Iran, to Chile, to Iraq. Through this system of unequal relationships the US has gained access to markets for its corporations, and enjoyed geopolitical and political control of key strategic areas. Developing countries on the other hand have often faced economic stagnation, food crises, and various attacks on their sovereignty.  [32] Bello, Walden (2005). Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire, (London), pp. 153.  [33] For an elaboration of how a “hub and spokes” system works, see Ikenberry, John G. (2004), “Liberalism and empire: logics of order in the American unipolar age”, Review of International Studies, 30, pp. 609-630

The US eschews multilateralism and prefers unilateralism.  Rather than working through international institutions and gaining the consent of the international community as a ‘benign’ hegemon would be expected to do, the United States far too often undermines multilateralism and exercises its power unilaterally. President Clinton’s military interventions during the 1990s, George W. Bush’s unilateral launching of the Iraq War, and President Obama’s use of covert drone attacks illustrate this propensity to shun multilateralism in favour of the “imperial logic” of unilateralism.[28] Indeed, since the end of the Cold War the United Nations has frequently been ignored or devalued as an institution by America. Most American policymakers are what Robert Kagan refers to as “instrumental multilateralists.” They engage with multilateral institutions for pragmatic reasons, but act unilaterally when it serves the interests of the United States. This is in contrast to many European leaders, who Kagan describes as “principled multilateralists” that are interested in multilateralism as a cornerstone of world order.[29]  [28] Ikenberry, John G. (2003), ‘Is American Multilateralism in Decline?’, Perspective on Politics, Vol. 1.  , Accessed 17th May, 2011.  [29] Kagan, Robert (2002), ‘Multilateralism, American Style’, The Washington Post, September 2002.  , Accessed 17th May, 2011.

The US has arrogantly (and dangerously) sought to reshape the world in its own image.  A commitment to American ‘exceptionalism’ has led US policymakers to view the United States as the political and cultural centre of the world. Consequently, they expect others to follow their own standards on political, economic and cultural issues, with free and open markets, liberal democratic structures, and individualistic cultural norms serving as models for other countries to follow. This is not simply propaganda; the US has used considerable resources to influence other nations in this respect, including military interventions, coercive austerity measures through the IMF/World Bank/WTO, economic sanctions, and the categorization of certain countries as “rogue states” for not following American standards.[23] American corporations have also been responsible for a form of cultural imperialism by exporting consumerist and materialistic ways of life around the world, often threatening indigenous cultures. In some instances this has caused what Samuel P. Huntington calls a ‘clash of civilizations,’[24] leading other cultures to respond violently to the introduction of American cultural exports, as is the case in some conservative Muslim societies and in India, where a major political party (BJP) actively orchestrates opposition to Western ideals of sexual permissiveness and individualism.  [23] Huntington, Samuel P. (1999), ‘The Lonely Superpower’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 1999.  , Accessed 17th May, 2011.  [24] Huntington, Samuel P. (1993), ‘The Clash of Civilizations’, Foreign Affairs, September 1993.  , Accessed 17th May 2001.

It is a hyperbole to suggest that American-led globalization and the spread of free and open markets has been “imposed” on developing countries; globalisation has been a far more impersonal and voluntary process. Moreover, rather than being exploited, the spread of free trade and open markets has benefited developing countries; one only needs to see the success of China, and India after 1991 when it embraced neoliberal reforms to find evidence of this. More generally too, World Bank reports have suggested that poorer countries that are “more globalized” have grown faster than even developed countries, while those that are “less globalized” have seen their GDPs drop.[34] The purportedly “hub and spoke” system the US has employed has also benefited many countries, which have received security guarantees from America, and can often count on the US to help tackle regional threats and ensure stability. Middle Eastern states that cooperate with the US to tackle terrorism and a resurgent and nuclear Iran provide examples of this.  [34] Meredith, Robyn and Suzanne Hoppough (2007), ‘Why Globalization is Good’, Forbes, March, 2007.  , Accessed 17th May, 2011.  Schonwald, Josh (2002), ‘Johnson, economic development expert, discusses globalization and its benefits,’ The University of Chicago Chronicle, February 21, 2002, Vol. 21, No. 10.  , Accessed 17th May, 2011.

The US is not a hegemon at all, but an imperialist power-an empire.  While the US may not have formal colonies like the empires of the past, it is still able to pursue imperialism through its massive military juggernaut and control of the world’s financial institutions. America possesses what Chalmers Johnson called an “empire of military bases,” which are located in dozens of countries across the world and provide the US with, as Jonathan Freedland puts it, ‘the same global muscle it would enjoy if it ruled those countries directly.’[16] This coupled with its entrenched military-industrial complex allows the US to contain rivals, maintain strategic control of resources (particularly oil), and to militarily intervene in countries that threaten its imperial “interests.” The US has also shaped and structured the international political economy in a way that has given it effective control of the global institutions which ensure it remains the pre-eminent power. This is not indicative of a ‘benign’ hegemon, but a modern Rome.[17]  [16] Freedland, Jonathan (2002). “Rome, AD... Rome, DC?”, The Guardian, September 18, 2002.  , Accessed 16th May, 2011.  [17] Wade, Robert (2002), “The American Empire,” The Guardian, 5th January, 2002.

It is true that the US sometimes resorts to unilateral action to advance its national security interests. However, its commitment to multilateralism is more than just instrumental and cynically selective. Even George W. Bush’s unilateralism—criticized as imperialist by even mainstream analysts—was restricted to certain issues, such as arms control, nonproliferation, and the use of force against certain threatening states. Unilateral military action was only used against Iraq, and even other “rogue” states (specifically Iran and North Korea) were dealt with through diplomatic and multilateral channels.[30] As John Ikenberry argues, the “foundational” multilateralism—as seen in the liberal, open international order the US built following World War II—is still a core part of US foreign policy.[31] Moreover, George Bush Sr.’s painstaking coalition building for the first Gulf War and more recently President Obama’s commitment to working through the UN Security Council for the intervention in Libya demonstrates America’s preference for consensus-based international action.  [30] Robbins, Carla Anne (2007). “Bush Foreign Policy: Grand Vision and its Application” in Fortier, John C. and Ornstein, Norman J. (eds.), Second-Term Blues: How George W. Bush Has Governed, (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2007), pp. 89-108.  [31] Ikenberry, John G. (2003), ‘Is American Multilateralism in Decline?’, Perspective on Politics, Vol. 1.  , Accessed 17th May, 2011.

While the US does have a long history of intervening in various countries across the globe, this has mostly been in response to genuine threats to national security, international peace, and basic human rights in line with the UN Charter. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new global discourse has emerged where state sovereignty is no longer regarded as absolute in instances where states endanger international peace and commit human rights abuses.[22] Post-Cold War US interventions (Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) have largely followed this discourse. Thus, rather than malignly intervening in other countries, the US has relatively benignly sought to apply pressure on violent and dictatorial regimes, with international law and the will of the international community being central to many of the actions taken. The carefully undertaken Libyan intervention demonstrates this.  [22] Annan, Kofi (1999), ‘Two concepts of sovereignty’, The Economist, 18th September 1999.  , Accessed 16th May, 2011.

The educational policies of developing states should not be tailored to the needs of businesses in the developing world. Arguably, cross border trade in commodities and products is as important for nations in the developing world as partnerships with wealthy companies in Europe and the USA. Cross border trade of this type requires skills distinct from those required by established forms of economic production (farming, heavy industry, resource extraction) and those required by the service industry.  Development theory encourages poorer states to increase both their workforce’s skill base and the adaptability of their economies. The more flexible an economy, the more resistant it will be to shocks and changes in individual markets. Side proposition’s argument would lead to developing economies exchanging dependence on agricultural and manufacturing activity for a dependence on outsourcing.  All forms of economic activity are vulnerable to crises and market failure. Side proposition can do little to prove that the service economy, or skilled manufacturing are inherently more robust forms of economic occupation than farming, craft or semi-skilled manufacture.  Side proposition believe that individuals who are trained to serve a service economy will be inherently more adaptable and employable than those trained in fields tied to more traditional forms of economic action. Why should these two areas of expertise be mutually exclusive? The large families and highly integrated communities that are predominant in the most populace developing states should encourage the acquisition of a wider range of skills – the better to ensure that all economic eventualities will yield some form of profit and prosperity.

Offshore outsourcing accelerates the development of poorer states citizens.  Offshore outsourcing incentivises wider engagement with education in developing states, for longer periods of time. While- even more so than in the wealthy world- education is seen by citizens of developing nations as offering a path out of poverty or subsistence-level economic activity, worries about property rights, the breakdown of families and communities and the acquisition of essential skills may lead to schooling becoming a lower priority for older children and young adults. The connection between education, skills acquisition and improvements in income and living standards are not immediate. There is little impetus for workers and parents to pay for forms of education that are not directly linked to the sorts of economic activity that are predominant in their communities. In developing states that lack a growing service sector, the value of a qualification in science, accounting or computing cannot be immediately realised. This situation may prevent social mobility in one of two ways.  Firstly, a child who is only educated to a certain standard, or who is encouraged to gain knowledge that is relevant only to a certain field, may be unable to adapt to changes in his economic circumstances later in life. A worker with training in computing will be able to compete for a much wider range of jobs than someone who only has a basic education that only focused on literacy.  Secondly, although it may be possible to educate a teenager on the finer points of irrigation engineering or vehicle maintenance, the utility of those skills will still be limited by environmental factors. A teenager trained to construct a modern irrigation system will still find that his father’s farm fails when it is caught up in a drought or crop blight. By linking education to “traditional” economic activities, families are unable to take advantage of alternative sources of trade or income.  Where a state fosters a healthy service economy, and offers additional benefits to foreign firms who employ its businesses as outsourcing partners, demand for highly educated workers will increase.

Side proposition’s description of the economic processes underlying off shore outsourcing is overly optimistic, and makes claims about educational and industrial development in the first world that are highly contestable.  By shifting production and support services to the developing world, western businesses are, in effect, circumventing protections built into first world employment laws designed to ensure that the demands of the market do not abrogate individual liberty or basic standards of welfare. Limitations imposed on market freedom, such as the minimum wage, are justified by the risk of incentivising businesses to cut wages to such a level that employees are forced into lives of subsistence, with restrictions on their spending power and mobility effectively tethering them to a particular employer or trade.  Offshoring presents a direct challenge to the creation of liberal democratic ideas, norms and institutions within developing states. Offshoring favours states that provide a consistent supply of cheap, reliable labour – even if the availability of that labour is a result of poverty or government authoritarianism. An authoritarian state may ban unions, or create unbalanced labour laws that give no protection to employees.  Businesses that engage in offshoring have no control over the uses that the taxes paid by their overseas partners are put to. It is frequently the case that undeveloped states will continue to underinvest in infrastructure and public services. Instead, tax revenue will be kept low enough to attract further investment, with takings spent on entrenching the position of undeveloped states’ controlling institutions and social elites. Such practices may ultimately undermine the development process within poorer nations. A diminishing supply of workers will be obliged to taken on the burden of a declining standard of living. Workers will be forced to pay for increasingly costly educational and medical services in order to meet the needs of their families and extended families. Payment of bribes will become common. Without sensible reinvestment of tax revenues, workers are likely to become dependent on foreign in order to meet their domestic needs. Eventually, excessive growth in dependency may push an economy into competitive decline, as the state fails to maintain the size or education standards of its working population.

Offshore outsourcing is consistent with existing labour distribution patterns.  Offshore outsourcing lowers the cost of goods and services. There is no real need for all of the goods and services that are consumed within a highly developed economy to be produced in that economy. The sale price of a particular form of good or service is determined by a wide range of factors, including the pay demands made by the workers assembling the good or providing the service. Seeking out a labour force willing to accept lower wages and work longer hours enables a business to reduce the price and increase the overall supply of the products it offers [i] .  As more expensive and elaborate goods become available to more people- due to reductions in price- living standards throughout an economy will rise. Concurrently, increased demand for goods produced abroad will lead to increased business for offshore firms that take on outsourced work, leading to more money flowing into developing economies. Standards of living will also increases in these economies – albeit at a lower rate than in the import economy.  Offshore outsourcing does nothing more than reflect labour distribution patterns that already exist in domestic economies [ii] . Different types of activity will be carried out in centralised urban areas- where land and operating costs may be higher- than in the countryside or peripheral, industrialised districts. Certain regions of a state, by dint of geography or earlier investment decisions, may produce a concentration of certain type of worker, service or skillset. Competition within these areas will drive labour costs down – but a downward trend in service and production costs will usually lead to an upward trend in demand. This interrelationship has successfully fostered developed within all of the worlds’ largest economies, without creating unmanageable regional inequalities and without undermining workers’ rights.  Greater social mobility and education attainment within developed economies reduces the availability of the types of skilled and semi-skilled manufacturing-oriented labour that drove first-world economies during the twentieth century. First world nations now compete in knowledge-led economies, seeking to provide research new technologies and provide novel services to consumers in other highly developed nations. The residual power of collective bargaining mechanisms such as unions, coupled with expectations of high pay and highly refined working conditions mean the relative competitiveness of first-world manufacturing industries has dropped. Even if a state were to give preferential treatment to domestic manufacturers and low-level service providers, it would still run the risk of being out-competed by its counterparts in the developing world.  Better standards of education, growing personal wealth and the frequent use of credit to purchase assets have created a collective action problem in first world states that practice off shoring. While, in the long-term, the number of highly skilled workers within domestic economies will grow, in the short term, a significant number of older manual and clerical workers may become unemployable as a result of more intense overseas competition. However, side proposition argues that this constitutes a marginal and bearable cost in term of the wider benefits to quality of life that outsourcing achieves.  Further, the potential costs of assisting excluded domestic workers to re-enter the job market will be covered by increased taxation and excise revenues resulting from more frequent trade with offshore outsourcing firms.  [i] “Idea. Offshoring.” The Economist, 28 October 2009.   [ii] “The once great offshoring debate.” Real Clear Politics, 16 May 2007.

Failures and defects in outsourced labour and products take longer to detect and are more expensive to remedy. Whilst customer feedback or angry employees may indicate flaws in outsourced support or payroll services, a company may only realise that a component manufactured by an offshore partner is faulty when they take delivery of it. The process of returning the component to its place of origin adds further expense to the costs caused by the delayed completion of a client firm’s product.  Offshore outsourcing reduces the amount of control that a client firm can exercise over component manufacturing even further. The expense of sending supervisors to contractor’s factories will increase. In addition, an offshore contractor may engage in outsourcing itself, entering into relationships with dozens of sub-contractors. This practise further limits the client firm’s ability to control the practices used to produce the materials it has ordered. A client may not be provided with complete information on the actions of sub-contractors; inadequate auditing of a lead contract may conceal the existence of sub-contractors.  In 2004, the aircraft company Boeing announced that it would use subcontractors (many of them offshore) to build the majority of the components that would make up its new 787 passenger jet. Many of Boeing’s offshore partners produced substandard components that failed to fit together or function properly [i] . Boeing inadvertently became entangled with a number of sub-sub-contractors who had been hired in order to meet deadlines imposed on sub-contractors without Boeing’s authority. When a number of firms engaged in the manufacture of key 787 components came close to financial failure, Boeing was forced to take them over and settle their debts. Boeing had concluded that the cost of bailing out its offshore partners would be lower than the expenses incurred by delaying the launch of its aircraft.  Takeovers of failing outsourcing partners by larger firms are becoming an increasingly common occurrence [ii] . While, in the short term, this practice may enable the client firm to maintain production schedules, in the long term the cost of integrating a new subsidiary into a larger business may prove crippling. Moreover, bailing out an outsourcing partner does not provide a guarantee that they will complete the tasks assigned to them in a timely and efficient fashion.  Especially in manufacturing dependent industries, but also in other sectors of developed economies, offshore outsourcing is indicative of flawed, short term strategizing that attempts to engineer higher profits by reducing investment in staff and taking unacceptable risks.  [i] “The trouble with outsourcing.” The Economist, 30 July 2011.   [ii] “Boeing’s woes. Nightmareliner.” The Economist, 03 September 2011.

Offshore outsourcing accelerates the development of poorer states’ infrastructure.  Offshoring spurs the development of poorer states. Offshoring relies on the existence of a basic industrial base and certain essential forms of state infrastructure, including an education system. These facilities are likely to be partially or wholly absent in a developing economy. The readily available capital that is located in the developed world, along with the example provided by other developing states that have successfully engaged in offshoring projects incentivises investment in service infrastructure and high quality education.  Many contemporary development strategies focus on developing a state’s industrial and agricultural sectors before its service economy. Expansion of developing states agricultural sectors is already proving to be a politically contentious issue, thanks to the generous and entrenched subsidies that farmers in the developed world are provided with. Resource extraction from developing states is not possible without ceding control of land and hiring of employees to wealthy supermajor oil firms, which exercise an effective monopoly over skilled geologists, miners, scientists and oil drilling experts. Under these circumstances, a conservative approach to development is likely to take an extremely long time to substantially improve economic prosperity and living standards within a poor state. However, an immediate focus on the service sector may allow a state to “leap frog” these developmental stages [i] .  Offshoring provides businesses within a developing state with access to foreign markets far larger than those in their native economy may contain. This will allow offshoring businesses to take advantage of economies of scale and capital inflow in order to develop with greater speed.  A state’s political culture will also stand to benefit from increased outsourcing. Offshore businesses will demand increasingly accountable, predictable and non-arbitrary forms of national governance. A level of reliability and foreseeability is essential in any system of civil law; so is a restrained, stable government that is prevented from using its power to expropriate private assets or spend tax revenue capriciously.  [i] “Strengthening India’s offshoring industry.” McKinsey Quaterly, August 2009.

It must be remembered that the offshore manufacturing and service sectors are relatively young. Workers have not yet had the opportunity to develop coherent collective bargaining strategies. It takes time for those involved in an industry to learn how to act as advocates for their own and their colleagues’ interests. Once these skills have become commonplace throughout the offshoring industry, workers will be better equipped to form unions and to hold their own governments to account over the lacunae and lax policy making identified by side opposition.  Side opposition have adopted a somewhat orientalist line of argument by suggesting that developing economies are inherently weak and easy to subvert. In jurisdictions such as India quite the opposition is true; governments eager to control the effect of globalisation on domestic markets have adopted policies that inhibit the involvement of foreign firms in their economies. Businesses and politicians- both local and foreign- expend a great deal of political capital in order to make developing states accessible to the offshoring industry – often on terms that require workers’ welfare to be strictly monitored.

Side opposition have created an argument for increasing the quality and affordability of education within developing states. Thanks to Trade Union’s intensive involvement in the decisions taken by large western businesses, companies that engage in offshoring are often compelled to invest a portion of the savings that they make from offshoring their operations into retraining schemes for staff at risk of redundancy. In 2005, the large IT services company CSC reached an agreement with the Union Amicus that required it to share a portion of the savings that it made through expanding its use of outsourcing with its staff [i] . Rather than declaring any redundancies, CSC gave its staff the opportunity to retrain by devoting almost £5000 for each of its English employees to education and development schemes.  It is conceded that the offshoring relationships formed between America and India and China during the nineteen nineties formed the basis of the industrial booms that both of those states are currently experiencing. An influx of expertise and increases in education and living standards funded by companies specialising in offshore have enabled both Indian and China to reduce their dependence on US manufacturers in many areas of their economy. However, the transition of manufacturing-led industries into developing economies is only one aspect of the offshoring narrative.  Increases in living standards within the developed nations of Europe and north America will only be sustainable if the individuals benefitting from higher wages and access to global markets for goods and services are able to maintain access to these advantages independently of the state’s intervention and changes in industrial practices. This goal is only possible if levels of education within a state are increased. Although side proposition believe that the increased burden on state support services that offshoring may cause is intractable, investment in education can limit the impact of such negative trends to only a single generation.  The affluence of many developed states is also reflected in intense entrepreneurial activity within their economies. In states such as Germany the proliferation in highly specialised small and medium sized businesses- that are unable to afford the services of offshoring businesses- has sustained demand for skilled and semi-skilled jobs. Many of these firms are sustained by larger businesses seeking outsourcing opportunities that are unwilling to engage in offshore outsourcing.  The size and relatively low individual incomes of German-style mittelstand enterprises prevents them from taking advantage of offshore outsourcing, often seen as (proportionately) too expensive and too risky [ii] by mittelstand executives. Such companies also help to sustain employment within economies that place a high premium on specialised technical and professional knowledge, but neglect equally complex and specialised vocational and craft skills.  [i] “CSC to retain staff with offshoring cash.” 09 August 2005.   [ii] “Big is back.” The Economist, 27 August 2009.

Outsourcing reduces businesses’ control over their supply chains. Offshoring firms are difficult to manage and cannot easily be held to account for failings and errors.  Companies that rely on directly hiring new employees to cover their back-office, estates and maintenance needs will not run the risk that the cost efficiency of those services might suffer as a result of union action or state regulation of pay.  Companies that rely on outsourced offshored labour to fill back-office and administrative roles expose themselves to the risk that those relationships will be undermined, damaged or abused by legal disputes or negotiation failures.  When a dispute develops between a business and a worker that it employs directly, the consequences of that dispute- in terms of lost productivity and lost profits- will usually be limited by the nature of the role that the employee occupies. It will be relatively cheap for a multinational firm to settle a dispute with a sacked cleaner. In addition, the loss of a single cleaner from a large facilities department will not compromise a company’s ability to do business.  The situation is quite different when the services and productivity of an entire company department are dependent on a relationship with an outsourcing firm. The collapse of the relationship between the media firm BskyB and its outsourcing partner EDS resulted in combined legal costs of $70,000,000 and a court case that lasted for almost five months [i] . A dispute over the terms of a contract or a crisis within the state in which an offshore outsourcing service is based can cut a company off from the workers and systems that it has hired. If a company has transferred all responsibility for its payroll or customer support operations to an offshore location, it will be completely paralysed by disagreements or emergencies of this type.  Ordinarily, the equity value and insurance liabilities of businesses could only be directly threatened by large scale union action, a failed product launch or the departure of a senior manager. However, the web of high dependency relationships that a business must enter into to remain competitive has now grown. By decentralising their authority and giving up their right to regulate relationships with its labour force on a one-to-one basis, businesses have exposed themselves to a greater amount of risk.  [i] “The trouble with outsourcing.” The Economist, 30 July 2011.

Offshoring exploits both individual workers and under developed states.  Investment in offshore outsourcing can easily develop into a form of economic and cultural imperialism. Offshoring encourages first-world governments and businesses to perceive underdeveloped countries as little more than cheap sources of labour and support for developed economies. The discourse that outsourcing creates does not focus on development strategies or the strengthening of weak economies, but on exploitation of the flaws and gaps inherent in the labour markets of developing nations [i] .  Moreover, wide-scale exporting of roles dependent on specific forms of linguistic and cultural knowledge forces workers to adopt alien and over-simplified cultural practises – directly echoing the relationships between colonial-era employers and native service providers.  [i] “The new masters of management.” The Economist, 15 April 2010.

Offshore outsourcing reduces living standards and limits social mobility.  Reliance on offshoring and offshore outsourcing is likely to lead to increases in inequality and reductions in social mobility within developed western liberal democracies.  Trade with developing economies typically results in a price premium becoming attached to specialised, skilled labourers and service providers in western economies. Poorer countries- even rapidly growing states such as India- produce smaller quantities of highly educated, highly skilled workers, such as vehicle designers, microchip fabricators and architects. In view of this, developing states concentrate on creating semi-skilled jobs that can be assigned to workers lacking- for example- university degrees. A larger proportion of Indian citizens are educated to a lower standard, so the creation of jobs accessible to them will generally be seen as politically astute. Opportunities for employment as a call centre operative or a pay roll clerk will rise in a developing state in response to an increased interest in offshoring by first world businesses.  Concurrently, as some of the money businesses save by offshoring is reinvested in advanced training, consultation exercises and research and development, demand for the services of specialists and highly skilled professionals will rise. Less skilled workers in a developed economy will see a decline in both employment opportunities [i] and pay. Professionals and those who can afford postgraduate education are likely to see their salaries increase. The gap between the rich and poor strata of society within developed economies will grow.  In short, while professionals, executives and decision makers will benefit from offshoring, seeing demand for their services rise, foreign competition is likely to undermine the domestic market for less skilled labour [ii] .  A reduction in demand for white-collar clerical workers, bookkeepers and assembly line workers will increase the burden placed on state social support schemes such as public housing, jobseekers’ payments and subsidised medical care [iii] . Although businesses may benefit from cheap overseas labour, the state will be left to contend with increasing expenditure in the short term and impaired educational and welfare standards in the long term. Children and communities within developed states that lose jobs to offshore operations will be less able to access further and higher education and are more likely to suffer  The social costs engendered by outsourcing do not balance against the financial benefits that accrue to businesses and professionals. Attempts to tax profits generated as a result of offshoring practices may fill a state’s coffers, but will not provide and effective solution to job losses and an increasing dependence on state assistance within less economically mobile communities within the developing world.  Finally, it should be noted that companies encountering financial difficulty or attempting to adapt to recessions come under intense pressure to cut costs. Increasingly, large businesses achieve these savings by engaging in outsourcing [iv] . For the reasons described above, such a practice may exclude a large number of individuals from the labour market. Outsourcing may therefore entrench and prolong a recession.  [i] Fig 3, “Labour-market trends. Winners and losers.” The Economist, 10 September 2011.   [ii] “Free Trade’s great, but offshoring rattles me.” Blinder, A S. The Washington Post, 06 May 2007.   [iii] “Idea. Offshoring.” The Economist, 28 October 2009.   [iv] “Passage to India.” The Economist, 24 June 2010.

Greater risk will simply oblige companies to be more diligent in screening and selecting the outsourcing firms that they choose to do business with.  While examples such as the construction of the Boeing Dreamliner serve to demonstrate how outsourcing can go wrong, they do not undermine the value of the idea itself. Indeed, an increased emphasis on closely supervised and responsible outsourcing will only serve to bolster the business of firms offering legal and auditing services (some of which are off-shore operations themselves)– and a slight increase in transaction costs is not likely to deter the majority of companies who have already observed the benefits of outsourcing reflected in their annual accounts.  It should also be pointed out that all sensibly run businesses should attempt to guard against the risks inherent in adopting new practices or forming new relationships by taking out insurance. Many insurers and underwriters are gearing up to assess and cover the costs of a collapse in the relationship between a businesses and an outsourcing partner.  If the worst happens and a company is forced to pull out of an offshoring agreement, it will be able to use the money that it receives from its insurer to bring troubled back-office operations or subcontracted tasks back in-house.  Increased competition within the outsourcing market, from both offshore and domestic businesses, will have the effect of forcing outsourcing firms to increase the quality and reliability of their services above the standard offered by their rivals [i] . Competition is likely to result in a net improvement of the standard or service available throughout the outsourcing industry.  [i] Drezner, W D. 26 July 2007.

Although titles may initiate slum upgrading the quality and time-scale of services provided remains questionable. Services can be of poor-quality as states rush to meet demands, and the area whereby women are given titles may remain unsafe and unhealthy spaces. Titling therefore does not fundamentally improve, or provide, services and infrastructure.  Further, women are given the burden (time and physical) of building decent homes. The provision of land titling transfers responsibility from the state to women.  In many cases across Africa land is not owned by the state, but rather private actors and international organisations. Such realities have implications in whether women are able to invest in, and build, homes as land titles need to be respected, and recognised, by multiple actors not only the state.

Land titles mean single women can build decent homes.  Due to a lack of access to formal titling women have been pushed into acquiring, and living in, slums [1] . Land titling programmes benefit slum dwellers and inhabitants living in informal housing across African cities. Titles for women mean a sense of security to inhabit space is provided; and women will be encouraged to invest in their land. Titling provision has resulted in slum upgrading, investing in changing the structure of urban Africa.  Second, being recognised as title holders means women are able to demand new services - such as access to water, sanitation, and lights. Such demand will ensure improved health for women. Women are able to use the law to interact with the state and change their future by demanding crucial services.  [1] Slums are officially defined as a group of individuals living in a household which lacks safe housing, sufficient living space, access to water, adequate sanitation, and/or security of tenure (UN-Habitat, 2003).

Are women really able to access credit and finance, and should they be able to enter such markets if there is an inability to return payments or get equal profits? Accessing credit with a high interest rate may put women are greater risk. We need to think about the credit lenders, what they charge, and if it can be paid back. Women may be less willing to use their primary asset to gain credit due to the potential risk of loss.  Studies in Madagascar [1] have shown limited differences in the degree of plot investment on land whereby titles were held, or not. The provision of a title has minimal impact in the case of rural Madagascar, suggesting women will be no more ‘entrepreneurial’ than initially believed [2] . Land speculation may become more of a concern with the provision of titles, as land is believed to be of value and thus occupied, but with minimal investments made.  [1] Jacoby and Minten, 2007.  [2] See further readings: Fenske, 2011.

Land titles for women today will provide inter-generational equalities for the future.  Giving women the right to land will provide the path for gender equality in the present and future. Girls will be granted equal access rights to family land and inheritance in the future, and decisions around marriage dowry can be changed.

Land titles provide a voice in the legal system.  Land titles mean women will be recognised as citizens, with rights. Women will be included in the system of justice and their rights to occupy, build, and use, land, recognised. Titles will provide bottom-up empowerment. A physical and psychological sense of security will be provided; and a sense of social belonging, and place, is enabled. Legal security has benefits for health (mental and physical) and reduces risk. For example, access to titles will reduce the vulnerability of women to ‘property grabbing’.  In the case of Ethiopia, the introduction of joint land-titling and household registration in 2003 [1] has been shown to have changed women’s perception of tenure security. Previously, the prevalence of polygamous relationships meant only the first wife was granted legal rights and recognition, leaving other wives and households without rights to land. The provision of land titles ensures women equal security within a legal framework. Women are entitled to rights; and titles provide the security to use the legal system.  [1] The Joint titling program in Ethiopia was a implemented as a partnership between the government and World Bank, see further readings: Girma and Giovarelli, 2013; Barne, 2010; and Deninger, 2008.

Land titles mean women will be recognised as citizens, with rights. Women will be included in the system of justice and their rights to occupy, build, and use, land, recognised. Titles will provide bottom-up empowerment. A physical and psychological sense of security will be provided; and a sense of social belonging, and place, is enabled. Legal security has benefits for health (mental and physical) and reduces risk. For example, access to titles will reduce the vulnerability of women to ‘property grabbing’.  In the case of Ethiopia, the introduction of joint land-titling and household registration in 2003 [1] has been shown to have changed women’s perception of tenure security. Previously, the prevalence of polygamous relationships meant only the first wife was granted legal rights and recognition, leaving other wives and households without rights to land. The provision of land titles ensures women equal security within a legal framework. Women are entitled to rights; and titles provide the security to use the legal system.  [1] The Joint titling program in Ethiopia was a implemented as a partnership between the government and World Bank, see further readings: Girma and Giovarelli, 2013; Barne, 2010; and Deninger, 2008.

Having rights does not ensure there will be an awareness of how to use rights and education on what such rights do. To ensure land titles contribute to promoting gender equalities women, and girls, need to be made aware of the meaning of rights and how to use them. Land titles are not the means of providing inter-generational equality, but rather one piece of the puzzle. To ensure equality education and awareness is required.

The case of Kenya is not representative of evidence across all African nations. In Rwanda, where post-conflict recovery has put gender equality as a fundamental objective, underlying tensions are emerging. Land titles have been distributed to women however male counterparts are beginning to raise doubts over the extent of gender 'equality', arguing policies reflect a gender bias in favour of women. [1]  In societies where women live in a ‘man’s world’ land titles are not the means of safety and security. Rape, harassment, and abuse occur in public spaces across cities, due to fear, police relations, and social acceptance.  [1] Bikorimana, 2012.

Land titles will develop entrepreneurial women.  Access to titles is a means of poverty alleviation for female-headed households and women. Having recognised land rights means first, their land becomes exchangeable and profits can be gained through different strategies. Second, women are able to access credit and finance with the granting of a formal land title. Women are able to become entrepreneurs establishing businesses, agricultural cultivation, and the ability to sell property and land. Such investments have positive benefits for the whole economy. For example by encouraging crop cultivation to small-scale farmers food security can be provided, and the agrarian market revitalised. [1]  In the case of Ethiopia, the economy remains highly dependent on agricultural production. The security land titles provides has encouraged agricultural cultivation to women nationwide. Women are able to build a new food market and earn an income to sustain their livelihoods.  [1] See further readings: Oseni, 2013.

Land titles will help end violence against women.  One of the main forms of gender-based violence includes violent acts carried out by husbands or partners [1] . Evidence shows the provision of land titles reduce risks to female health and vulnerabilities to violence. Women become accepted as, and confident, decision makers within their homes as titling redistributes power within households. Furthermore possessing a land title enables safer sexual relations by offering legal protection. Research in Kenya has shown titles will reduce the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS and rape [2] . Due to gender norms widows are forced into traditional ‘cleansing’ rituals, rape and forced marriage, in order to hold onto physical assets and inherit their rightful land from in-laws. Land titles are therefore a means of tackling gender discrimination and providing freedom of choice on how women can act. Women are less likely to be forced into unsafe sex, following the death of their husband or divorce, to occupy the land.  Additionally, returning to the case of Kenya, FIDA have reported how a woman's choice to divorce her partner often leaves many property-less [3] . Women may be more likely to remain in an unhappy, dangerous, marriage without changes in property legal systems.  [1] Defined by WHO, 2013.  [2] Sweetman, 2008.  [3] Migiro, 2013.

Female-headed households are not the poorest of the poor, and taxation is required. Taxation is vital resource to enable the government to mobilise key services and as a redistributive tool. By developing an effective functioning taxation system, social policies can be put on the agenda in Africa - providing social support and security to those in need.  Having access to titles will reduce poverty by encouraging entrepreneurialism, productive use of land, security, better health, and opportunity to enter property markets.

The possession of a formally recognised entitlement to land presents a win-win scenario - being an indicator of good governance and enabling the promotion of good governance. Land titles represent an effective economic institution in society, of which enables democratic, political institutions, such as an accountable state. Land titles mean corruption and rent-seeking behaviour can be monitored.

Land titles are not affordable to poor women  The cost of obtaining land titles is higher than the benefits sought. Research has shown that although there is a desire, by women, to obtain land titles the reality is land titles remain unaffordable. To empower land titles need to be more affordable to include a diverse range of women able to obtain titles and rights [1] . Having expensive titles limits empowerment to the comparatively wealthy. To make matters worse the provision of titles increases the burden on women - introducing additional costs, time commitments, and worries on top of normal activities.  Cheaper, and more effective, alternatives are available to provide rights and security of tenure for women. For example Toulmin (2009) emphasises the potential role of using local institutions to register rights. Community organisations, for saving (etc) as in South Africa which prevent the need to go to loan sharks, are a positive alternative to empower women. [2] For real empowerment women need to be included in the process of designing land titles.  [1] See further readings for the case of Dar-es-Salaam: Ayalew et al, 2013.  [2] Frederikse 2011

Land titles are being granted in high-risk areas.  Land title provision for women across Africa is occurring in informal settlements and slums - therefore the question is whether titles provide an ability to relocate through the property market. First, land titles in the case of South Africa have left inhabitants stuck on the lower-end of the property market [1] . Lemanski (2010) shows homeownership, in Cape Town, does not bring the hoped for financial return. Low-income households are unable to trade their asset (land or home) due to low returns, preventing movement into upgraded houses and areas. Second, dangers emerge as to the degree of future sustainability when considering climate change and the hazardous nature of environments. In Mathare slum, Kenya, landslides are a frequent occurrence. The provision of titles in such areas does not have sustainable.  [1] Lemanski, 2010.

Land titles do not solve the main issue for women - rental markets.  About 50% of the poor across Africa, including women, used rental accommodation [1] , many are landless. Although it remains debatable as to whether women enter the rental market by choice or not, renting has been noted to provide a greater degree of flexibility. Renting provides flexibility to relocate and manage finances effectively over a short-term. Land titles may therefore increase immobility to those using the rental markets; and enable landlords to raise prices of renting. Titles don’t help those who rent.  [1] Edwards, 1990, p.255

Land titling will increase female poverty.  Titles provide a path for the state to gain, and mobilise, resources - such as taxation. Therefore the provision of land titles to women will mean they are forced to pay taxes (including land tax and additional government taxes). Such a reality has major consequences for single female-headed households who represent a disproportionate number of the poor [1] . Increased expenses will impact multiple dimensions of their livelihoods.  [1] For debates on Female-Headed Households in Africa as the ‘poorest of the poor’ see further readings: Chant, 2007.

Real empowerment needs to enable strategic, and practical, gender needs (Moser, 1989). Land titling for women enables women to change their position in society and thus how they are viewed by the state and communities. Having a land title means women in high-risk areas can demand changes to be made by the state.

Land titles, and markets, in Africa remain corrupt.  On the one hand, land titles do not provide increased tenure security for women and will legitimise gentrification. In urban areas, if women are granted rights over a desired plot of land holding titles may be more of a curse. Poor women may be forced, and enticed, to sell their homes at prices under their market value. Titles often results in urban gentrification, as the spaces become legally mapped and property markets work for the elite.  On another hand, land titles in African states are based on bad governance, rent-seeking, and corrupt desires. The idea land titles will provide empowerment, security and poverty reduction is based on a Western model of the state. However, the boundary between what is legal and illegal in African states remains less clear-cut. The case of Zimbabwe’s ‘Operation Murambatsvina’ (‘Restore Order’) in 2005 is a case in point. Mass evictions occurred despite the homes being classified as ‘legal’ and titles being held. Livelihoods were destroyed as a result. The ability for land titles to empower in a repressive or mercurial state is questionable. Propositions for land titling are based on inadequate blueprints and ideas of the state.

Renting holds fewer benefits for women than ownership. For empowerment more women need to become home, and landowners. The provision of land titles to women means they have a sense of stability. In the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, a majority of young, female renters engage in different forms of transactional sex due to the expense of renting [1] . Equality in land titling will ensure women are able to save and seek safer livelihood options.  [1] See further readings: Action Aid, 2012.

Programmes implemented have taken action to reduce costs. The recent government program in Ethiopia has been government-sponsored and used a participatory model to ensure affordability across a large-scale.

If there were similar crises without the EU existing as a balm and place where all countries can talk regularly and confront problems together then the security situation would be much worse. In the past it has only taken small incidents to spark a war – usually exemplified by the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand starting off world war I, but there have also been wars started by trade such as the ‘War of Jenkins Ear’ which became part of the war of Austrian Succession. Today the EU provides a place to negotiate disputes between members making war between member states unthinkable. Of course war would still be a very unlikely response to a dispute, but leaving the EU would mean getting rid of one of the organisations that reduces that possibility by mitigating crises.

The EU causes instability  According to Boris Johnson the European Union is “a force for instability and alienation” [1] that increasingly causes security problems such as the migration crisis. The EUs inability to solve its crises such as the economic difficulties of peripheral countries like Greece and Portugal are causing resentment and warnings that one may fall out of the Euro block. It is the EU that is creating these problems by not dealing with its crises but leaving them to fester and grow. In Greece for example only a third of Greeks have a positive view of the EU and only 17% believe integration has been good for Greece. [2]  [1] ‘EU referendum: Cameron warns UK exit could put peace at risk’, BBC News, 9th May 2016,   [2] Stokes, Bruce, and Goo, Sara Kehaulani, ‘5 facts about Greece and the EU’, PewResearchCenter, 7 July 2015,

Control of borders is important. However it is also not relevant to the debate as the UK not being a party to the Schengen agreement already has control over its borders; the UK checks passports and visas at the border just as would happen if the country were to leave the EU. Leaving would make no difference to UK border security.

A nation state can only rely on itself for security  In the security sphere it is national interests that are most important and no state can expect other states to have exactly the same interests. Everyone therefore needs to look after their own. In the case of the EU Britain cannot expect France or Germany to have the same security interests as the UK with its different situation – being an island rather than part of the continent. Germany is much more concerned with Eastern Europe than the UK, France much more with Northern Africa. Freedom from the EU means greater freedom for the UK to focus on its own national interests on security; terrorism, maritime defence, and building up NATO rather than any competing European force.

While keeping sight of the UKs national interests is important almost all of them can be carried out as well with the European Union as outside it. In particular the whole of Europe is interested in preventing terrorism. In other areas such as maritime security it makes sense for the UK to specialise in it while other countries specialise in other areas such as having larger armies. Moreover it should be noted that the UK is in one of the safest areas of the world with no hostile states in any direction. In this sense the EU is a buffer between the UK and less stable areas such as North Africa, the Middle East, or Russia so it makes sense to work with them as part of the same organisations including the EU.

In a letter to the Telegraph five former Secretary-Generals of NATO stated “The European Union… is a key partner for NATO” and that “Brexit would undoubtedly lead to a loss of British influence, undermine NATO and give succour to the West’s enemies just when we need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder across the Euro-Atlantic community against common threats”. They give sanctions imposed by the EU on Iran and Russia as examples of where the EU has lead on enhancing regional security. [1] Moreover if the EU is to create an EU force this will happen regardless of Brexit. Britain stands a much greater chance of stopping it when it has a voice in the EU with which to object.  [1] Lord Carrington, Javier Solana, Lord Robertson, Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ‘Letters: At a time of global instability, Britain needs to stand united with its EU allies’, The Telegraph, 10 May 2016,

Strong control of borders is needed to keep the country secure  Terrorism is often considered the biggest security threat to the UK. Ian Duncan Smith has argued that being in the EU “exposes UK to terror risk” because an “open border does not allow us to check and control people”. [1] The Schengen agreement on the free movement of people makes it easier for terrorists to move about in Europe as shown by the terrorist attacks on Paris which were planned in Brussels.  [1] ‘Staying in EU 'exposes UK to terror risk', says Iain Duncan Smith’, BBC News, 21 February 2016,

British security is dependent upon NATO not the EU  NATO is “the most successful defensive alliance in history”, it saw off the USSR and Warsaw pact without a fight and has created a single security regime throughout most of Europe. [1] With its’ record NATO is clearly most important for security in Europe; it is still needed to deter Russia. The creation of an EU army on the other hand will undermine NATO and is something that will be pushed through after the referendum. [2] Britain could likely opt out, but with cooperation taking place under EU rather than NATO auspices the alliance that has kept the peace would be badly damaged.  [1] London Declaration quoted by Reeve, Richard, ‘We need to talk about NATO’, OxfordResearchGroup, 17 September 2015,   [2] Kemp, Richard, ‘It is an EU army that could bring about war’, The Telegraph, 9 May 2016,

Since the end of World War II Germany and national rivalries in Western Europe not been the main threat to Europe. Instead that threat has emanated from outside the EU; largely from Russia, and then from more nebulous threats such as terrorism. In both these cases it has been military alliances such as NATO and nuclear deterrence that have kept the peace.

The EU simply adds to an alphabet soup of organisations that work on security in Europe. The two which matter, NATO and EUROPOL, both have little to do with the EU and would work just as well with the UK out.

Leaving will mean less communication with other security services  Leaving the EU may damage relationships with key security partners such as France and Germany. Both countries would have much less reason to cooperate on security issued when not in the same organisation. There would certainly still be some cooperation but the former heads of Mi5 and Mi6, Lord Evans and Sir John Sawers have stated that the UK would lose out through not being able “to take part in the decisions that frame the sharing of data, which is a crucial part of counter-terrorism and counter-cyber work”. Sawers points out that data sharing in the EU allowed France to transfer DNA and fingerprints of one of the Brussels bombers within months – previous to EU data sharing it would have taken months slowing down critical investigations. [1]  [1] ‘Row as ex-intelligence chiefs say EU membership protects UK security’, BBC News, 8 May 2016,

The EU brings together former enemies  The EU has created peace among states that formerly fought each other. Most notably Germany and France had fought each other three times in seventy-five years prior to the formation of the EU. The EU has helped make such a conflict unthinkable now. The EU as a structure restrains old rivalries through giving a joint project and goal. It ensures cooperation particularly in places where there are competing interests like Gibraltar where continued cross border access is guaranteed by being a member of the EU. [1]  [1] Hague, William, ‘Leaving the EU would be disastrous for the Falklands, Gibraltar and Ulster’, The Telegraph, 9 May 2016,

Security is better shared  Security is not a zero sum game – our security does not get better if our neighbours is worse. On the contrary good French, Irish, Belgian and Norwegian security helps ensure good British security. Being in the EU provides an opportunity for cooperation between member states by creating interaction on all levels. Some integration ensures a common and cooperative response to international threats. The EU is the most obvious place to develop a coordinated response to terrorism and other, particularly non-military, security concerns throughout the region. [1]  [1] Galbreath, David, ‘Professor David Galbreath on: Security in, secure out: Brexit’s impact on security and defence policy’, University of Bath IPR Blog, 24 March 2016,

There would still be data sharing between Britain and its neighbours even if the UK left the EU. No intelligence agency would sit on information that could save lives in another country simply because that country is no longer in the same organisation. Moreover the UK could still negotiate data sharing agreements with relevant intelligence agencies to ensure that information sharing remains fast and comprehensive.

The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish the West Bank, known to the Israelis as “Judea and Samaria”. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel would similarly have to undermine its identity to give up these two regions, and so any two-state solution acceptable to Israel would have to mean the retention of Judea and Samaria. Because of the large Palestinian population in the West Bank, even a two-state solution would mean Israel could not be both Jewish and democratic.(3)

A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish  As described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers.  From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome.  Only a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.

Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.(8) It is also naïve to think that a two-state solution would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region.(9) To this end, Iran has an incentive to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict big and bloody so as to distract the West from its own regional agenda. Furthermore, an independent Palestinian state would probably be perceived as a security threat to some of its neighbours, particularly Jordan, and thus might actually prompt further tensions.(9)

A two-state solution is best for peace  Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas.  Israeli President Shimon Peres has argued: “Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature.”(1)  This stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated “In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.”(2)  Pope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel’s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: “I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.”(3)  Even Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own.  As Peres argues, “The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.”(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution.

Simply because past conflict has existed is no reason to believe that peace and understanding cannot be established through co-operation, shared institutions and interaction. This is exactly what a one-state solution would foster in the long term, but which a two-state solution prevents by separating the two communities. Even if they each have a state of their own, unless the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live in proximity to each other in co-operation, there will be no peace.

Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides  A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians.  While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1)  Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.

The most just outcome is that which best secures peace. Both sides will be compelled to make certain concessions, and some inequalities and discrepancies between the two new states are unavoidable. However, on balance the benefits of peace and security for both peoples will outweigh the harms of any concessions or inequalities, so long as both peoples receive a state of their own in which they can control their own destinies, which is the only way to ensure peace.

These arguments about 'sympathetic cooperation' ignore the realities on the ground of two people who are and seem certain to remain violently opposed to each other as long as they struggle over control over a single state rather than each having a state of their own. Furthermore, offering the Palestinians a sovereign state of their own, free from Israeli control, would likely go a long way to satisfying the vast majority of Palestinians, and thus actually make a war against Israel far less likely. As Peres argues: “Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defence but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow.”(1)

Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution  A million Palestinians live throughout Israel even without the West Bank and Gaza strip, and when the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered also, it becomes clear that dividing these two populations is simply unfeasible. By comparison, the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.(12)  The ever-expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank particularly represent a barrier to the separation of the two peoples into two states. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.(10)  Forcibly removing settlers would be too difficult, could foment civil strife among Jewish Israeli citizens, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all  A one-state solution is the most just because a two-state solution would inherently result in a worse situation for the Palestinians than the Israelis, whereas a one-state solution would guarantee equal rights for all. The July 2007 Madrid meeting in favour of a one-state solution put firth that: “A two-state solution is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora.” Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.”(14)  A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, would also most likely alienate the Palestinian population remaining within Israel. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.(13)  A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would also kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts. The Palestinian state created would also- if past experience is any judge- be highly divided (between factions such as Hamas and Fatah) and dysfunctional. This situation would have a material impact on the quality of life of citizens of the new Palestinian.(15)(16) Therefore, a one-state solution is more just than a two-state solution.

Only a one-state solution can end the conflict  It was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: “We are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.”(5)  A two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11)  Similarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.

A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous “islands” of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13)  In any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state.

There have been continued protests and violence since the military coup. The post-Morsi leadership and the Egyptian army have therefore done little to bring the Egyptian crisis under control. The most notable incident was on 14th August 2013, over a month since the military coup removed Morsi, when over one thousand people were killed in a day’s fighting between security forces and protestors. Human Rights Watch declared that this was ‘the most serious incident of mass unlawful killings in modern Egyptian history’. [1] Even after the ban on un-notified protesting there have been continued demonstrations of civil disobedience. Due to the handling of these demonstrations the USA has threatened to cut some of its $1.3 billion military aid to Egypt [2] . This inability to gain control of the situation echoes the reasoning for removing Morsi.  [1] Loveluck, 2013  [2] Sciutto &amp; Labott, 2013

Failed to gain control of the Egyptian crisis  The official line of argument for the Egyptian army’s intervention was that Morsi’s administration was failing to grasp control of a worsening situation [1] . The response to Morsi’s judicial immunity had been largely negative, with tens of thousands taking to the streets to protest. Soon after, pro-Morsi protestors began their own protests. Muslim Brotherhood supporters were called to defend the palace and the resulting clashes left ten dead [2] . On the 1st July 2013 millions of protestors gathered in Tahrir Square, as well as in Alexandria, Port Said and Suez [3] and the Egyptian army stated it would intervene if the government did not ‘meet the demands of the people’ by restructuring the government to appease protestors [4] . The protestors did not disperse, and there were several ministers who resigned from government. With no clear policy change in sight, Morsi had evidently failed to take control of the situation. General el-Sisi, leader of the coup, claimed that they ‘could not stay silent and blind to the call of the Egyptian masses’ [5] . The intervention was necessary as Egypt had become ungovernable.  [1] El-Tablawy &amp; Fam, 2013  [2] Loveluck, 2013  [3] Maqbool, 2013  [4] Abdelaziz &amp; Wederman, 2013  [5] Bowen, 2013

The Morsi government arguably did not have enough time to deal with Egypt’s economic conditions. Tourism and investment had already been in decline prior to Morsi assuming power [1] . The global perception of Egypt as unstable was unavoidable following the revolution which had deposed Mubarak. The ex-dictator had been a symbol of security and stability prior to the Arab Spring. Tourism dropped from 14.7 million people to 9.8 million in the first year post-Mubarak, which led to a loss of revenue [2] . Unemployment had been on the rise prior to the Arab Spring, as was the cost of living. Morsi’s establishment had only been given one year to resolve the economic crisis which was insufficient time to put any economic recovery plan in to full effect.  [1] The World Bank, accessed 2013  [2] Bakr, 2012

Morsi Undermined Democratic Principles  Separation of powers is a key democratic principle which Morsi undermined with the November 2012 declaration. The underlying idea of the separation of powers is that one branch of government should not have undue power over any other. That is why there are a number of checks and balances set out which allows each branch to constrain the actions of the others to prevent them acting illegally [1] . Morsi’s declaration that he would remove the checks and balances which the judiciary held over the presidency violated this principle. This led many to fear that Morsi was returning the country to a dictatorship where he could force through the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda [2] , undoing the work of the Arab Spring [3] . The army’s intercession was welcomed by many as maintaining democracy [4] .  [1] Wikipedia  [2] CNN Staff, 2013  [3] Spencer, 2012  [4] Reuters, 2013

The post-Morsi leadership, with the assistance of the military, have arguably continued the trend of undemocratic governing. These actions have given the impression that they are acting hypocritically by removing Morsi. In November 2013 a new law was enacted which banned peaceful protest without prior notification to the police. Believed to be aimed at Morsi’s supporters and the Muslim Brotherhood, this law sought to curb protests being conducted against the Egyptian army’s leadership [1] . As protest is a political right, many human rights groups have had a negative response to this legislation. Defiance of these laws has led to the use of teargas and violence to disperse crowds [2] . The new constitution also places the defence ministry firmly in the hands of the military, giving policy control to an unelected official [3] . The claims of the military backed authorities being anti-democratic illustrate the hypocrisy of removing Morsi.  [1] G uerin, 2013  [2] el-Deen, 2013  [3] Aswat Masr iya, 2013

Morsi maintained relatively moderate rhetoric and did not declare any intention to impose sharia law. When questioned about Islamic society and non-Muslims he stated that he believed Coptic Christians had inherent rights and stated that Islam and sharia law ‘cannot be imposed on the people and it cannot be done from the top’ [1] . Morsi’s comments on the respect owed to everyone’s rights and beliefs seem to contradict any notion that he planned on enforcing a strict interpretation of sharia law.  [1] El Amrani, 2011

Morsi’s economic and social policies had been ineffective and unpopular  Morsi’s inability to tackle the main issues which faced Egypt was another issue which caused the large-scale protests leading to his removal. One of the major reasons for Egypt’s Lotus Revolution was the lack of economic reform. Rising living costs, unemployment and wage levels were causes of grievance for the majority of Egyptians. The Egyptian population hoped that, once the corruption of the Mubarak regime was replaced by a democratic system, their economic condition would improve. This was not to be the case. The Morsi government planned to reduce its fuel subsidies to entitle the country to a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund [1] , raising the living costs of the average citizens. In conjunction with the subsidy cuts, the government failed to tackle unemployment. At the time of Morsi’s ouster from government there were 3.6 million unemployed, an increase of one million since 2010 [2] . Analysts linked the lack of jobs to the security of the state claiming that unemployment would lead to greater numbers of rioters and furthering instability [3] . In a poll assessing the Egyptians’ attitude toward their government and their future, 61% felt they were worse off than five years ago [4] . This dissatisfaction then led to dissent.  [1] Werr, 2013  [2] Ahram Online, 2013  [3] Fam &amp; Shahine, 2013  [4] Zogby Research Services, 2013

Morsi was going to implement Islamic policies on a secular country  Another major concern of the anti-Morsi protestors on whose behalf the Egyptian army intervened was the Islamist nature of Morsi [1] . While many supported the Islamic nature of the Muslim brotherhood, there were equally many liberals and Coptic Christians who were afraid of Egypt transforming in to an Islamic state. Mubarak had managed to secure popularity within these groups by exploiting this fear that, should his regime be overthrown, extreme Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood would take control and deprive them of their rights. The Morsi government’s constitution was thus perceived as a threat to minority and secular rights, and thus a security issue. Even if this was not the case, Morsi should have done more to calm the population’s fear rather than allowing discord to materialise.  [1] Khalil, 2012

The army should not have a position of influence in democratic, civilian politics. It is generally accepted that the military’s responsibility is to the state [1] . This means that they cannot become involved in the governing of said state, as this is a breach of the civil-military relationship. According to Huntington, ‘Politics is beyond the scope of military competence, and the participation of military officers in politics undermines their professionalism’ [2] . It is important, therefore, that civilian supremacy is maintained and that the military is subservient to the civilian government. In modern democracies it is expected that the government is held to account at the polls, as long as they act legally, rather than military whims. There is also a tendency for military figures to feel more inclined towards intervention in civil society after their initial attempt, as demonstrated by the most recent military coup as the military had previously taken charge between the fall of Mubarak and Morsi’s election. For this reason, the overthrow of the civilian government at the hands of the Egyptian military is flawed.  [1] May et al., 2004  [2] Huntington, 1957 pg. 16

While just over half of respondents to the poll thought that deposing Morsi was wrong, 46% of Egyptians felt it was the correct move [1] . This shows that there was still a large amount of support for the Egyptian army’s actions. 51% of the population is not an overwhelming figure. In addition to this, the poll which produced these results only interviewed 1,405 people. With a population of over 84 million, it is possible that majority of the population actually supported the Army.  [1] Smith, 2013

Mohamed Morsi had been democratically elected  It was wrong to depose Morsi as he had been chosen to serve as the first democratically elected president in Egypt. Morsi was elected as president with 51.7% of the vote. Having won the 2011-2 elections, Morsi and the Freedom and Justice party had a democratic mandate which they should have been able to fulfil. The military coup which removed them from power was therefore a violation of the democracy which Egypt had fought to establish.

The army has no place in a modern democracy  The army should not have a position of influence in democratic, civilian politics. It is generally accepted that the military’s responsibility is to the state [1] . This means that they cannot become involved in the governing of said state, as this is a breach of the civil-military relationship. According to Huntington, ‘Politics is beyond the scope of military competence, and the participation of military officers in politics undermines their professionalism’ [2] . It is important, therefore, that civilian supremacy is maintained and that the military is subservient to the civilian government. In modern democracies it is expected that the government is held to account at the polls, as long as they act legally, rather than military whims. There is also a tendency for military figures to feel more inclined towards intervention in civil society after their initial attempt, as demonstrated by the most recent military coup as the military had previously taken charge between the fall of Mubarak and Morsi’s election. For this reason, the overthrow of the civilian government at the hands of the Egyptian military is flawed.  [1] May et al., 2004  [2] Huntington, 1957 pg. 16

Most Egyptians still supported Morsi  A poll conducted in November 2013 illustrated that the majority of Egyptians still supported Morsi. The Egyptian army’s claim that they were acting in the name of the people is therefore invalid. The poll, conducted by Zogby Research Services LLC, found that 51% of Egyptians believed that it was wrong to depose Morsi [1] . The fact that the army were acting to the contrary of the wishes of a sizeable proportion of the population therefore exemplifies that the army were not acting ‘for the people’ as a whole.  [1] Smith, 2013

The Morsi government had acted to monopolise their power within the government, hence undermining their democratic position. To begin with, Morsi’s cabinet had consisted of about 25% candidates from his own party, with the rest belonging to the opposition parties. This by 2013 this had dropped to roughly 1/3 Morsi supporters. This, in combination with Morsi’s extra judicial powers implied that the president was attempting to extend his political power. Many liberals feared that this would be done to enforce the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda in Egypt [1] . To preserve the democratic integrity of the Egyptian government, the army had to intervene.  [1] CNN Staff, 2013

The proposed right of family reunification is too much of a burden on receiving countries, making it an obstacle to a migrant rights treaty. Indeed, states have levelled as an argument against the Migrant Workers Convention, and against other possible international migrant treaties, concerns about a robust right of family reunification to all migrant workers present in migrant-receiving countries. This could offer family members a right to migrate into the state in question, resulting in large increases in population size. And, there is no doubt that the text of the Migrant Workers Convention aims to create a "right" to family reunification. Even if it provides flexibility on how a nation attempts to facilitate reunification, it still requires that states reunite families in some way. Under this treaty, therefore, any migrant could sue the state for not allowing his family (and perhaps extended family) to immigrate as well. In overpopulated and strained migrant-receiving countries, particularly in Western Europe, such a proposition is untenable, which is why so many migrant-receiving nations oppose the treaty.

Migrants ought to have a right to family reunification.  The right to family is widely recognized as an essential human right. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that the family is the fundamental unit of society. Within the right to family is the right to family reunification for migrants who are separated from their loved ones. The Human Rights Education Associates argue, “states are obliged to facilitate contacts and deal with requests to enter or leave a state party for the purpose of reunification in a humane and expeditious manner.” [1] This right is especially important for refugees, who have often been torn from their families by force, and although they have not been separated by force economic migrants are also separated from their families and at the very least should be able to visit their families, and it is not granted by many countries.  [1] Asmita Naik, “The Right to Family,” Human Rights Education Associates,” Accessed June 30, 2011,  .

The receiving countries would not accept a regulatory body. The current international regulatory bodies such as the WTO and World Bank are essentially run by the rich countries for the benefit of the rich countries and so they accept it. Any body regulating migrants’ rights would, however, be doing the opposite-- benefiting the poorest -- meaning the rich countries would try to prevent the creation of such an organisation.  In the unlikely event that the regulatory body could be created it would face a gargantuan task. How could global migration be monitored and regulated by an international body when even national bodies in rich countries are not able to keep track of all migrants in their nations? Yet the international body would also have to monitor the conditions of migrants in many much poorer countries where the infrastructure currently does not exist.

Economic and social protections prevent the exploitation of migrants.  Migrants face a number of challenges when they reach their destination, such as finding housing and in integrating into the workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, "In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified the migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group." [1]  This is something that the U.N. Convention attempts to address creating specific changes in many countries that would make migrants less vulnerable. For example, in all of the Gulf States, migrants are prohibited or at least restricted from “participation in independent trade union activities.” [2] Protecting the right to unionize, as the U.N. Convention does with Article 40(1), allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, allowing migrants to fight and ensure their own rights is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term.  Migrants have the same fundamental rights as any other segment of the population as recognised by all states when they signed the universal declaration of human rights. Yet while migrants often initially migrate due to the dream of a better life they often find themselves in terrible living conditions, even in developed countries like Britain they often end up in what are essentially shanty towns, in London for example even if they manage to stay off the streets many new immigrants are housed in sheds and garages. [3] All governments should recognise their responsibility to ensure the minimum rights of migrants when it comes to shelter, education, and health are protected.  [1] Daily Star, “Ratify UN convention on migrant workers’ rights,” May 3, 2009,  .  [2] Human Rights Watch, “Saudi Arabia/GCC States.”  [3] Rogers, Chris, ‘The illegal immigrants desperate to escape squalor of Britain’, BBC News, 28 February 2012,

Further protections are required to grant migrants full human rights.  Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws.  Human rights also include fair treatment under the welfare state, and increased economic protections for migrants is necessary in many states for them to receive such treatment. Without this equal treatment, common myths about migrants will continue to be widely believed. These myths claim that immigrants are criminals and that they steal jobs from natives. The organization Migrant Rights says, “All these myths rob migrant workers and refugees of their humanity, and are aimed at portraying them as less deserving of our sympathy and help.” [1]  It is a violation of migrants’ human rights to be treated this way, and they will only be seen as equals when they are granted economic protection that allows them to work alongside natives.  [1] Migrant Rights, "Fact-checking the Israeli government’s incitement against migrants and refugees," October 1st, 2010 , accessed June 30, 2011,  .

Migrant rights are already protected under human rights law. If a nation violates existing international human rights law against a migrant, perhaps with exploitative working conditions, wrongful imprisonment, seizure of property, discrimination, or violence, existing international law already adequately protects them. There is no need to expand human rights law to create a separate category and separate protections for migrants. Even if the international community decided it wanted to better protect the human rights of migrants, an international treaty will not necessarily advance that cause, as international law has proven to be very difficult to enforce. This will continue to be a problem into the foreseeable future.

In most democratic, developed countries—which are those that receive the most immigrants—people share equal rights in the workplace, as long as they immigrated legally. People who broke the law to come to the country do not deserve these rights. Because they usually come to work, the workplace is even the ideal place to discover illegal immigrants. Not only are they not allowed to unionize, but they are not allowed to get paid. Workplace rights do not need to be strengthened for legal migrants, and they should not be for illegal migrants. Similarly it is impossible for the conditions for illegal migrants to be improved; if they are found they will be deported and so there is no need to improve their conditions, although of course they should be well treated while in the process of deportation. Moreover improving minimum conditions would be counterproductive as they would attract more migrants to immigrate illegally knowing that they will get minimum living conditions that may well be considerably better than those that they had in their home country.

Migration puts too heavy a burden on receiving countries, and it essentially means giving up on source countries. It is not a mechanism of the market, but rather an unfair system of taking money from taxpayers in certain countries and giving it to people other countries, this money is then sent abroad and spend abroad resulting in a net loss to the economy. Not all migration is bad, but legislation that would protect the right of immigrants to send money home would solidify this unfair system. Remittances are a short-term fix. If migrants are not allowed to send home remittances, it is possible that the most skilled workers would stay in their home country and work to rebuild the economy for the long-term.  The supposed intangible benefit to receiving countries of “innovation and invention” is much less important than the real cost that these countries feel as a result from the unemployment and increased cost of health, education, and welfare systems that migrants cause.

An international regulatory body should exist for global migration.  With an international regulatory body, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights, and migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has created a number of regulatory bodies that have helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy." [1] Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world.  [1] Deparle, "Global Migration.”

Protections would benefit the economies of receiving as well as source countries.  Economic protections are not only good for the migrants themselves, but they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move from countries that have a lot of workers but not a lot work available, to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. Migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization.  The growth of the world’s great economies has relied throughout history on the innovation and invention of immigrants. This is particularly the case in the United States, which is famously a nation of immigrants, where the architect of the Apollo program Wernher von Braun immigrated from Germany and Alexander Graham Bell the inventor of the telephone was born in Scotland. More recently immigration has been instrumental in the success of Silicon Valley co-founder of Google Sergey Brin is Russian born while the co-founder of Yahoo Jerry Yang came from Taiwan. [1] The new perspective brought by migrants leads to new breakthroughs, which are some of the most important benefits to receiving countries from migration. The exploitation of migrant workers that exists in the status quo creates tensions and prejudices that hamper this essential creative ability of migrants in the workplace.  Source countries are equally aided by migration. Able workers who would be unemployed in their home land are able to work in a new country, and then send money—“remittances”—back to their families. Migrants sent home $317 billion in remittances in 2009, which is three times the world’s total foreign aid, and in at least seven countries this money accounted for more than a quarter of the gross domestic product. [2] One of the important goals of migrant rights is to protect these remittances, and thus to protect the economies of source countries that require them to survive.  Irene Khan shows that migrant protections are important for everybody involved: "When business exploits irregular migrants, it distorts the economy, creates social tensions, feeds racial prejudice and impedes prospects for regular migration. Protecting the rights of migrant workers -- regular and irregular -- makes good economic and political sense for all countries -- whether source, destination or transit." [3] Both sides are likely to benefit more if migrants are welcomed and allowed to join the formal economy; they will be better able to work, they will pay taxes and national insurance to the host country and they themselves will be more secure so will be able to send more home. This benefit to the source state could be even greater if the benefits from paying national insurance were made portable and continue to be paid when they return.  [1] Marcus Wohlson, ‘Immigration chief seeks to reassure Silicon Valley’, USA Today, 22 February 2012,   [2] Human Rights Watch, "Saudi Arabia/GCC States: Ratify Migrant Rights Treaty," April 10th, 2003 ,  .  [3] Irene Khan, "Invisible people, irregular migrants," The Daily Star, June 7th, 2010 ,  .

The receiving countries to which most migrants move are the richest countries in the world so are able to afford increased protection. While migrants may sometimes cost these countries money in services like healthcare they are in countries that can afford to pay this cost. It should also not be assumed that migrants just take from the public purse. As most migrants are legal they also pay taxes. Even those who are illegal will still pay some taxes such as VAT or duties on cigarettes and alcohol. The UK government estimates that “in 1999/2000, ﬁrst generation migrants in the UK contributed £31.2 billion in taxes and consumed £28.8 billion in beneﬁts and public services – a net ﬁscal contribution of £2.5 billion”. [1] This will obviously vary from country to country but stories that immigrants are costing huge amounts and putting nothing into the collective pot are plain wrong.  [1] Home Office, The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration, A Cross-Departmental Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, October 2007, p.8,

There is plenty of international law on the books, and it is legitimate when it protects rights that ought to be universal for the individual, no matter what country you are in. The right to have a family is not a Chilean right, or a German right, or a Malaysian right; it is a human right. As is the right to work without being harassed. The huge increase in migration over the past two decades shows that individual well-being has developed into a more important concern in the world today than state sovereignty. Migrant protections are moral because they reflect this change.

Migration policy should be crafted on a state-by-state basis, allowing countries to protect their national identities.  Every state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to improve their protections in some standard manner. Instead, immigration policy and even rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis.  This approach would allow each state to pass a law that fits its needs, particularly those of protecting its national identity, which is a concern international law cannot approach. Maintaining an original ethnic and cultural structure is important to many states, especially those that are populated by one ethnic group. Is Israel, for example, wrong to term itself a "Jewish state"? There is nothing inherently wrong with its efforts to maintain this identity, even if that effort constrains the expansion of migrant rights.

Protection of migrants causes “brain drain,” which further damages the economies of source countries.  The countries from which workers emigrate often struggle from failing economies, and through migration they can lose their most skilled workers, who are needed at home to turn their economy around. Strengthened protections of migrants would further incentivize migration, and so brain drain would become more of a problem. India for example has seen more than 300,000 people migrate to the United States and more than 75% of these migrants had a tertiary education [1] meaning the vast majority of these migrants were among the most educated from a country where only 7% of the population is able to goes to university. [2]  [1] Carrington, William J., and Detragiache, Enrica, ‘How Extensive is the Brain Drain?’, Finance and Development, Volume 36, No. 2, June 1999,   [2] ‘When More Is Worse’, Newsweek, 8 August 2008,

Protections of migrants will hurt the economies of receiving countries by overcrowding them and taking away jobs from citizens.  Increasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Indeed, one policy goal of many migrant rights activists is for open borders and free and unrestricted migration across them. A right to family reunification would also increase migration. This can be problematic in many countries. It may worsen overpopulation problems, increase tensions between ethnic and/or religious groups, and raise unemployment rates. The economies of many receiving countries are barely managing to fight unemployment in the status quo. If migrants receive further protection, they will take more jobs, making it harder for citizens to find employment. Everybody should have the opportunity to work in his home country, but the economic protection of migrants overcrowds receiving countries, driving up unemployment. In America, for example, between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled workers is caused by immigration, and around 1,880,000 American workers lose their jobs every year because of immigration. [1] In addition to unemployment problems, overcrowding can have a variety of negative consequences affecting air pollution, traffic, sanitation, and quality of life. So, why are migrants deserving of "protection"? It should be the other way around: the national workers of a state deserve protection from migrant workers and the jobs they are taking.  [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, “Economic Costs.”  .

Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to further protect migrants because they often free ride on health, education, and welfare systems.  Because immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries, and so they should not be further protected. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons. [1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them, takes away from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling.  [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration," accessed June 30, 2011,  .

Those who are being ‘drained’ from the source countries are those who are more highly skilled and so in less need of protections in the first place as these people are leaving to find much more highly skilled and therefore highly paid jobs. The ‘brain drain’ may not be a drain at all, either on the source countries or the receiving country. In fact the ‘brain drain’ might be better considered as a ‘brain gain’. This is because the lure of migration means that individuals are much more likely to increase their education or learn skills with the intention of migrating. This decision to increase their human capital is a decision that would not have been made if the possibility of migration was not present. Of course in the short term much of this gain will migrate abroad as intended some will not and others will return home later. The result is therefore that both the source country and the receiving country have more highly skilled workforces. [1]  [1] Stark, Oded, ‘The New Economics of the Brain Drain’, World Economics, Vol 6, No. 2, April – June 2005, pp.137-140, p.137/8,

Universal migrant “protections” are an affront to state sovereignty.  International law, like the U.N. Migrant Rights Convention, and any international regulatory body that requires the nations of the world to increase protections for migrants would be a violation of state sovereignty. Not all international law is necessarily bad, but these protections go too far, because they force a huge burden on certain nations, and not others. It is fair for an international body to say that all nations should treat their citizens with equality and respect, but it is not fair to say that certain countries should have to provide for many citizens from less-well-off ones.

The effect of migration on unemployment is actually positive: it provides cheap labor for receiving countries, and lowers the supply of labor in source countries where employers can often not afford to pay sufficient wages to their workers. The claim that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens is unfounded. In the United States, for example, visa applications for skilled foreign workers are extremely difficult to receive and are limited to a small number of people. Foreign students at U.S. universities even need special authorization to work a summer job. Immigrants cannot undercut U.S. workers wages, taking their job away for less money, because foreign workers must be paid a minimum salary, mandated by law. [1] Even illegal immigrants who do not follow these regulations tend to take very-low-paying jobs that are unwanted by U.S. citizens and that would not otherwise exist.  [1] Farhad Sethna, “Immigrants Don’t Take Away U.S. Jobs!” Immigration Law Blog, July 9, 2009, accessed June 30, 2011,  .

While every state may have different issues and problems, the human rights of individuals must be protected by all of them. States may choose to protect their national identity and tradition through museums and festivals and other cultural institutions; it is not necessary that they keep migrants out, or suppress those who have already immigrated.

A repatriation policy will not effectively target this area of illegal immigration. Criminal networks will always find ways of smuggling people into a country and evading detection. All a repatriation policy will do is make these gangs more sophisticated when it comes to hiding illegal immigrants. This not only makes it more difficult to discover and undermine these networks, but also puts the illegal immigrants that are involved in these criminal activities at risk. If there is a standard repatriation policy for all illegal immigrants, vulnerable groups such as trafficked women are less likely to seek help, because not only is it likely that they will be repatriated, but they also put the lives of themselves and their families at risk by going through this procedure, rather than receiving anonymous help. As a result, illegal immigrants that are often at the bottom of criminal organisation will be worse off, while the criminal at the top will get more power over their victims.

Illegal immigration is facilitated by criminal networks  Repatriating illegal immigrants would lead to fewer opportunities for criminal networks to gain entry to the country. Illegal Immigration is linked to dangerous criminal activity such as people and drug trafficking, terrorism and the sex trade. An estimated 270 000 victims of human trafficking live in industrialized countries, of whom 43% are forced into commercial sexual exploitation, mostly women and girls1. This is both dangerous for those involved in illegal immigration but also increases the criminal activity in a country, putting lawful residents at risk. The state also has a duty to protect its citizens from the harms associated with illegal immigration. Illegal immigration fuels dangerous industries such as prostitution and the drug trade, repatriating illegal immigrants cuts off a vital source of labour for these industries and could contribute to the eradication of these industries.  1 UN.GIFT, "Human Trafficking: The Facts",, accessed 31 August 2011

It is impossible to prove that all illegal immigrants are a drain on the system and so their cost to society cannot be used as a justification for repatriation policies. Many illegal immigrants pay taxes in some way and actually contribute to the economy of a country. For instance, every time an illegal immigrant buys something, they pay the same amount of sales tax or VAT as any other person. Illegal immigrants do not always undercut the labour market. The illegal workforce is a necessary part of the economy because lawful residents do not want jobs such as casual labour, agricultural or domestic jobs. Illegal immigrants often provide vital services that would otherwise be too expensive or hard to find if regular workers were employed e.g. cleaning, childcare and manual labour. Goods would become too expensive to produce if, for example, parts of the agriculture industry had to employ lawful residents/migrants.

States have the sovereign right to control their own borders.  All states have sovereignty– the supreme authority within a territory 1.This includes the supreme authority to decide who should be allowed into and out of the country. Illegal immigrants have breached that sovereignty by arriving uninvited and attempting to circumvent checks. These people should be deported in order to maintain the sovereignty of the nation. The United Nations recognises the sovereign rights of members when it says “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."2 Who is allowed to be resident in the state is an internal consideration.  1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010,   2. Article 2, UN Charter,

There needs to be a tough stance to prevent illegal immigration.  The only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration is to take a hard-line stance and adopt policies of repatriation. This means that illegal immigrants, after it has been proven through a fair hearing that they have no legitimate reason to stay, will be granted a period of voluntary repatriation, where they receive counselling and help to return to their country. If this does not work, and the illegal immigrant wants to stay, he or she will forced to repatriate. Repatriation is needed because illegal immigrants are residing in a country which is different from their country of origin, without fulfilling the legal requirements to do so. They also do not make the same contributions to the state as other people do, such as paying taxes. This means that illegal immigrants are actively harming the legal system, the citizens of the country and legal immigrants. At the same time, the number of illegal immigrants is rising every year, with an estimated 11.5-12 million illegal immigrants living in the US alone1. These kind of numbers show that the rules on immigration need to come with tough sanctions to ensure that they are not exploited or broken in the future. Repatriation is necessary because it targets successful illegal immigrants and ensures a comprehensive immigration policy that aims to reduce illegal immigration. What this policy of repatriation will do, is that it firstly will reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, which will lead to a decline of harms caused by them. Secondly, it will act as a strong deterrence for future immigrants. Repatriation sends a message to potential illegal migrants that their presence in the country will not be tolerated and that any attempt to stay in the country illegally will be unsuccessful.  1 BBC News, "BBC guide on illegal immigration in the US", 2005, accessed 31 August 2011

There are many alternatives to a repatriation policy that will more effectively target the problems caused by illegal immigration. Countries can toughen border controls and have better systems in place for granting asylum. Voluntary repatriation is unworkable, even if accompanied by financial assistance, because many illegal immigrants want to stay in the country. Involuntary repatriation is inhumane and harmful because it restricts the freedom of movement for people, and separates them from their family and friends, whilst they are forced to go back to potentially harmful situations. Repatriation will not stop the numbers of people coming to the country. Illegal immigration does not occur because a country is a 'soft touch': very few, if any, countries have no problems with illegal immigration. The reasons behind immigration are social, political and economic and have nothing to do with an individual country's policy on illegal immigration. Those who turn to illegal immigration are often desperate and will pay no attention to the immigration policies of a country.

The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is an impossible task to start with, so if this policy is adopted and fails in its execution, this will lead to a greater loss of trust in the government. If immigration policies focus more on the integration of illegal immigrants, this will have a more beneficial effect than criminalizing them. Marking illegal immigrants as criminals that have to leave the country as soon as possible will actually incite more conflict between migrants and populists.

Costs of illegal migrants and harm to labour market  Illegal immigrants cost the state in money, time and resources. It is difficult to give an accurate number on the cost of illegal immigrants for the rest of the population (the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has come up with numbers as high as $1,183 per household in the state of California1), but they are likely to put a strain on resources by not paying taxes whilst demanding social services such as healthcare and education. As a result, they take taxpayer's money away from those who are lawfully entitled to use these services and put a burden on the state. Moreover, illegal immigrants undercut the labour market by accepting low wages and working under illegal conditions. This is harmful to lawful residents because it takes employment opportunities away from them and encourages employers to seek illegal labour in order to keep costs down. Removing the illegal workforce would increase the number of jobs available to lawful residents and force employers to pay fair wages and provide safe working conditions.  1 Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), "The Costs to Local Taxpayers for Illegal Aliens", 2006,, accessed 31 August 2011

Loss of trust in the government  Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migration policy. In the UK, opposition leader Ed Milliband has acknowledged that Labour had lost trust in the south by underestimating the number of illegal immigrants and the impact they would have on people's wages1. People believe that allowing those who have no right to remain in the country to stay on means the whole immigration system is broken. Legitimate migrants such as refugees, students and those with visas for work will be lumped together with illegal immigrants, and calls will grow for all forms of migration to be restricted. Populist feeling may also be inflamed against ethnic minorities, with increased social tensions.  1 BBC News, 2011,

Although it might be true that immigrants might be harmed by repatriation in some cases, the majority of illegal immigration takes place because of economic reasons, and those people can return safely. The United High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) sets the conditions for voluntary repatriation on the grounds of legal (absence of discrimination, free from persecution), physical (freedom from attack, safe routes for return) and material (access to livelihoods) safety1. If this is not the case, these people should be given temporary asylum. Victims of trafficking are usually given special protection, as is the case with the EU, which also imposes tough rules on criminals involved2.  1 Refugee Council Online, "Definitions of voluntary returns", accessed 31 August 2011  2 European Commission, "Addressing irregular immigration", 30 June 2011, , accessed 31 August 2011

Repatriation is a more direct solution to the problem, and it is not sure whether these alternatives would work. Tougher border controls will only result in immigrants finding better ways to avoid them; improving economical conditions in poor countries is a slow and insecure progress, and the situation in many developing countries in unlikely to improve anytime soon. Giving illegal immigrants temporary working visas will not stop some immigrants from staying in their host country after their visas have expired if they prefer the living conditions. Even in the case where they do decide to go back to their country of origin, this means the money they have earned will be spent there, and not in the country they have worked. This means the states loses out on revenue.

Repatriation is expensive and unrealistic  The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is impossible to realize, and this large-scale project would cost large sums of money. The Center for American Progress study released in March of 2010 concluded that a strategy aimed at deporting the US population of illegal immigrants would cost the government approximately $285 billion over five years. (A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for "every man, woman, and child in this country)."1 In separate research released in January, UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce US GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.1  The impracticality of repatriation lies not only in the costs of the transportation and the help given to immigrants, but also in the time and effort of finding all illegal immigrants. A repatriation policy would be never-ending and a waste of time and money. It would be better to target only those illegal immigrants who pose a proven risk of harm to society.  1. Apsan, 2010

Repatriation is immoral  The repatriation of illegal immigrants, even if it is not completely under coercion, is immoral. Even if the repatriation is 'voluntary', immigrants know they have no alternatives, and might agree to go back voluntary because the next step would be involuntary repatriation. This means that illegal immigrants are severely restricted in their freedom of movement. In the Western world, people can move around relatively easily, and this is seen as an inalienable right. To restrict this for people that do not come from this part of the world would be inhumane. Moreover, illegal immigrants have often built their lives in the country they reside in, having a family, sometimes children, work and a social circle. Often, children from illegal immigrants get citizenship because of their age, whilst their parents are repatriated. This forceful separation of children from their parents is a violation of their human rights, as article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the family is the natural unit in society which is entitled to state protection1. Separating children from their mother can be seen as a violation of this right.  1 United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948,, accessed 31 August 2011

Repatriation poses a danger for illegal immigrants  The system of repatriating illegal immigrants can be proven harmful for these immigrants on several levels. Some illegal immigrants, although they might not fall under the official category of refugees, have fled dangerous situations such as persecution, violation of human rights and severe poverty. In 2009, France and the UK sent back several migrants that had fled the Taliban to Afghanistan when the country was still at war1. To send these people back to their country of origin would be a severe attack on their liberty and security. Having a zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration will also make it harder for those who are trafficked to escape from criminal gangs because if they contact the authorities they will be sent home. This gives the criminals behind people-trafficking more power over their victims and will lead to worse living/working conditions in illegal industries.  1 The Telegraph, "France deports illegal Afghan migrants on joint Franco-British flight", 22 October 2009,, accessed 31 August 2009

Alternatives are better  There are alternatives to the repatriation of illegal immigrants that are much more attainable. First of all, there has to be more attention to the root causes of migration, rather than attacking the results. The money that would be spent on repatriation could be used for prevention of immigration by focusing on border controls and improving economic conditions in countries where migrants come from. Trade agreements between developed and developing countries could be improved, which gives poorer countries more opportunities to trade. Most illegal immigrants migrate to Western countries to earn money, so if there are more opportunities for foreign workers to operate legally and on a temporary basis, with the assurance that they can come back if needed, this will remove the current incentive for many illegal immigrants to stay in their host country.

The repatriation of illegal immigrants is not immoral because they do not have the right to be in that country in the first place. Laws are put in place to prevent people to live certain countries without a legitimate reason, and if these laws are wilfully breached, people must face the consequences. It is true that people have the right of freedom of movement, but this right is restricted to the borders of one's home country, and are widened by international agreements. But even then the freedom of movement can be restricted, even for people in Western countries. If we take the example of a European or an American that wants to go on holiday to a tropical island, we see that freedom of movements is relative. Legally this person can be free to go, but if he or she does not have money to pay a ticket or refuses to do so, this right can still be taken away.

It might be true that repatriation is a costly option, but so are other alternatives. Illegal immigrants are already putting a costly burden on the state by using its resources without giving much back. If this situation is left on its own, the long-term costs of keeping illegal immigrants might be higher than the relative short-term cost of repatriation. Alternatives, such as nationalisation of immigrants are also very costly and time-intensive, and would moreover encourages more potential migrants to come and obtain the country's nationality.

The reason western leaders have not been indicted is firstly, because their domestic judiciaries are strong and independent enough to be able to prosecute abuses when they occur. The ICC has a principle of complementarity where the ICC will only prosecute if the state themselves are unwilling or unable to prosecute. This is not the case in western countries where there is no difficulty putting members of government on trial – in the UK for example the environment secretary Chris Huhne was sent to prison for perverting the course of justice. [1] Secondly however, there is no evidence that these leaders were involved or responsible for atrocities in the same way the African leaders were. Western leaders have not authorized individual killings of civilians, or massacres, genocides or other crimes that are prosecuted by the ICC.  [1] Mr Justice Sweeney, ‘Chris Huhne and Vicky Price jailed: judge’s sentencing remarks in full’, The Telegraph, 11 March 2013

ICC treats Africa differently  Africa and its leaders are treated far more contemptuously by the court. The prospect of prosecuting Barak Obama for the killing of civilians by drones which Amnesty International has suggested amount to war crimes [1] or George W. Bush for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan is remote – yet Omar Al-Bashir and Uhuru Kenyatta have both been indicted as sitting leaders. The ICC will only prosecute if those who have committed war crimes are not going to be prosecuted locally but this is as much the case for western leaders as African ones. This points clearly to the ICC proselytizing what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to Africans but not to other leaders – treating these leaders less respectfully and blatantly undermining African nations sovereignty in a way they would not, or would dare not, for others.  [1] ‘USA must be held to account for drone killings in Pakistan’, Amnesty International, 22 October 2013

The need in most cases for a referral from the UNSC certainly makes it unlikely that those states will be investigated but this does not make the court biased against Africa. Some of the cases in Africa have involved countries or their judiciaries referring themselves. In the case of Kenya’s election violence in the five years after the violence occurred very little action occurred from the domestic forces; there was a commission lead by Philip Waki that recommended a special tribunal to prosecute those involved. [1] However this never happened as a result the Waki commission handed their report over to the UN and ICC for action [2] . Unsurprisingly the case of Kenyatta has seen accusations of witness intimidation on large scales, showing that a fair trial would have been very difficult to guarantee in Kenya itself [3] .  [1] Waki Report, October 2008, (large pdf)  [2] Wachira, Muchemi, ‘Annan did not ambush Kenya says Justice minister’, Daily Nation, 13 July 2009  [3] ‘Perceptions and Realities: Kenya and the International Criminal Court’, Human Rights Watch, 14 November 2013

Africa is overtly prosecuted  All of the twenty-four people currently indicted are African. Of the fifteen cases currently sitting before the court, all are African [1] . This in and of itself points to a large disparity between Africa and the rest of the world. It is also not at all true that Africa is the only place worthy of investigation – atrocities have occurred in the Middle East, Kosovo, Chechnya, Sri Lanka and North Korea, among others since the inception of the court. This is clearly because these other cases have powerful backers in the form of permanent Security Council members. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the ICC feels more comfortable targeting Africa then other regions where it is likely to run into opposition from powerful members of the international community.  [1] ‘Situations and cases’, International Criminal Court, accessed 13/2/2014

While Africa is the only continent to face prosecutions, a number of other regions where atrocities have taken place are being heavily investigated, including Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Honduras and South Korea [1] . These are expected to lead to prosecutions occurring. So while Africa has had the focus during the initial years of the ICC, its focus is expanding not just focused on African atrocities. It is not even solely focused on developing countries; a complaint about British actions in Iraq has been handed to the ICC. [2]  [1] ‘Situations and cases’, International Criminal Court, accessed 13/2/2014  [2] Owen, Jonathan, ‘Exclusive: Devastating dossier on ‘abuse’ by UK forces in Iraq goes to International Criminal Court’, The Independent, 12 January 2014

ICC is controlled by the Security Council  The ICC can only investigate situations that are referred to it by either the host country, or the Security Council [1] . A power also exists for the prosecutor to seek investigation, though this has as yet only been used twice. As such, most atrocities that occur across the world are shielded from prosecution because such a prosecution would be against the interests of a member Security Council. Leaders do not seem to be brought for investigation until they offend the west; Charles Taylor was not prosecuted until he had a falling out with the USA, despite their soft support for him in overthrowing the Doe regime [2] . Another case in point is Uganda where the Lord’s Resistance Army has been charged, but not the Pro-US government forces, despite evidence existing they have also committed crimes [3] . It is clear then that the ICC makes decisions by broad external factors, which biases it against Africa which does not have any countries on the UNSC or any patrons sitting on the council.  [1] States parties to Rome Statute, ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, ICC, 2011  [2] ‘Charles Taylor – preacher, warlord, president’, BBC News, 13 July 2009  [3] ‘ICC, A Tool To Recolonise Africa’, African Business

The point isn’t that the ICC has prosecuted in Africa; it’s that they have focused exclusively on Africa. This presents the rhetoric that Africa and Africans are somehow more violent and less moral then the rest of the world – or that Africans require more intervention than other places. This biases Africa again the rest of the world and marginalizes them in the international community.

While these countries referred themselves, they did under enormous pressure from the ICC. The Prosecutors chose to ‘follow closely’ African cases to the exclusion of others and then actively invited these countries to refer themselves, under threat of seeking prosecutions on their own if the country did not comply [1] . Self-referral under pressure does not show that the ICC is not biased against Africa rather it shows either that the ICC has been more interested in Africa than elsewhere, or that it has put more pressure on African states to self-refer.  [1] African Business

Africa has a strong voice in the ICC  The ICC has gone to great lengths to involve all parts of the world in all aspects of its operations. Fatou Bensouda, from Gambia, was recently appointed Chief Prosecutor of the ICC. Moreover, Africans have twice been Vice-President of the court, and have had a fair representation of judges presiding over the court, with five of twenty-one current judges on the panel [1] . Moreover, the Africa Union played a large role in the negotiations over the Rome statute and the creation of the ICC, reflected in the large proportion of countries who are members. [2] As such, Africa’s voice is strongly heard in the ICC.  [1] ‘Judge Sang-Hyun Song re-elected President of the International Criminal Court for 2012-2015; Judges Sanji Mmasenono Monageng and Cuno Tarfusser elected First and Second Vice-President respectively’, International Criminal Court, 11 March 2012  [2] M urithi, Tim, ‘The African Union and the international Criminal Court: An Embattled Relationship’, IJR Policy Brief, no.8 March 2013, pp.1-2

The ICC is pursuing the gravest situations within its jurisdiction  The ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to those countries that have ratified the Rome statute. This combined with the likelihood of deadlock in the UNSC, means that many of the worst conflicts are off limits for the ICC. Using data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program and UNHCR database since the Rome Statute came into effect in July 2002 (up to 2011) Ben Shea of the UCLA Law School finds that there has been little bias against Africa.  Not only have most of the gravest conflicts taken place in Africa but the countries that were not investigated are not party to the Rome Statute. This eliminates Algeria, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Palestine, Russia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Yemen and Zimbabwe. Others such as Liberia, and the Philippines only signed up after their conflict had ended. Others such as Columbia, Georgia and Mexico can be eliminated due to Complementarity (where the states are willing to investigate themselves).  In conclusion “Despite the fact that several very grave conflicts outside of Africa have occurred sometime between 2003 and 2011, once taking into account the jurisdictional obstacles of the ICC, only one country remains: Afghanistan. The fact that Afghanistan has been under preliminary examination by the ICC suggests that the Court is not biased toward Africa.” [1]  [1] Shea, Ben, ‘Is the International Criminal Court targeting Africa inappropriately’, ICCForum, 17 March 2013 , Ben’s analysis is much more detailed than we have room for here so do read it for yourself.

African victims deserve ICC intervention to bring justice  At the most fundamental level, many of the world’s atrocities of recent times have occurred in Africa, where weak government and mass war are rampant. Taken per head of population Africa has the most conflicts of any continent and unlike Asia its most brutal conflicts have occurred in the last couple of decades. [1] As such, it is not surprising that a focus has existed in Africa from the ICC. That the ICC has not been as strong in other continents is not evidence of bias against Africa, rather that they have work to do in other areas. But the victims of atrocities in Africa deserve their perpetrators to be brought to justice. As such, Africa is not a ‘victim’ of the ICC, but the greatest beneficiary. Africa had the greatest desire and push for international assistance in obtaining justice, and are now receiving that. This simply shows that Africa is forging a path that other regions should follow in terms of its acceptance of international criminal law.  [1] Straus, Scott, ‘Wars do end! Changing patterns of political violence in sub-Saharan Africa’, African Affairs, 111/143, March 2012, pp.179-201, p.186

Africa has invited ICC intervention  Far from the ICC being biased against Africa it is Africa’s embrace of the ICC and the opportunity for international justice that has led to so many Africans being tried at the Hague. The reality is that the only nations to refer themselves to the ICC have been African –the DR Congo, Central African Republic, Mali and Uganda were all self-referred [1] . Likewise, the Ivory Coast referred itself to ICC jurisdiction, and referral of Darfur to the ICC from the Security Council was done so with the African Union’s support [2] . The ICC has clearly not as an institution been targeting Africa, rather it has been investigating, and then engaging in trials on situations that have been brought to it by the countries involved. Other regions of the world have not embraced the opportunity for justice in the same way so it is taking longer for investigations into war crimes in those situations by the ICC.  [1] Clark, P. “Law, Politics and Pragmatism: The ICC and case selection in the DRC and Uganda” in Justice Peace and the ICC in Africa at 37.  [2] Lamony, Stephen A., ‘Is the International Criminal Court really picking on Africa?’, African Arguments, 16 April 2013

That the ICC is investigating the conflicts that under some analyses may be the gravest within its jurisdiction does not mean it is not biased. Complementarity in itself shows bias; it allows countries that are considered more developed off the hook ensuring that the ICC will only look at the least developed. African states have signed up to the ICC but the result of their belief in international criminal justice has been that those who attempt to avoid international justice by not signing up to the statute have succeeded while those who accept some form of justice have been targeted.

One of strongest current criticisms of the African Union is that the ICC is ignoring its opinions. In particular, the AU has very strong views on the treatment of the Kenyan President and his deputy by the ICC in the Kenyan investigation, which the ICC has failed to engage with. Tanzanian President, Jakaya Kikwete, said 'The ICC continues to ignore repeated requests and appeals by the African Union' and this 'attitude has become a major handicap that fails to reconcile the court's secondary and complementary role in fighting impunity' [1] . This has led to African Union seriously considering leaving the union – not evidence of them being an important part of the process. Having Africans as a part of the ICC itself does not mean it listens to the African states that are parties to it.  [1] Dersso, Solomon, ‘Unplanned obsolescence: The ICC and the African Union’, AlJazeera, 11 October 2013

Britain should not feel sorry for the new EU members and give up its rebate out of pity for them. They chose to enter the EU and accepted the terms of membership - including the rebate arrangements. Indeed, it could be argued that membership was not necessarily good for the former communist states - having escaped one bureaucratic and ideological superstate, they have now chosen to be ruled by another, exchanging Moscow for Brussels. EU membership will impose thousands of unnecessary regulations upon them and tie them to a “European social model” which is clearly failing in the western states - both these things could hold back their economic growth and leave them poorer than they could have been outside the EU. Even the development aid they will receive will largely be wasted because it has to be spent in ways Brussels demands rather than in locally productive investment.  And if Britain did wish to be nice to the new member states, it could do so without giving up the principle of the rebate. Tony Blair agreed to alter the rebate in December 2005. Britain would not seek rebate payments linked to new member states agricultural and regional aid spending, but should keep the rebate in terms of spending of the original 15 EU countries who agreed .

New member states are much poorer than the UK  Britain should give up the rebate in solidarity with the new member states. Most of the ten recent entrants to the EU are still struggling to overcome the legacy of communist rule and are much poorer than the previous 15 member states. In 2009 Bulgaria and Romania had less than half the average EU GDP per capita whereas the UK was about 120% EU average. [1] As one of the richest EU members, Britain has a moral responsibility to contribute its share of the money needed to allow the new member states to make a success of EU membership. It also has a self-interest in contributing to their economic development, for as they become richer their citizens will increasingly buy the services and media exports in which Britain specialises. Indeed, because the rebate is paid for by all member states the new member states will be contributing payments towards Britain’s rebate - clearly something which Britain cannot attempt to defend given the disparity in wealth.  [1] Eurostat, ‘European economic statistics’, 2010, p.31

It might be worth giving up the British rebate for serious CAP reform, but it is unnecessary. If the CAP were abolished, Britain’s net payments to the EU would automatically be much smaller anyway, so the rebate (66% of the difference between the UK’s contributions to the EU and its receipts from it) would also shrink away to insignificance. CAP reform is worth doing for its own sake, and other EU countries will only agree to it once they realise that fact - offering up the rebate will make no difference. In any case, even if the rebate was a useful bargaining chip to be cashed in, there is no chance of individual countries such as France (or Eire, Spain, Greece, Italy, Belgium, etc.) agreeing to changing the CAP at present and any one country could prevent it, so Britain should hold on to the rebate card.

Enlargement could mean a new start  Britain should not alienate its natural allies among the new member states by insisting on the rebate. Like Britain, the new member states are largely economically liberal, anti-federalist regarding the future of the EU, and are pro-American in terms of foreign policy. As a result Britain is much more likely to be able to work with Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary on these issues. [1] They also recognise that Britain promoted the cause of their membership throughout the 1990s and appreciate its willingness to grant immediate free movement to their citizens who wish to work in Britain. In all these ways they are closer to Britain than to France or Germany, the two big states who have traditionally dominated EU decision-making. Enlargement presents Britain with a great opportunity to influence the future direction of Europe in partnership with these new states, but this opportunity will be lost if British insists on the rebate regardless of Central and Eastern European opinion.  [1] Number 10, ‘Transcript of press conference given by the Prime Minister David Cameron at the EU Summit in Brussels on 17 December 2010’, 2010

The Rebate is not justified  The British rebate is an undeserved anomaly - no other country has a similar arrangement to pay back part of its contribution to the EU budget. Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden all make a bigger net contribution to the EU than Britain does (in proportion to the size of their populations), [1] yet they do get special treatment. Britain knew how the EU operated when it chose to join more than thirty years ago - if it didn’t like the structure of the budget, whereby rich countries pay more than poor ones, it could have stayed outside. In any case, a few billion Euros a year is a small sum to pay for access to a huge continent-wide market, the department for Business Innovation &amp; Skills estimated that GDP in 2006 was 2.2% higher than it would have been without a single market, [2] in Britain this would be almost $50billion.  [1] BBC News, ‘EU Budget’, 2007  [2] BIS, ‘The Benefits and Achievements of EU Single Market’

While the UK is the only country to have so far received a rebate the Commission pointed out that the Fontainbleu agreement was based on the principle that ‘….any Member State sustaining a budgetary burden which is excessive in relation to its relative prosperity may benefit from a correction at the appropriate time.’ [1] This could clearly apply to many other countries apart from Britain, Germany and other countries could therefore ask for a rebate if they wish. While there is no other compensation mechanism like the rebate there are lump sum payments to the Netherlands and Sweden [2] while Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Austria all have reduced rates of the European portion of VAT, [3] and the same states also pay less towards the rebate. [4]  [1] Patterson, Ben, ‘The UK rebate issue’, p.2 (link downloads pdf)  [2] Europa, ‘Where does the money come from?’, 2010  [3] Notenboom, Harry, ‘Structure and composition of the European Union own resources System’, 2009, p.17  [4] Ibid, p.15

Britain can be on good terms with the East European states without dropping the rebate. Tony Blair in his deal on the rebate in 2005 gave a good deal to the new members of the EU which gave much more in structural funds to these members and at the same time reduced the British rebate. [1]  [1] White, Michael, and Watt, Nicholas, ‘Blair clinches deal with offer of big rebate cut’, 2005

Britain does not want to be at the heart of Europe - it wants to be in the EU, but not run by the EU. Even if the rebate went, the UK would remain outside any EU “core group” of countries, as it has chosen not to join the Schengen agreement on passport free movement, and to stay outside the Euro. Both these decisions have very wide political and popular support in the UK, and neither will be changed even if the rebate was weakly given away. So tensions will continue between Britain and its European partners, but at least by defending the rebate they will know that the UK is prepared to stand up for its interests and respect it.

The rebate should go in exchange for CAP reform  It is worth giving the rebate up in exchange for serious reform of the EU budget, particularly of the Common Agricultural Policy which spends 40% of the EU’s budget [1] on 3% of its population. [2] The CAP not only wastes taxpayers’ money, it also raises the cost of food for European consumers, ruins the environment and prevents poor farmers in the developing world from trading their way out of poverty. Even in its own terms it is a disaster, for most CAP money goes to a small number of rich landowners running huge agribusiness estates, not to small-scale peasant farmers preserving the traditional rural way of life. If offering to give up the British rebate helps to get agreement on reform, then it is a sacrifice well worth making. Britain on the other hand favors using CAP more to protect the environment rather than encourage food production. [3]  [1] Europa, ‘Budget 2011 in figures’, 2011  [2] Eurobarometer, ‘Europeans, Agriculture and the Common Agricultural Policy’, 2007, p.9  [3] Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013’, 2011

Giving up the rebate would mean better relations with the Europe Union  It is worth giving up the rebate to remove a constant source of tension and ill-feeling between Britain and its European partners. Until the rebate is abandoned, Britain will never be at the heart of Europe. This limits our ability to promote our other interests in Europe, as every argument always ends up back at the rebate, and weakens our moral authority. Denmark for example is similarly Euro sceptic but is fiercely opposed to the UK rebate and aims to scrap it during Denmark’s next EU Presidency in 2012. [1] Because preserving the rebate has always been the Prime Minister’s priority, every other British goal has been given up instead. This led to bad deals for Britain over the ERM, at Maastricht, and in 2002 when Tony Blair accepted a Franco-German agreement to leave the CAP unreformed until 2013. This is because Britain is inevitably on its own in any possible change to the rebate whereas on almost any other issue Britain has allies. So when Britain’s opponents can link the rebate to an issue Britain may be able to keep the rebate but will in other respects be on the losing side. [2]  [1] Jensen, Arne Nis, ‘The UK rebate – or rethinking the EU budget?’, 2011, p.27  [2] Rennie, David, and Helm, Toby, ‘Blair is all alone in Britain’s EU rebate row’, 2005

When the rebate was agreed over twenty years ago, Britain was poor after decades of decline. In fact it was the third poorest state in the then European Economic Community (after Ireland and Greece) [1] , so the size of its net contribution to the budget was clearly unfair. Now the UK is one of the EU member countries and the rebate is no longer justifiable in the way it was originally justified. The sums involved are small compared to the overall UK budget - much less than the margin of error in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s tax and spending plans, in 2003 for example Gordon Brown had to borrow £10 billion more than expected. [2] It is partly (perhaps largely) because of Margaret Thatcher’s achievements in power that the UK is so strong economically, so agreeing that the rebate is no longer necessary is a tribute to her legacy, not a betrayal.  [1] OECD, ‘1984, Gross domestic product: Per head, US $, constant prices, constant PPPs, OECD base year’, 2011  [2] Schifferes, Steve, ‘Chancellor to squeeze wages’, 2003

With the expansion of the European Union it is no longer justified that Britain should not be paying more towards the European Union, and in particular the much poorer Eastern European states which have joined. Britain cannot expect to get as much back from the European Union as it puts in. Britain should accept being one of the biggest contributors and in return would get a bigger influence one the EU, rather than being constantly frozen out of decisions by France and Germany.

The Rebate makes membership acceptable to the British people  The EU is a vast wasteful bureaucracy, for example creating a ‘House of European History’ for €14 million, [1] and is beyond reform. Anything to limit Britain’s contribution to this monster with pretensions to becoming a super-state is desirable. Many in the UK, between 35 and 65% of the population, [2] would prefer that we withdrew altogether, but if we can’t at least we should “starve the beast” by limiting the amount of money we give it to do harm with. Even if you think Britain should stay in the EU, you must recognise that the rebate is one of the only things that makes EU membership acceptable to ordinary people. Giving up the rebate is likely to swing British opinion strongly in favour of withdrawal.  [1] Banks, Martin, ‘Parliament hits back at claims of ‘wasteful’ spending plans’, 2011  [2] Hannan, Daniel, ‘Would Britain vote to leave the EU?’, 2009

Europe needs to tackle much bigger problems  Those EU leaders who are most critical of the rebate are ignoring the EU’s real and serious problems by spending large amounts of time in rows with Britain over the rebate. Europe has immense problems such as persistent 10% unemployment, which has gone up as a result of the financial crisis, the rejection of the EU constitution by voters, the challenge of globalisation, the failure to make the single market in services work fairly, corruption and waste at Brussels, etc. This is even before the immense difficulties with the Euro which the Eurozone is currently suffering from. All these issues are much more important than the rebate for the future of the European Union. If Europe can once again become competitive economically then the financial gains for Europe will be much greater than persuading Britain to drop the rebate.

The rebate could never be regained  Margaret Thatcher fought for four years to win the rebate for Britain, famously wielding her handbag at EU summits until it was agreed. Giving it up is a clear betrayal of Thatcher’s legacy and shows the present government’s unwillingness to stand up for Britain’s interests in Brussels. With the situation now different due to there being more members there is no chance of any future British Prime Minister being able to repeat Mrs Thatcher’s achievement of 1984, so once the rebate is given up, it can never be regained.

Britain should not pay more than other countries  Britain’s rebate is completely justified. Without it Britain would pay far more into the EU than it ever received back. The UK government argues “Without the rebate, the UK's net contribution as a percentage of national income would be twice as big as France's, and 1.5 times bigger than Germany's.” [1] This is because most of the EU’s budget goes to pay for the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy and regional aid programmes. The UK’s farming sector is a very small part of the economy, and very few of its regions count as poor in Europe-wide terms, so Britain receives little funding back from the EU. Meanwhile as a result of new members joining the EU development funding has been taken away from poorer areas of Britain, many of which will no longer be eligible, to be redirected to Eastern and Central European countries which need it much more, [2] Britain’s net contribution to the EU budget will go up .The rebate recognises this and returns two-thirds of the UK’s net EU contribution (payments less receipts) every year. Even with the rebate, the UK is still the second biggest net contributor (proportional to population) of all the EU states. Over the past ten years Britain has contributed 2½ times as much to the EU budget as France has [3] - and without the rebate it would have been 15 times as much!  [1] BBC News, ‘EU budget commissioner calls for UK rebate to end’, 2010  [2] European Union Committee, ‘Future Financing of the European Union’, 2005, p.154  [3] The Economist, ‘About a rebate’, 2005

There may be bigger problems but the rebate is symptomatic of many of them. The reason for many of Europe’s problems is the determination for member states to take from the EU but not give and to haggle over everything rather than working together. The rebate is a prime example of one state believing that it deserves a small amount of money more than others and as such should be scrapped in order to help show that both big and small problems can be tackled through one state being willing to give up something important to it in return for others doing the same on other issues.

The rebate is bad for Britain and the EU as it leads to a complacency in the UK about the way the EU is run. Knowing that two-thirds of Britain’s net contribution will be returned anyway, British politicians and civil servants have not had to be serious about tackling waste and corruption at Brussels. Giving the rebate up would focus British minds much more clearly upon how the EU operates and would lead them to demand higher standards, both of the Commission and of their own elected representatives in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

This is all supposition; we have no way of knowing if Syria will test any set red lines, or that they will use chemical weapons if there is no response. Instead it may be the response that causes the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian Foreign Ministry has said in the past that chemical and biological weapons “will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression.” [1] Clearly an intervention aiming to stop the use of chemical weapons would constitute just such external aggression.  [1] Associated Press, ‘Syrian regime makes chemical warfare threat’, guardian.co.uk, 23 July 2012,

No reaction will embolden the regime  Not responding to Syrian moves to use chemical weapons will be enabling the Syrian government to use chemical weapons. It has already been reported that some chemical weapons are being made ready for use such as the combining of the two chemical precursors, isopropanol and methylphosphony difluoride, needed to weaponize sarin gas. It means that “Physically, they’ve gotten to the point where the can load it up on a plane and drop it”. [1] If there is no response to this then Syria will be more likely to use weapons.  If there is no response to the limited use of chemical weapons, such as the use of Agent 15 in Homs, then there the regime will be encouraged to think that there will be no response to larger uses of chemical weapons. Syria would slowly escalate to see what it can get away with, an escalation that US officials think could “lead to a mass-casualty event” without the appropriate response. [2]  [1] Shachtman, Noah, and Ackerman, Spencer, ‘Exclusive: U.S. Sees Syria Prepping Chemical Weapons for Possible Attack’, Wired Danger Room, 3 December 2012,   [2] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013,

Attacking chemical weapons stores prevents a threat in itself as it runs the risk of blowing up the weapons and therefore dispersing them into the air. [1] This risk would potentially be even higher with any biological weapons as they would not become harmless through dispersal as Chemical weapons would.  Quite apart from the risks of setting off the arsenals when attacking them such attacks would be very unlikely to be successful. While Syria’s chemical weapons may be held in a few large centers this would seem to be unlikely given the history of attacks on unconventional weapons programs. Syria itself has had a nuclear weapons program destroyed as a result of an Israeli air attack in 2007. [2] This would have been a powerful lesson in the need to disperse these weapons to prevent their destruction from the air.  [1] ‘Preventing Syrian Chemical Weapons Threat From Becoming Deadly Reality’, PBS Newshour, 5 December 2012,   [2] Harel, Amos, ‘Five years on, new details emerge about Israeli strike on Syrian reactor’, Haaretz, 10 September 2012,

Intervention would be legitimate  If Syria uses, or looks as if it is about to use, chemical weapons then this would be a clear escalation that would require action. Syria has never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention [1] but it should be considered to be a part of customary international law so binding even on those who have not signed. [2]  The use of chemical weapons would also clearly be an attempt to cause huge numbers of casualties and large scale suffering. In 2005 with the United Nations World Summit the nations of the world signed up to “If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations.” [3] So any intervention would be fully justifiable, and indeed should occur as Syria would be demonstrating that it is “failing to protect its populations” by using chemical weapons on them. There is no doubt that the world has a moral responsibility to prevent atrocities in Syria, these atrocities are already happening, but the world cannot stand by while the Syrian government escalates their scale through the use of chemical weapons.  [1] ‘Non-Member States’, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,   [2] ‘United States of America Practice Relating to Rule 74. Chemical Weapons’, ICRC, 2013,   [3] Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, United Nations, 2012,

Intervention would only be legitimate if it was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council or another country came directly under attack. What is being suggested while abhorrent does not meet either of these conditions. The Security Council is unlikely to agree to an intervention now and Syria would be very foolish to use their chemical weapons on a neighbour so inviting attack. The use of chemical weapons may be banned by international law but that does not mean that their use authorizes an intervention against a sovereign nation. [1]  [1] Ku, Julian, ‘Would Syria’s Use of Chemical Weapons Change the Legality of U.S. Intervention?’, Opinio Juris, 7 December 2012,

No fly zones and bombing could eliminate the threat of chemical weapons  One of the reasons why there has not been an intervention in Syria already is the difficulty of doing so. Preventing or limiting the use of chemical weapons however does represent a defined objective that is smaller, and therefore easier, than bringing peace to Syria. It however has to be accepted that if Assad’s regime is determined to use chemical weapons then some are likely to get through and how much is prevented is largely dependent on intelligence.  Interdicting chemical weapons during transport and bombing the storage facilities to make it much more difficult to move the weapons would be easiest to accomplish. [1] But if chemical weapons are about to be used then attacking the delivery vehicles would be necessary; any intervention would have overwhelming air superiority so would prevent the option of aircraft and helicopters being used to deliver the weapons.  More difficult to destroy are ballistic missiles, and particularly artillery [2] but even these are much easier to hit than infantry would be. In the conflict against Gaddafi successfully used precision guided weapons to destroy tanks and artillery. [3] Moreover an intervening force would not need to destroy every missile and artillery brigade only find those that are being issued with chemical weapons.  [1] Eisenstadt, Michael, ‘Chemical Reaction’, Foreign Policy, 18 January 2013,   [2] Fargo, Matthew, ‘Targeting Syria’s Chemical Weapons – A Dangerous Proposition’, Center for Strategic &amp; International Studies, 25 July 2012,   [3] Hebert, Adam J., ‘Libya: Victory Through Airpower’, Airforce-Magazine.com, December 2011,

According to Russia Syria has centralised its chemical weapons into just one or two locations which makes it possible to attack and destroy the weapons comparatively easily. [1] This might not destroy all Syria’s chemical weapons but would still severely restrict their access to these weapons.  [1] ‘Syria ‘secures chemical weapons stockpile’’, Al Jazeera, 23 December 2012,

All killing is abhorrent and one life is worth as much as any other. But while the lives lost are the same it is not true that the use of chemical weapons to kill is the same as conventional weapons; the difference is that one is banned and the other is not, their use makes intervention possible in a way it is not during a conventional conflict. The threat from chemical weapons is also of an order of magnitude greater than that of conventional weapons. They can kill immense numbers quickly and indiscriminately. The use of chemical weapons is an escalation that must not be allowed to happen.

The use of weapons may not change the diplomatic situation  Russia and China have been vetoing U.N. action on Syria throughout the crisis. [1] It is precisely the intervention to prevent a massacre that the Russians and Chinese are trying to avoid, for fear that this would simply be a pretext for regime change as happened in Libya. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has explicitly stated “We’ll not allow the Libyan experience to be reproduced in Syria.” [2] When Obama said that chemical weapons use was a red line Xinhua, China’s state news agency, responded “Obama's "red line" warnings merely aimed to seek new pretext for Syria intervention” urging continued negotiations instead. [3] While the use of chemical weapons is odious and would make Assad even more of a pariah than he already is it should be remembered that China supports an equally odious regime in North Korea, so may not see Chemical weapons as sufficient reason to change position.  [1] Lynch, Colum, ‘Russia, China veto U.N. action on Syria … and the blame game begins’, Foreign Policy Turtle Bay, 4 February 2012,   [2] ‘Russia Rules Out Libyan Scenario in Syria’, RIANovosti, 9 December 2012,   [3] Chang, Liu, ‘Obama’s “red line” warnings merely aimed to seek new pretext for Syria intervention’, Xinhua, 22 August 2012,

Cannot prevent the use of chemical weapons  No intervention could prevent the use of chemical weapons of the Assad regime had decided to use them. No outside force could ever be certain they know where all Syria’s weapons are [1] and destroy them in time if they were distributed for use; even full scale air strikes might not be enough, the pentagon thinks it would require 75,000 troops to secure the arsenal in the event of Syria’s collapse. [2] The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, admits that even if acting before the use of Chemical weapons by the Syrian government the United States would not be able to stop their use. "The act of preventing the use of chemical weapons would be almost unachievable... because you would have to have such clarity of intelligence, you know, persistent surveillance, you'd have to actually see it before it happened, and that's -- that's unlikely, to be sure," [3] If widespread chemical weapons use had already occurred then the intervention could hardly be to prevent their use in the first place but to punish their use. Responding to the use of chemical weapons would seem to be pointless; the deaths will have occurred already. Syria may have more chemical weapons in its arsenal still to use but an attack would simply make them more likely to use everything they have.  [1] Stares, Paul B., ‘Preventing Chemical Weapons Use in Syria’, Council on Foreign Relations, 19 December 2012,   [2] Alexander, Kris, ‘Syria’s Collapse Could be a Chem Weapon Nightmare’, Wired Danger Room, 16 July 2012,   [3] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013,

Do chemical weapons really make a difference?  Chemical and biological weapons are among the most horrifying weapons ever created by man; it is with good cause that they are banned. However if there have already been 60,000 [1] people killed by the conflict in Syria then would the use of chemical weapons, unless it was on a massive scale, would not make much difference in terms of the numbers of people the Assad regime is killing. [2] It is morally inconsistent to consider chemical weapons somehow different if they are not changing the scale of the killing. It is human lives that matter, or rather does not matter as has been made clear by the unwillingness to do anything, not the type of weapon that kill those people. If Syria kills a few thousand more by using chemical weapons then what is the difference to killing thousands more using conventional weapons?  [1] ‘Data suggests Syria death toll could be more than 60,000, says UN human rights office’, UN News Centre, 2 January 2013,   [2] Eisenstadt, Michael, ‘Chemical Reaction’, Foreign Policy, 18 January 2013,

The use of chemical weapons would change the Chinese and Russian positions. Syrian officials have been reported as saying they would not use chemical weapons because “We would not commit suicide” as the support from Russia and China would be lost. [1] While China and Russia do have interests in Syria these interests are nothing like those China has in maintaining the North Korean regime.  [1] Blair, Charles P., ‘Why Assad Won’t Use His Chemical Weapons’, Foreign Policy, 6 December 2012,

Just because the Scots are less Europhobic than the English does not mean they are actually natural Europhiles. There is still a fair amount of euroscepticism in Scotland [quote=Prof. John Curtice] The rise of UKIP is also evident here albeit at a lower level [1] [/quote]. When Scots were asked 'Which institution do you think has most influence over how Scotland is run?' in 2012 9% thought the EU did, when the question was changed to 'Which institution do you think ought to have most influence over how Scotland is run?' Only 1% said the EU, which certainly implies a degree of Euroscepticism. [2] One poll asking the question 'if Scotland were independent do you think it should join the EU?' even got a no answer, with 49% saying no and 32% saying yes. [3]  Indeed Scotland was more anti-european in the 1975 referendum on Europe than England. 41.6% of Scots voted no to joining the European Community compared to 31.3% of English. [4] Scottish attitudes towards the EC/EU changed in the 1980s as Thatcher was becoming increasingly Europhobic. Because of this shift some academics think that the Scottish pro-european sentiment is a result of anti-Tory feeling rather than a judgement on Europe itself. [5] If this is the case then once independence removes the threat of Tory government Scottish attitudes to Europe might well shift back into a more anti-European position.  [1] BBC Newsnight Scotland, 25 October 2013 01:12 am  [2] What Scotland Thinks, ‘Which Institution do you think has most influence over how Scotland is run?’, 2012,    [3] What Scotland Thinks, ‘If Scotland were independent do you think it should join the EU? ’, 2012   [4] Wikipedia, ‘United Kingdom European Community membership referendup 1975’, accessed 4 November 2013,   [5] Carrell, Severin, ‘Salmond’s EU crisis: polling suggests Scottish voters care’, theguardian.com, 7 November 2012,

Scotland is more pro-EU than the rest of the UK  According to a February 2013 Ipsos-mori poll Scots want an EU referendum but 53% would vote to stay in the EU and only 34% would vote to leave. Indeed if Scotland became independent those who wanted it to be in the EU rose to 61% and the number who wanted out fell to 33%. [1] In England 48% would vote to leave (as of November 2012) and 44% would vote to stay in. [2] The UK Independence Party whose principal policy platform is a desire to leave the EU has performed considerably worse in Scotland than in England. In the 2010 general election UKIP received 3.1% of the vote [3] whereas in the Scottish election the next year they only received 0.9% of the vote. [4] Similarly in the 2009 European Parliament elections UKIP came second nationally receiving almost 2.5 million votes, 16.5% [5] of all votes cast but in Scotland it came 6th, beaten by all four main parties and the Greens receiving only 5.2% of the vote. [6] Scots clearly believe their interests lie with Europe and it would be better for Scotland not to be tied to a country where sentiment is considerably more negative towards the EU.  [1] McLean, Christopher, ‘Scots want EU referendum but would vote to stay in’, Ipsos MORI, 14 February 2013,   [2] Social Research Institute, ‘British public split on our future with the European Union’, Ipsos MORI, 15 November 2012,   [3] BBC News, ‘National Results’, Election 2010,   [4] BBC News, ‘Scotland elections’, Vote 2011,   [5] BBC News, ‘European Election 2009: UK Results’, Elections 2009,   [6] BBC News, ‘European Election 2009: Scotland’, Elections 2009,

On the vast majority of issues rUK and Scotland have the same interests. Scotland wants to retain the UK’s opt outs on issues such as the free movement of people and the Euro. Scotland also has the same interests on the main issue for the EU; trade. Nicola Sturgeon has highlighted the benefit to Scotland of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership something that the UK is also strongly in favour of. [1]  [1] Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013,

An independent Scotland would avoid having a referendum on EU membership  The Scottish National Party (SNP) has said that they would not hold an EU referendum in an independent Scotland. Scotland is [quote=Nicola Sturgeon] regardless of the direction of UK policy - Scotland is strongly committed to continuing within the EU as an independent nation [1] [/quote] A vote for independence would therefore be a vote for a stable relationship with Europe.  Interestingly should Scotland become independent and accede to the EU there would have to be a treaty change to provide for Scottish representation in EU institutions. [2] This could well trigger an EU referendum in the remainder of the UK (rUK) under the 'referendum lock'.  [1] Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013,  §9  [2] Avery, Graham, ‘HC 643 The foreign policy implications of and for a separate Scotland, Foreign Affairs Select Committee, 24 September 2012,  point 6.

The SNP's strongest argument, repeatedly made, is that independence would allow Scots to make their own decisions. It would therefore be only right that Scots whether independent or not should be allowed their own referendum on EU membership. The principle of a referendum on EU membership is supported by 58% of Scots with only 36% opposing a referendum. [1] A vote for independence would therefore seem to be a vote in favour of the validity of referendums legitimising the need to have referendums on similarly large issues in the future. A vote for an independent Scotland is not necessarily a vote for a stable relationship with Europe.  [1] McLean, Christopher, ‘Scots want EU referendum but would vote to stay in’, Ipsos MORI, 14 February 2013,

Scotland has different interests to rUK  States are often seen as having one single unitary interest, however this is not the case the interests of different regions can be very different. It should therefore not be surprising that Scotland and rUK have different interests with relation to the EU. For example on climate change Scotland has the greatest potential for the generation of renewable energy in Europe with 25% of Europe’s tidal potential and 10% of wave potential [1] yet the UK is in favour of scrapping European targets for the generation of renewable energy. [2] UK ministers have also been accused of “working against Scotland” on agriculture being willing to accept reductions in farm support meaning that Scotland receives the lowest level in Europe. [3] Scotland’s own interests would therefore be better represented by having its own government at the negotiating table than a UK government.  [1] ‘Energy in Scotland: Get the facts’, The Scottish Government, 10 July 2013,   [2] Harvey, Fiona, ‘Britain resists EU bid to set new target on renewable energy’, The Observer, 25 May 2013,   [3] McLaughlin, Mark, ‘SNP Conference: UK ministers ‘working against Scotland’’, The Independent, 19 October 2013,

The Scottish Government claims that an independent Scotland would be able to join the EU with all the UK's various opt outs intact. Scotland indeed could not be forced to join the Euro because in order to do so it would have to demonstrate currency convergence for at least two years which the newly independent state obviously would not be in a position to do. [1] Therefore if Scotland retained UK opt outs there would be only a positive change in relationship with Scotland receiving greater representation in EU institutions through having its own seat in the Council of Ministers, possibly its own Commissioner, and also a reallocation of European Parliamentary constituencies that would increase its representation there (and paradoxically increase rUK representation as well). [2]  [1] Noon, Stephen, ‘Euro membership’, 10 November 2011,   [2] Engel, Arno, and Parkes, Roderick, ‘Accommodating an independent Scotland: how a British-style constitution for the EU could secure Scotland’s future’, European Policy Centre, 24 October 2012,  p.7

The SNP argues that the transition from being a constituent part of the UK inside the EU and being an independent state within the EU would be seamless. [1] While 'the Scottish government does not take the process of EU membership for granted' they hope to notify the EU of their intent to join the EU before the referendum and then use the period between a yes vote and independence to negotiate their accession. [2] They would have 18 months to sort out the transition between the referendum on independence on 21 September 2014 and independence in March 2016. It should be remembered that an independent Scotland should already meet all the criteria for membership as a result of having already been a member so should be able to go through membership negotiations quickly.  [1] The Scotsman, ‘Scottish independence: Hague EU claims criticised’, 31 October 2013,   [2] Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013,  §42-5.

The UK or rUK is not going to leave the EU.  Despite the legislative activity an EU referendum is still not an immediate prospect. Legislation as it stands only calls for a referendum in the event of treaty change, which would itself take years to negotiate. The private members bill currently progressing through the Commons is likely to be butchered in the Lords and David Cameron's promise of a 2017 referendum relies on a Conservative victory in 2015. Such a victory may not happen, despite Labour's soft poll lead the natural bias of the current boundaries make an outright Conservative victory a very remote prospect. [1] Even if a referendum does get held the out supporters would then have to win it. Although polls for a prospective EU membership referendum tend to show those who favour the exit leading this cannot be taken as necessarily meaning that it is likely to happen. Polls change, the AV referendum saw numbers initially favourable to AV swing round to a decisive victory against AV over the course of the campaign. [2] There are a number of reasons why this is likely in an in/out EU referendum. A vote to leave the EU is in fact rather unlikely because of the full weight of the establishment in the staying in camp. Businesses tend to favour staying in because [quote=John Cridland, Director General of the CBI] being a member of a reformed EU is the best way to preserve market access [3] [/quote]. The CBI released a report that said that each UK household was £3,000 better off due to EU membership. [4] That is a lot of money and if opinions on the EU are anything like those on Scottish independence it is a killer argument. 56% of scots would favour independence if it would make them £500 better off but only 22% would still be in favour of independence if it would make them £500 worse off. [5] If similar swings were to occur in an EU referendum Britain would not be leaving the EU. Furthermore, the referendum is likely only to occur after a renegotiation which is bound to bring something, enough for the (presumably Conservative) Prime minister to recommend a vote to stay in, the result would be support for the EU across all three main parties, plus the nationalist parties as well. A renegotiation sufficient for a conservative PM to recommend staying in also has an interesting effect upon polled voting intentions by almost exactly reversing them. A YouGov poll (May 2013) found that while under the current terms 47% would vote to leave and only 30% to stay but after renegotiation 32% would vote to leave and 45% to stay. [6]  [1] Mylles, Richard, ‘The chances of an EU referendum in the next parliament are wildly overstated’, New Statesman, 18 July 2013,   [2] UKPollingReport, ‘Alternative Vote’, accessed 4 November 2013,   [3] Cridland, John, ‘Leaving Europe would be bad for British business’, The Guardian, 17 May 2013,   [4] CBI, ‘In with reform or out with no influence – CBI chief makes case for EU membership’, 4 November 2013,   [5] ICM, ‘Scottish Independence Poll – September 2013’, 18 September 2013,   [6] YouGov, ‘YouGov / Sunday Times Survey Results’, 10 May 2013,  p.15.

The Scottish relationship with the EU is likely to change after independence.  The UK's various opt outs exist because of the strong negotiating position that the whole of the UK had at the time of the signing of the various relevant treaties. Had Scotland been independent then it would not have been in the same position. It is also argued that if Scotland wants to join the EU then it implicitly wants to join the EU as it is now and could retain exceptional status only in the very short term. [1] The change in relationship would probably change the Scottish attitude to the EU, although it is hard to say whether this would be automatically in a negative way. The implication of Jose Manuel Barroso's comments quoted earlier is that Scotland will be unlikely to retain the UK's opt outs from certain areas of EU policy. Most obviously it is likely that if joining as a new state Scotland may have no choice but to join the Euro at least in the long term when it meets the convergence requirements. [2] Several polls show Scots less likely to vote for independence if Scotland would then have to join the Euro. [3] The other main sticking point would be Schengen, it has been suggested that Scotland would have to join the EU's free travel zone which the UK is not currently a member of and the main consequence of this would be border controls between Scotland and England. [4] Were Scotland to seek to avoid joining the Euro and Schengen then it would prolong the application process meaning that Scotland would be unlikely to be ready to join the EU upon independence. This point was made by the ambassador of the EU's newest member Croatia [quote=Ambassador Ivan Grdesic] if you decide to opt out on many things, you are not ready actually... [/quote] so warning that attempts to opt out of the Euro and Schengen would prolong negotiations. [5]  [1] Engel, Arno, and Parkes, Roderick, ‘Accommodating an independent Scotland: how a British-style constitution for the EU could secure Scotland’s future’, European Policy Centre, 24 October 2012,  pp.6-7.  [2] Thorp, Arabella, and Thompson, Gavin, ‘Scotland, independence and the EU – Commons Library Standard Note’, parliament.uk, 13 July 2012,   [3] What Scotland Thinks, ‘If an independent Scotland had to join the Euro, how would this effect your vote in a Scottish independence referendum?’, January 2013,    [4] Barnes, Eddie, ‘Scottish independence: EU may force border terms’, The Scotsman,   [5] BBC News, ‘Scottish independence: Warning over EU membership plan’, 3 November 2013,

Scottish independence might be a faster route out of the EU than a referendum.  Before 2012 the SNP argued that Independence could be achieved and Scotland remain within the EU while retaining all UK opt outs with a minimal amount of trouble. However this position has since changed largely due to European commission pronouncements on the issue. [1] There is no EU precedent to the situation that Scottish independence would bring about. It has been argued that Scotland would not automatically remain part of the EU and would have to reapply. Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said [quote=Barroso] For the European Union’s purposes, from a legal point of view, it is certainly a new state. If a country becomes independent it is a new state and then it has to negotiate into the European Union [2] [/quote] Certainly if Scotland's application to join the EU were a normal one then the 18 month timetable between referendum to independence would not give enough time to go through the process of joining the EU. Some applications have taken over a decade, the UK's own (second) application took over 5 years. The fastest application was Finland which only took 2 years 10 months between application and accession. [3] Even seemingly very minor disputes can hold up membership for long periods, a Croatia-Slovenia dispute over maritime access considerably delayed the accession of the former. Thus small disputes like with Spain over fishing rights or with Ireland over Rockall could be a considerable drag on Scotland's application. [4] None of the above are insurmountable problems and would only impose a temporary exit of Scotland from the EU. However, it is possible that Scotland will be unable to rejoin. It ought to be remembered that enlargement requires unanimous support of the current member states, which may not be forthcoming. A number of other states such as Belgium and Italy have regions with national aspirations, the most likely European opponent to Scottish independence would be Spain with its eastern region of Catalonia's independence movement often being compared to Scotland's. As a result there have been persistent rumours that Spain might veto Scottish re-entry into the EU in order to send a message to its own separatists. [5] Spain’s Prime Minister Rajoy was plain when he said [quote=Rajoy] It's very clear to me… a country that would obtain independence from the EU would remain out of the EU. [6] [/quote]  [1] Carrell, Severin, ‘Barroso casts doubt on independent Scotland’s EU membership rights’, The Guardian, 12 September 2012,  McSmith, Andy, ‘The impact of that Barroso letter’, The Independent, 20 December 2012,   [2] Davidson, Ruth, ‘Separate Scotland would have to reapply to EU – Barroso’, Scottish Conservatives, 10 December 2012,  [BBC Hardtalk transcript]  [3] Wikipedia, ‘Enlargement of the European Union’, accessed 4 November 2013,   [4] Open Europe Blog, ‘Scottish independence and EU accession: tricky to pull off in one manoeuvre?’, 5 February 2013,   [5] York, Christopher, ‘Scottish Independence: Spain Could Veto EU Membership’, The Huffington Post, 6 December 2012,   Peterkin, Tom, ‘Scottish Independence: Spain key to Scotland’s EU hopes’, The Scotsman, 4 November 2012,   [6] Carrell, Severin, and Kassam, Ashifa, ‘Scottish independence: Spain blocks Alex Salmond’s hopes for EU transition’, The Guardian, 27 November 2013,

Polls consistently point to a vote to leave the EU in a prospective referendum. [1] Whether this actually happens is a moot point, such a referendum would still bring about instability in the relationship with the European Union. Scotland if independent could avoid this turbulence. At the same time a renegotiation does not mean that Scotland’s interests would be safeguarded as a British Prime Minister would be negotiating with an eye to winning any referendum. The result is that such renegotiations would likely favour English interests over Scottish ones as it is English votes the Prime Minister would need to win over.  [1] UKPollingReport, ‘YouGov/Sunday Times – Con 29, Lab 40, LD 9, UKIP 14’, 19 May 2013,    and others on the same site.

The Opposition acknowledges that the US government’s obligation to act in its own nation’s best interest reflects a flaw in the US’s international role. However, this flaw is outweighed by the benefits of US protection. First, other countries can use soft power to prevent the US from abusing its military power. In 2010, US exports exceeded $1.8 trillion and imports exceeded $2.3 trillion; international trade accounted for 14% of US GDP. [1] The US is vulnerable to economic sanctions. Furthermore, the US enjoys the position it holds in international relations; were it to lose respect and bargaining power in the international community, Americans would strongly question the wisdom of government decisions. Furthermore, Americans are strongly attached to an ideal of American morality. This ideal places a check on the nation’s willingness to engage in foreign combat without any moral justification. Thus there are checks in place to keep the US from acting only in self-interest.  [1] William Baumol and Alan Blinder, Macroeconomics: Principles and Policy 12th Edition, (Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning), 2011, 23.

The US government’s obligation to its own people is mutually exclusive to acting on behalf of the international community.  A government derives its sovereignty from a social contract with its citizens. Citizens surrender some of their freedoms in exchange for government protection; if a government does not serve its people’s best interests, it is not legitimate. Thus in any situation where the interests of the American public are not aligned with those of the global population, the US military cannot serve the international community without failing to meet its obligation to its own citizenry. Because the American public has the ability to oust a leader that does not promote their interests, the military is much more likely to choose the option of serving American interests. This may not be unreasonable behavior, but it is indicative of the need for other entities- either other nations or international organizations- to have comparable military power to that of the United States.

The Pro only identifies US military failures; there are also many occasions of US military success. The Opposition case details examples of military success in Panama, Kuwait, and Bosnia. The recent success of Libyan rebel attempts to overthrow Gaddafi is partially attributable to US military assistance. [1] Furthermore, US military strategy is constantly changing and adapting. The rules of international engagement change relatively quickly; when the rise of the Soviet threat rendered isolationism impossible, the US adapted its foreign policy to a bipolar world in which mutually assured destruction was an effective means of preventing direct conflict. The fall of the USSR created a multi-polar world in which MAD became a more complex and less reliable strategy. Today, the US is adjusting to the increasing threat of Islamic terrorism. These constant changes render perfect implementation of military force impossible- this impossibility is not unique to the US. But with constant reevaluation and assistance from the international community, the US can be a reasonably effective peacekeeper.  [1] Steven Erlanger, “Panetta Urges Europe to Spend More on NATO or Risk a Hollowed-Out Alliance,” New York Times, October 5, 2011

As long as the United States works unilaterally to quell violent conflict, progress is not being made towards a better, internationally coordinated system.  The United States spends approximately $700 trillion annually on its military; China, the world’s second largest military spender, spends $114 trillion. [1] The US outpaces other possible peacekeepers by such a large gap that these other powers have little incentive to even try to keep up. Unilateral US intervention undermines international actors such as UN troops because it communicates the US’s refusal to submit to the interests of the international community. Thus US military intervention becomes a “quick fix” which prevents genuine long-term stability  [1] “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2011.

The United States is not an appropriate agent for monitoring international security because it is only representative of one nation.  The U.S. is an independent nation, not an international entity. Thus 96% of the world population has no voice in its’ government’s decisions. [1] The US government has authority over its own citizens, and it is justified in engaging in war if its citizens are under direct threat. However, citizens of other nations have no means of expressing their opinion in the US government. If the US government abuses its power, these people have no reliable legal means of recourse. Consequently, the US government has no authority to intervene in their affairs.  [1] “Country Comparison: Population,” The World Fact Book, Central Intelligence Agency.

All conflicts are a threat to the entire international community.  As is discussed in the Opposition’s arguments, conflicts have the ability to spill over into other regions and to destabilize governments. Such conflicts endanger the international community because they increase the risk of irrational/non-state actors attaining weapons of mass destruction. This is problematic because irrational actors do not necessarily have a sense of self-preservation, and thus cannot be deterred by threats of mass retaliation. Thus if such an actor attains nuclear weapons, there is little that can stop them from using such weapons. Non-state actors are problematic because governments do not know with whom they are negotiating or where/how to find them. Thus the US is justified in intervening in such conflicts as a means of self-preservation.  The Pro’s argument is based on a theory of sovereignty that is already violated in most of the conflicts in which the US interferes.  The Pro’s argument is based on the notion that the proper agent to act on behalf of a group of people is a legitimate government that has earned the right to sovereignty. The Opposition does not dispute this theory. However, many of the conflicts in which the US intervenes involve abusive governments or invading nations that violate human rights on massive scales. The people that the US seeks to protect often do not have a legitimate government to represent their interests. US protection may not be the ideal means of protecting global human rights, but it is better than not protecting them at all.

The Pro’s perspective is backwards; as long as other nations do not move towards providing viable alternatives to US military dominance, the US cannot afford to reduce its own defenses. The US should not have to provide an incentive for other nations to improve their defense systems; their own self-preservation should be a sufficient incentive. In June 2011, then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that European NATO members’ reluctance to fund their share of NATO operations could be negative impacts for the alliance’s future. The New York Times related Gates’ words; “[Gates] warned of a ‘dim if not dismal future’ for the alliance unless its European members increased their participation, and he said that Washington would not forever pay for European security when the Europeans could do that for themselves.” [1] The US may be able to alter its role to be less unilateral, but it cannot do so until after other military entities improve their defense systems.  [1] Erlanger.

There are currently no viable alternatives to US military dominance. All would simply lead to more strife; dominance by another, probably less peaceful power, no dominance at all leading to anarchy or a balance of power, which usually leads to war as in the 18th Century. All of these options would create considerably more conflict than there is at the moment.(See Opposition argument)

Failure after failure has made it clear that the US military is not an effective actor for maintaining international stability.  The US military makes problems worse just as often as it makes them better. The US intervened in Vietnam on the grounds of protecting the free world from communism; over 58,000 American soldiers and approximately 2 million Vietnamese civilians were killed while the US failed to subdue the Vietcong. The United States provided covert support to Augusto Pinochet after his military coup d’etat over Chile’s democratically elected government under Salvadore Allende because the US feared Allende, a socialist, would promote communism. [1] , [2] Today, Pinochet is remembered as a bloody dictator that ruled through terror for 17 years. US intervention in Somalia in 1992-94 resulted in little more than the loss of American lives. [3] The US experienced similarly negatively results during its intervention in Beirut (1982-84), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), and Haiti (1994). [4] More recently, the US has occupied Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly ten years without brining long-term stability to the region. The United States military needs to step down from its self-assumed role as world police officer because it is not effective and its failed attempts lead to huge civilian casualties.  [1] Reel and Smith.  [2] “Covert Action in Chile,” U.S. Department of State, December 19, 1975.  [3] Richard W. Stewart, “The United States Army in Somalia: 1992-1994,” U.S. Army Center of Military History.  [4] “A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions: From Vietnam to the Balkans,” PBS Frontline

US unilateral intervention is a form of the Western imperialism that has caused so much of the strife that exists in the modern world.  Western domination is not the answer to political conflict; it is the cause of many predicaments that result in the violation of human rights in countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East today. Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, wrote in his 2005 book, Imperial Hubris, that “[Bin Laden] could not have his current- and increasing- level of success if Muslims did not believe their faith, brethren, resources, and lands to be under attack by the United States and, more generally, the West. Indeed, the United States, and its policies and actions, are Bin Laden’s only indispensable allies.” [1] The United States’ unwavering support for Israel and its dubious grounds for invading Iraq are further source of anger in the Arab world. [2] The US justifies its military dominance by arguing that terrorist groups pose a serious threat to American society, and then this military dominance increases support for such terrorist groups. America cannot act as the world police because such a system will never lead to peace.  [1] Scheuer, iii.  [2] Ibid.

Brute force is not sufficient to maintain global security. Just as one cannot simply strike a stone repeatedly and expect to replicate Michelangelo’s David, one cannot simply produce more tanks and train more soldiers and expect to resolve the complex problems that create modern global threats. The US has failed to establish a stable and safe environment in Iraq and Afghanistan despite almost 10 years of occupation. The Pro’s arguments point to failed or misguided intervention in Vietnam, Chile, Somalia, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, and Haiti. These examples demonstrate that the US is not receiving much benefit from the vast resources it puts into its military. The US is only one country, and thus does not have the capability to view global conflicts from an international perspective. The world would be better served by greater investment in international military entities, such as NATO or UN peacekeepers. An international response to global conflict has greater perceived legitimacy than a unilateral response by one nation; perceived legitimacy reduces backlash from groups that feel victimized. Thus US military intervention is not a very effective means of attaining sustainable peace.

The variety of checks upon the US military may prevent it from total global domination, but these checks are not sufficient to make the US a genuinely altruistic actor. The US justifies intervention on the grounds of promoting democracy, but selectively intervenes. The US has supported non-democratic regimes in Chile and Iran, [1] and Guatemala, and has relatively close relations with Saudi Arabia. The US rarely criticizes the Israeli government for expanding settlements, while at the same time providing support to rebel forces in Libya. The Pro does not contend that the US is a completely amoral actor. However, ideologically inconsistent foreign policy demonstrates that the US is willing to prioritize its own interests over the rights of other nations’ citizens. Thus the US is not an appropriate entity to protect global human rights or international stability.  [1] James Risen, “Secrets of History: the C.I.A. in Iran,” New York Times, 2000.

The United States is entitled to take measures to protect its citizens.  In a nuclear world, it is impossible to dismiss another nation’s instability as “their problem.” If a government with nuclear weapons collapses, irrational actors (such as ideological terrorist groups) may attain control of such weapons. Nuclear war has the potential to destroy all of humanity- even in the case of a limited conflict. Alexis Madrigal of Wired Science explains, “Imagine that the long-simmering conflict between India and Pakistan broke out into a war in which each side deployed 50 nuclear weapons against the other country’s megacities […] Beyond the local human tragedy of such a situation, a new study looking at the atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war finds that the hot smoke from burning cities would tear holes in the ozone layer of the Earth. The increased UV radiation resulting from the ozone loss could more than double DNA damage, and increase cancer rates across North America and Eurasia.” [1] Thus it is impossible for the US to turn a blind eye to conflicts and instability in other regions. Furthermore, the stakes of nuclear fallout are so high that very few chances can be taken. Even if the chance of a conflict ending in nuclear war is very small, the damages that would occur are so great that even small chances cannot be taken. Thus the US military is justified in intervening in international conflicts because such intervention can be decisively linked to the welfare of its citizens.  [1] Madrigal.

There are currently no viable alternatives to US military dominance.  The 2011 Libyan revolution demonstrates the world’s dependence on US military support. Although NATO unanimously agreed to intervene in the revolution, less than half participated, and even fewer actually conducted airstrikes. In August 2011, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told the Wall Street Journal “The fact is that Europe couldn’t have done this on its own […] the lack of defense investment will make it increasingly difficult for Europe to take on responsibility for international crisis management beyond Europe’s borders.” [1] Other prosperous nations criticize the US on the grounds that it needs to share military power, but these nations are not actually willing to increase their own involvement in order to share responsibility. The second largest military in the world belongs to China; because China is an emerging power, the international community cannot be sure how they will wield this power. Until US allies increase their military participation so that there are viable alternatives to US military involvement, the US cannot safely step down from its active military role.  [1] Filer and MacDonald.

The United States has greater military capacity than any other entity in the world.  The US accounts for 43% of global expenditures on military. [1] The US has greater capacity to prevent global security threats than any other entity. Furthermore, the US has used limited military intervention successfully in the recent past. In 1989, the US sent 27,000 troops to Panama to protect the lives of 35,000 Americans in Panama and to protect Panama’s own citizens. The invasion led to the removal of the dictatorial leader Manuel Noriega and the implementation of an elected government. [2] In the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, the US successfully forced Iraqi troops to retreat from Kuwait. [3] In 1995 the US used limited military tactics to protect civilians in Sarajevo from Bosnian Serb forces, leading to a peace agreement between the warring parties. [4] The Opposition does not contend that every US military intervention is or will be successful, or that military intervention is all that is necessary in addressing conflicts. The Opposition also promotes constant reevaluation of military tactics so that past tragedies are not repeated. But despite its drawbacks, US military intervention has the potential to be a source of stability and protection in the modern world from nuclear threats, terrorist attacks, and other large-scale violations of human rights.  [1] “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2011.  [2] “A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions: From Vietnam to the Balkans,” PBS Frontline.  [3] Ibid.  [4] Ibid.

The United States has several qualities that allow it to act honorably on behalf of the international community.  It is essential that there is some agent in the international community that is able to step into situations that threaten global security, such as a collapsed government in a state with nuclear capacity. The US is an appropriate agent because its internal checks prevent it from abusing its military capacity. First, the US government contains a system of checks and balances that prevent an individual corrupt leader from going to war. Second, the US is a democracy; few civilians are eager to send their sons off to die in unnecessary wars. Thus political leaders must fear repercussions for engaging in excessive conflict. Third, the US is a relatively open economy; it is not unimpressionable to external influence. The Opposition does not contend that everything the US military does is perfect. However, the myriad of checks listed above ensures that excessive use of US military force will not go unchallenged, either domestically or internationally.

US unilateral intervention is a form of the Western imperialism that has caused so much of the strife that exists in the modern world. There are alternatives –while some may contend they will be worse we do not know that this is the case. The United States would remain dominant but it would not need to use its military power in the overbearing way that it does now but rather in a much more constructive way that relies on diplomacy rather than military force. (See proposition argument)

The Opposition correctly identifies the threat, which is nuclear war. However, hegemonic US military power is not the solution to this threat. The first nuclear arms race began during the Cold War; because neither the US nor the USSR wanted the other to have the upper hand in nuclear capacity, each produced enough weapons to destroy the entire world. In the 1970s, Pakistan developed nuclear weapons; Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto argued that “the Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb, the Hindus have the bomb, why not Islam?” [1] As the US continues to increase its military strength, other nations that are not sure they can rely on the US as an ally feel compelled to increase their strength in response. This leads to a perpetual armaments race. Armaments races are a waste of resources that would be better spent on civil services, and create widespread paranoia that the other country may attack at any time. Furthermore, continuously increasing military capacity is not an effective way of combating non-state actors. Terrorist groups operate underground; because they are difficult to detect, they are most effectively addressed through community engagement with government security. Thus excessive military development puts the US and other nations at risk without effectively addressing security threats.  [1] Sijo Joseph Ponnatt, “The Normative Approach to Nuclear Proliferation,” International Journal on World Peace, March 1, 2006. [

Expansion is not the right way to increase transparency, as the number of informal consultations of smaller groups (such as permanent members or only industrialised permanent members) in order to try and push though resolutions would probably rise. Reforms to enhance transparency and improve working methods are already taking place – At a 19 July 2007 informal meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on an Increase in Membership of the Security Council, some suggested a more analytical report that would, among other things, provide rationales for the Council's major decisions. [1]  [1] 'Efforts to Reform Council Working Methods 1993-2007', 18/10/2007,

The Security council needs to be more democratic.  At the moment many countries are not heard in the council and some states may never gain a chance of being elected to the Security Council. This leaves billions of the world's population without representation in the world's highest body. How can India with over a sixth of the world's population be left out? Security Council expansion would make the UN much more democratic as there would be more participants representing more of the people of the world present in closed meetings and informal consultations. Expansion would increase the transparency and therefore the accountability of the Council – something that even countries sometimes considered to be against democracy believe is necessary “he (Seyed Mohammad Ali Mottaghi Nejad) said Iran believed that the links between the issues comprised the “basic objective” of a comprehensive reform towards a Council that was more democratic, inclusive, equitably representative, transparent, effective and accountable. “ [1]  [1] 'Concluding Annual Debate on Security Council Reform, General Assembly', 12/11/2010,

Non-permanent members are selected to represent voices of entire regions already. Increasing the size of the Council would only make it more unwieldy as it would be extremely difficult to negotiate in such an expanded forum. The nature of the Council's work requires swift action and expansion could negatively impact on its ability to provide quick solutions for world peace.

The EU is one of the world's largest trade blocs, has the world's largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people.  The EU is one of the world’s largest trade blocs, has the world’s largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people. A permanent seat for the EU would reflect those new power dimensions. The permanent seats for France and the UK are based on the fact that they were among the great powers and victors of World War II. However, the global balance of powers has shifted significantly since then: France and the UK have declined and at the same time, the EU has emerged as a major player in the international arena.

The current Security Council doesn't reflect the economic reality of the 21st century.  The current Security Council doesn’t reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. France and Great Britain have clearly lost their position among the most powerful nations and their role was long ago taken over by Germany and Japan. They are the 3rd and 4thworld economies. Furthermore these two countries are the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget and deserve a permanent seat in the Council. Moreover, as permanent members pay an extra share for their seat, Japan and Germany’s contributions would bring considerable amounts to the UN budget – “The three largest contributors to the United Nations, the US (22.000% of the UN budget), Japan (12.530%) and Germany (8.018%) thus together finance some 43% of the entire UN budget.” [1] Meanwhile Brazil and India have emerged as major economies and stable democracies over the past decade, and deserve recognition for their global importance.  [1] Contributions to the United Nations budget

Giving Germany a permanent seat would hardly be a step forward in an endeavour for a more equitable distribution of seats in the Council. The UK and France hold a veto power over any amendments and aren’t willing to give up their seats, so adding Germany would mean that the EU would have three permanent seats in the Council. That wouldn’t be a fair geographical distribution and wouldn’t, for that matter, be a equitable distribution either.  Japan in particular is not as deserving as has been suggested; although it is rich Japan has been struggling economically for a decade while other countries (including the UK and France) have continued to grow. The Japanese economy has been recently hit by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and Fukushima nuclear disaster “Before Japan's 2011 earthquake, its economy was just starting to emerge from its deepest recession since the 1970s(…)Japan's economy is still challenged by rising commodity prices -- the country imports most of its food and oil -- and a shrinking labor pool, as its population ages. Japan's worst challenge is a national debt that is twice as big as its annual economic output.” [1]  Compared to other nations, both Germany and Japan are military insignificant. Germany spends only 1.27% of its GDP on military defence, in comparison to 2.32% for UK and France. [2] This is important as the Permanent 5's status currently reflects great power realities - they are the countries most able to project power abroad and so have the ability to implement (or block) UN security decisions.  [1] Amadeo, Kimberly. 'Japan's Economy', 26/08/2011   [2] 'Military of the European Union'

In any case, France and the UK are still amongst the world's foremost military powers, with the world's largest nuclear arsenals after the USA and Russia, and the world's highest military expenditure after the USA and China. By contrast, the EU has no significant military to speak of, and is thus unable to project power across the globe. Given the mission of the UNSC to maintain international peace and security, eligibility for a permanent seat should be based on military power, not just economic or demographic power.

There is a lack of consensus among developing countries themselves on who should get permanent seats. Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa all claim their right to an African one. The most logical candidate for an Asian seat – India – is opposed by Muslim countries, who want a permanent seat for themselves – “Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesman has politely opposed the endorsement (India’s candidacy in the UNSC), saying it will complicate the process of expanding the UN Security Council and increasing the number of its permanent members. He has referred, as has been done on several past occasions, to India’s bad record on human rights, unsatisfactory relations with its neighbours etc.” [1] Spanish speaking neighbours oppose Brazil’s candidacy because it speaks Portuguese.  [1] 'A permanent UN SC seat for India?', 9/11/2010

A rise in UN membership should be reflected also in an increase in Security Council members.  In 1945 there were only 51 UN members, so eleven Council members were adequately representing all voices. Today the UN membership has risen to almost four times the number of the original one, yet there are only fifteen voices in the Council. This means that there are many countries who do not have anyone on the security council that has similar priorities to them, their views may well be unrepresented.

There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council.  There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council. Four out of five permanent members are industrialized and four out of five are “European”. The four-fifths of humankind that live in developing countries have only one spokesman among the permanent five. Giving Africa, Asia and Latin America a permanent seat is a step forward in North-South balance – “Currently, four out of five veto-bearing members are industrialized countries and the fifth, China, is rapidly approaching industrialized status. Many in the rest of the world seethe at their exclusion from this elite group. Africa, Latin America, and the Islamic world, for example, have no permanent voice on the council. Without a voice, it is understandable why many countries are unwilling to send troops or aid whenever the Security Council demands it. This imbalance, highlighted by the Iraq war, has made Security Council reform a hot topic of debate.” [1]  [1] ) Teng, Michael. 'United Nations Security Council Reform Autumn 2003'

By including more developing countries in the Security Council, more issues of their concern would get on the Security Council's agenda. As we all know the major issues in the status quo nowadays occur mainly in developing countries. For example the consequences from global warming are worse in the developing regions. There are also the rebels in the Arab countries. There are a lot of concerns and the developed countries should give the developing ones the opportunity to participate in the process of their discussion and solution.

There should be no differentiation between old and new permanent members and the new ones should get the veto power in order to preserve the interests of the regions they represent. Veto power is not as problematic with potential permanent members as it is with the current ones, as all the candidates are known for their multilateral approach and cooperation, while the same cannot be said for the current ones.

A UNSC reform is very hard to achieve due to the many different interests and demands.  Reforming the UN Security Council is very difficult as no one can agree which new powers deserve representation, whether they should have a veto, and even whether permanent membership should continue to exist in any form. Japan and India seem obvious candidates for permanent status, but their candidacies are fiercely opposed by a variety of other Asian countries, while Nigeria and Egypt both feel they have a good claim to an "African" seat. The EU also considers it deserves a separate place. Furthermore Brazil as a very fast developing country and turning into a world power claims it also has a right in the UNSC as a permanent member. All these different demands opinions make an eventual reform or expansion of the UNSC very hard to achieve.

In regards to an eventual separate place on the UNSC for the European Union – the EU might be an economic powerhouse and might want to coordinate foreign relations in regards to external economic policy, but at heart it is intended to be an economic union  In regards to an eventual separate place on the UNSC for the European Union – the EU might be an economic powerhouse and might want to coordinate foreign relations in regards to external economic policy, but at heart it is intended to be an economic union, not a political union. Most of its founding treaties and the daily workings of its institutions focus on creating and maintaining a single market, not on creating a shared foreign and military policy. Giving the EU representation at what is an institution for foreign and military policy is misreading what the EU was intended to be.

The bulk of operations approved by the Security Council are financed by industrialised nations.  As the bulk of operations approved by the Security Council are financed by industrialised nations, both because they are the main contributors to the budget1 and because the Security Council members pay more towards peacekeeping2 they should have the main role in deciding on action. Developing countries already have a voice in the Council but should not have a veto power over decisions that they do not finance. Developed countries would not agree to pay for something they are not happy with. In the contemporary world economy and business are fundamental and they are the ones who drive the world.  1 Contributions to the United Nations budget  2 United Nations, 'Financing Peacekeeping',

By giving five more countries veto power, the Council could come to a stalemate.  This could mean that the council ends up deadlocked more often than not as was the case during the Cold war when the two blocs almost always opposed each other. Up until 1991 (from the UN founding in 1946) there were only 700 security council resolutions due to the deadlocked nature of the council. In the 20 years since there have been over 1300 resolutions.1 The negotiation process would also be significantly longer. As a result the peace and security of the world could be endangered by this step.  1 Wikipedia, United Nations Security Council resolution,

The EU might function as an economic union, but its original goal was to prevent war from ever happening again on the European continent. Economic integration is a means to this goal, by making member states economically too dependent on each other for them to want to declare war on each other. Given this history, the EU can contribute a lot of knowledge and experience on how to use ‘soft power’ in a foreign policy context, and given its goal of (and success in) creating everlasting peace on the continent, it should have a seat at the world’s foremost foreign policy institution. Furthermore the EU is ever closer to a political union – “German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has said his country is willing to discuss greater harmonisation of eurozone tax policy, adding that the next decade is likely to see Europe take significant steps towards closer political union.” [1] Therefore it is simply a normal step for the EU to have a say in the international affairs.  [1] Willis, Andrew. 'Germany predicts EU 'political union' in 10 years', 13/12/2010,

It is widely recognised that the current Security Council set-up lacks legitimacy and requires reform. Major states such as Japan, and rising powers such as Brazil, South Africa and India deserve recognition and giving them permanent status would provide representation for a much broader cross-section of humanity. It maybe hard to achieve consensus on what exactly to be the change in the UNSC, but the new international environment requests that. This is supported by a lot of leading politicians and leaders in a global aspect. "The United States is open to UN Security Council reform and expansion, as one element of an overall agenda for UN reform" 1"The UN must rationally adapt itself to new world realities. It should also strengthen its influence and preserve its multinational nature and integrity of the UN Charter provisions. The reform of the UN Security Council is an essential component of its revitalization." 1 (Dmitry Medvedev)  1 "The reform of the United Nations Security Council: What role for the European Union?" Bureau of Public Affairs (USA) , June 20, 2005,  2 Address to the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly 23/09/2009,

We have seen variations in opinion regarding political and economic issues (e.g. monetary union) in the EU. In the far more thorny area of defence policy, the EU member-nations’ interests are even more divergent. For example, the French position on Algeria may be different from the United Kingdom’s. This difference in priorities will ultimately lead to deadlock, as no country wishes to see its soldiers dying on a battlefield that provides no direct strategic interest to itself.

A single army would enhance the political integration of EU members states  The European Union has significant integration and convergence of the political and economic spheres. Integration of defence policy and the establishment of a European Defence Force should be the logical next step. The African Union took this step and has achieved success in combat missions defending the Union [1] .  [1] The UN Refugee Agency (31 January, 2008) Comoros: Military invasion of Anjouan imminent, government warns. Accessed September 7, 2011 from:

NATO and the proposed European Defence Force are designed to address very different concerns. NATO exists to deal with situations of such magnitude that the nations of Western Europe are likely to adopt a common defence policy. In contrast, the EDF is targeted at smaller geopolitical incidents which would otherwise be ‘beneath’ the notice of NATO. Unfortunately smaller incidents by their nature do not have uniform effects on all EU member-nations, and are therefore unlikely to generate a consensus of policy among EU nations.

Regional instability in certain areas of continental europe necessitates the creation of an EU defence force  Constant political instability and war in and near the Middle East call for a united single force charged with the defence of EU countries lying close to the volatile areas.. Turkey is a prime candidate for EU membership, and with its location on the border of both Syria and Iraq, will require support if its refugee problem is to remain manageable. The revolutions in Northern Africa also call for a stabilising force in the region, particularly in Italy where a ‘refugee crisis’ has coincided with the attempts of anti-Gaddafi Libyans to flee the country [1] . If the EU is to take its growing role upon the world stage seriously, it needs a dedicated defence force to make an impact in the region.  [1] Day, M. (14 May, 2011) Flood of North African refugees to Italy ends EU passport-free travel. Accessed September 7, 2011 from:

The EU needs a dedicated defence force  It is important for the EU to have a defence policy independent of NATO. With its origins in the Cold War, and its preponderance of American influence, NATO carries a great deal of historical and geopolitical baggage. This means that NATO cannot easily intervene in Eastern Europe without incurring the displeasure of Russia. This was best proven during the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, when Georgia’s impending accession to NATO was seen as part of the incentive for Russian support to the ‘break-away’ regions in Georgia [1] . The European Defence Force will allow the EU to deal with crises in Eastern and Central Europe more effectively, as they will not have to tiptoe around Russia as much.  [1] Parsons, R. (8 August, 2008). Georgia pays price for its NATO ambitions. Accessed September 7, 2011 from:

NATO has successfully defended the interests of Western Europe for several decades now – why rock the boat? It is hard to see a problem which NATO cannot solve, which the European Defence Force could instead. In any case, we will always have to consider Russia’s sensibilities when engaging in peacekeeping operations in Eastern Europe, and it is far better to have America’s bargaining power and geopolitical clout backing us when we negotiate with Russia. If we create a European Defence Force, we will marginalise NATO and the United States. This will lead to a reduced US engagement in Europe, which may in turn diminish our influence when having discussions with Russia over security issues in Europe and beyond.

Although there is instability in neighbouring regions, most of Europe is in complete and utter peace. The new force would simply be another layer of defence in a stable continent that simply doesn’t need it. War in Europe is completely inconceivable in the 21st century, and considering the threat of war should be the primary reason for holding a standing army, it seems that an EU army has no reasonable case for existence.

Even if we assume that the massive costs of a standing military force can be borne by the EU and its members, the key barriers to establishing a standing defence force are often political. Creating a European Defence Force de novo would require us to decide on several thorny questions, namely the command structure, whether the role should be merely defensive or include peacekeeping, the choice of equipment and supplier, creating a common defence policy, and choosing a language of communication. All of these questions involve political considerations or economic vested interests, all of which are likely to result in on-going wrangling that will yield a stillborn EDF.

NATO has established a precedent for multilateral military action  NATO has been crucial to maintaining the balance of power during the cold war. Although there have been some arguments amongst its member states, NATO has shown us that a standing multinational defence force is possible and more importantly works well overall. The recent NATO deployment in Libya is an example of its regional influence and military flexibility [1] . Considering many members of NATO are also members of the EU, the proposed European Defence Force could follow its example and complement it.  [1] BBC News (26 August, 2011) Libya conflict: Nato jets hit Gaddafi Sirte bunker. Accessed September 7, 2011 from:

The economic strength of the EU enables the creation of a strong military  With the growing industrial and economic maturity of the European Union and its members, it is now financially feasible for the EU to have its own standing defence force [1] . The proposed EDF would also create a great many jobs as European defence contractors could be recruited into supplying equipment and weaponry.  [1] Amadeo, K.. The EU has replaced the U.S. as the world’s largest economy. Accessed September 7, 2011 from About:

This is mostly speculation. The proposition takes a more optimistic view of US-EU relations after the creation of a European Defence Force. America will more than welcome a strong friend in the region, anything to calm the instability in the near regions of North Africa and the Middle East, not to mention the global markets.

The EU has managed to pass similar large amounts of apparently ‘unconstitutional’ legislation through member state legislatures. The Lisbon Treaty, for example, managed to be signed. And so, it seems that archaic constitutional convention cannot stop EU integration – the European Project is simply turning its eyes upon defence: integration has occurred in many walks of life, now it is defence policy’s turn.

Germany  Europe has been torn apart twice in the 20th century and on both occasions a German Army has been the aggressor. If the E.U. ever had a defence force, no doubt German troops would be at the heart of it. It is just over 60 years ago that German troops invaded many of the countries that today will be forced to fight alongside them. This, especially for the people who fought against a German Army and are alive today, is at best insulting and at worst, political provocation. This is even without mentioning the Holocaust and its ever-present artifacts that litter eastern Europe; a constant reminder to Europeans of the horrors a German Army had once committed.

A large and diverse collective defence for would be impossible to command and develop  It does not take an in-depth analysis to imagine the issues, on the ground and at HQ, such as army would face. There would be communication issues, would the force use French, Spanish or English? There would be accountability questions [1] , who would be in charge and who would pay for resources? Finally, there would be hostilities within the army and potentially inherent racism between the nations involved. Such a force would not be effective in a combat situation, and valuable lives and resources would be wasted.  [1] Ioannides, I. (4 September, 2002). The European Rapid Reaction Force: Implications for Democratic Accountability. Accessed September 7, 2011 from:

The creation of a standing army would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the EU  It was not the aim of the original European Community to integrate defence. The original partnership was called the European Coal and Steel Community for a reason [1] , designed as a union for mutual economic development and the sharing of scarce resources [2] . The acceleration of the EU has therefore gotten out of hand, and it’s high time it came to an end. A defence force would be one step to far – it would signal the creation of some sort of federal super state, something that not many people in Europe want.  [1] CVCE (18 April, 1951). Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. Accessed September 7, 2011 from:   [2] The Irish Times (26 August, 2011). A thirst for peace. Accessed September 7, 2011 from:

The creation of an EU army could harm diplomatic relations with the USA  We are completely ignoring the issue of geopolitics and how the creation of this entity would be a direct move to replace NATO as the primary defender of Europe. This would of course mean a rejection of the US, as the heart of NATO. What would follow from this would be an extremely unpredictable and volatile place to practice international relations. One thing that we can predict, however, will be the ‘cold shoulder’ the US would suddenly show the EU. The US would feel as if its ally had used it to gain strength after WWII (The Marshall Plan), and now that it’s back on its feet again can forget and even challenge America’s supremacy.

The proposition believes in a more liberal and open-minded average European soldier. There will be no communication issues in the 21st century where translators and bilingual officers are easy to come by. There will be no accountability issues when we create a proper command structure. And there will be no racism because to believe that there would be is to prejudge the whole of Europe and insult the culture-shapers’ attempts to respect and learn from Europe’s dark past, not to repeat it.

Constitutional obstructions  Every EU country would have an incredibly hard time making the constitutional changes necessary for the handing over of a part of defence policy to an EU institution. In fact, for many EU countries it would be unworkable. In the U.K., constitutional issues might not be as bad as say in France – but this does not change the fact that it would require deft political skill and manoeuvring, often undemocratic and without any sort of referendum, in order to make the constitutional changes necessary to create this force [1] .  [1] Wagner, W. (May 19, 2007). The Democratic Deficit in the EU’s Security and Defense Policy – why bother? . Accessed September 7, 2011 from:

It might not have been the original aim to integrate defence. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that defence integration should not be done. The aims are changeable; they should be reconsidered and revised, according to requirements and demands of current situations. Few would have imagined how far Europe would come in other areas such as freedom of movement or the creation of a European Common Foreign policy from a mere industrial coalition between few countries. The EDF will be a rationally reasonable step for the EU, considering the advances that the community has made in integration in other areas of policy. To protect all its achievements, to connect its member states, and to provide its citizens with more safety the EU needs a dedicated defence force.

The status of Germany is an irrelevant issue. What has happened in the past should have no bearing on judging the Germany of today. Their whole system of government and culture has changed with a new constitution and the maturity of an open-minded youth born after WW2. It’s simply an insult to judge those Germans who have done everything they can to make up for the past atrocities of their nation, by once again digging up the past.

In other cases, such as in Yugoslavia, the deterrent effects of international courts have been dubious.  Prosecutions, far from being on both sides, may lead to allegations of bias against one side or another by the international court, which could lead to it being seen as merely another battlefield.

Would prevent further atrocities  An international mechanism where Sharon would have been able to be tried would be likely to have been one which would have been able to hear cases dealing with the – serious – allegations of crimes against humanity and war crimes by various other groups such as the al-Qassam brigades (the paramilitary group attached to Hamas).  This would have been able to prevent further atrocities by acting as a deterrent through punitive methods as well as showing that the law applies to Western nations and their allies too.

Is an aid for historians really worth all the upheaval and problems a trial would cause?  Denialism can still continue even though there are established facts, such as denial of the Japanese role in Second World War forced prostitution [1] .  [1] See Honda, Masakazu and Takada, Makoto, “LDP Pressure led to cuts in NHK show”, The Asahi Shimbun, 12 January 2005,

Impunity  In addition to events mentioned in the introduction, Sharon was accused of, along with troops under his command, execution-style killings of 49 Egyptian civilians taken prisoner by the IDF in the Saini peninsula in 1956 [1] - wilful killing of civilians being a war crime as per the Fourth Geneva Convention.  The purpose of international criminal law is that individuals are brought to trial to ensure that individuals are held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity: if a person isn’t prosecuted, either by a domestic or international court, the credibility of the limits civilized nations place on war is eroded.  [1] Miller, Marjorie, ‘Israel to Probe Deaths of Egyptian POWs in '56 : Sinai: At Cairo's request, defense officials will investigate general's claim that scores were shot.’, Los Angeles Times, 16 August 1995,

It is up to sovereign states to deal with their own criminality, not that of international courts. Israel decided Sharon had nothing to answer for. There have been commissions into some of his actions; the Khan Commission of Inquiry looked into the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla and concluded that “blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged.” Sharon was only indirectly responsible. [1]  When he became a head of state, head of state immunity applied to him – a necessary thing to keep the wheels of international diplomacy turning. This has been accepted by the International Court of Justice in the arrest warrant case [2] .  [1] The Kahan Commission of Inquiry, ‘Report into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut’, Jewish Virtual Library, 8 February 1983,   [2] Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) 14 February 2002

This fails for two reasons. Firstly, prosecutions are not always a deterrent to future crimes. Secondly that justice is not necessary in all cases to prevent recidivism – justice has not been needed in many cases, such as in Haiti after the 2004 coup, Haiti’s subsequent problems being caused by natural disasters.  Even if Sharon were to be brought to trial before an international tribunal, the Israeli state apparatus would be able to carry on with a new leader, rendering the exercise futile in trying to stop the conflict. A prosecution would not have brought peace it would simply entrench the Israeli position.

Historical record  Prosecutions by international criminal courts have a positive side-effect of creating a historical record of events. This creates an impartial record of events which takes in to account the evidence provided by all parties.  By removing scope for denialism, a peace can be constructed on the foundations of an impartial truth. Many of the actions of Israel have been controversial, The Guardian says it is the issue that is most controversial and comes under most scrutiny, [1] such an impartial historical record would be particularly useful for a full understanding of atrocities committed by all sides.  [1] Editorial, ‘Fairness: Israel – Palestine’, guardian.co.uk, accessed 16/1/2014,

Necessary for an impartial peace.  By prosecuting perpetrators, justice creates a deterrent. The deterrent effect, as accepted in criminal law generally, is likely to make the peace more long standing and stable in the future – it will make those minded to perform atrocities think again. If those who committed atrocities ‘get away with it’ they will be much more likely to plunge the country back into violence. If Sharon was prosecuted for his crimes in the 50s, would he have gone on to have the same political career? He would likely not have had the chance to allow the Sabra and Shatia massacre or Operation Defensive Shield. [1]  The career of Laurent Nkunda is a good example of this; he fought in the Tutsi group that took control of Rwanda in 1994 ending the genocide and then was a rebel commander in both Congolese civil wars in which he was accused of atrocities before launching his own rebellion, only now after 14 years as an army commander is he under arrest [2] . Clearly Nkunda being locked up at some stage would have been better than regularly negotiating with him to try and create peace.  [1] Hasan, Mehdi, ‘Five Numbers That Suggest Ariel Sharon Was a War Criminal’, Huffington Post, 12 January 2014,   [2] BBC News, “Profile: General Laurent Nkunda”, 23 January 2009,

Good: impunity is a bad thing. Those who break those norms of international law , and commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression should be prosecuted - on all sides. Actions by Hamas and other organizations that are reprehensible are matters that should be brought before impartial courts, too.  While there is no international international definition of terrorism, there are a number of acts which are prohibited by particular treaties – they can be prosecuted too.

If both parties are sincere negotiators – which is doubtful at best – the prospect of prosecutions may focus the mind on preventing further atrocities, de-escalating the situation entirely.

Was unlikely ever to happen anyway  At any rate, a prosecution was unlikely. In addition to the general support for Israel amongst the permanent members of the UN Security Council such as the United States – the US would have been likely to use its veto power to stop any International Criminal Tribunal for Israel-Palestine. Also, many of these actions were before the renaissance of international criminal law in the early 1990s following the creation of the ICTY and ICTR by UN Security Council resolutions.

Took a key role in negotiations  Sharon was not a genocidal maniac. He led the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza, as part of the unilateral disengagement plan.  If he continued in office, perhaps further negotiations would have continued with further successes rather than the stalled talks and false hope of more recent events. [1] Leaks of State department Cables show that Sharon had stressed to US senators that he would face down “a left that has no power, and a right which was totally opposed to his initiative” in order to negotiate a peace and was willing to hand over some Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem and he said “A final settlement might take a few years, but it can be achieved.” [2]  [1] Vick, Karl, ‘Ariel Sharon: Israel’s Soldier and Strongman, 1928-2014’, Time, 11 January 2014,   [2] Ravid, Barak, ‘Sharon was planning diplomatic moves beyond Gaza, leaked documents reveal’, Haaretz, 13 January 2014,

If Sharon is tried then many others would have to be as well  While many of the actions of Sharon were unacceptable, he is not the only person who committed horrible acts: not just only in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, but across the world.  If he were to be prosecuted, many others would be. Hamas figures would have to be indicted for their actions, too – for example Mohammed Deif, who masterminded the 1996 Jaffa Road bus bombings which killed 33 civilians as with many other commanders of groups – Hamas, Islamic Jihad, even Fatah - that have engaged in targeting civilians could be put on trial.

Prosecutions are an impediment to peace negotiations  A prosecution against a prominent military or political figure could jeopardize faith in the international community, which would be harmful to peace negotiations. Prosecuting one side would effectively allocate blame, damaging Israel’s position. Sharon may have been the only man who could have led the Gaza pullout, [1] he would not have had the chance or would not have been able to if he was prosecuted.  This is not a new concern – there were issues following ICTY indictments and the Dayton negotiation, with some parties being unable to attend [2] . Similarly, the Lord’s Resistance Army offered to surrender but refused due to ICC arrest warrants [3] .  [1] Vick, Karl, ‘Ariel Sharon: Israel’s Soldier and Strongman, 1928-2014’, Time, 11 January 2014,   [2] Goldstone, Richard, “Peace versus Justice”, Nevada Law Journal, 2006,  at p421-p322  [3] Otim, Michael, and Wierda, Marieke, ‘Justice at Juba: International Obligations and Local Demands in Northern Uganda’, in Waddell and Clark eds., Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa, pp.21-28

The occupation of the West Bank still continued, including the construction of settlements.  The general role of individuals in the peace negotiations is beside the point: individuals who commit atrocities should be responsible for them.

Just because something is difficult does not mean it should not be attempted.  Israel itself was no stranger to war crimes trials between Nuremberg and the ICTY: Adolf Eichmann, the logistical architect of the Holocaust, was tried and put to death by an Israeli court in 1962.  Sharon has been accused of things after the creation of the ICTY came in to force, such as deaths as a result of Israeli operations in Jenin in 2002 [1] .  [1] Human Rights Watch, ‘Jenin’, 2 May 2002,

The majority of these laws have done little to prevent citizens from seeking a career as a mercenary. While they are commendable on principle, mercenary specific legislation has not translated in to a high number of prosecutions for mercenarism in Africa7. Examples such as Angola and Zimbabwe are rare exceptions. Mercenaries generally operate in conflict zones, where government control is weak. This makes it difficult for the state to enforce such laws, especially as the mercenaries may be working for opposition factions.  7) Fallah,K. ‘Corporate actors: the legal status of mercenaries in armed conflict’, 2006 pg. 610

Legislation against mercenaries  Nation states and the United Nations have passed laws making mercenary activity illegal. Legislation against mercenaries prevent either seeking employment as a mercenary or hiring one. Western states such as Austria and Germany have made it illegal for citizens to become mercenaries, revoking their citizenship if they choose to do so anyway6. South Africa, a major source of hired guns, passed the ‘foreign military assistance act’ in 1998 which prohibited citizens from joining foreign wars with the exception of humanitarian intervention. In international law, the United Nations has outlawed mercenaries through the UN Mercenary Convention of 1989 which bans the use of foreign soldiers from fighting for profit. Finally, many African states have passed further legislation which restricts mercenaries operating in their countries. The trial of thirteen mercenaries in Angola and the arrests of Simon Mann’s unit Zimbabwe in 2004 were both due to their mercenary status. The increased legal pressure is a symptom of changing attitudes towards the use of mercenaries in Africa.  6) Mian,Q. ‘Legal status of mercenaries’

There are still enough wars and rebel movements to provide opportunity for employment. By 2013 there were 23 conflicts in Africa, with many other small militia groups actively fighting low-intensity wars. This stream of conflicts has ensured revenue for mercenaries. Reports have surfaced that ex-commander for the anti-terror unit in Liberia, Benjamin Yeaten, raised a mercenary force to fight against the army of the Ivory Coast between 2012 and 201311 With the prediction of ‘forever wars’ by Gettlemen12, where rebels have no object except banditry, mercenaries could maintain their prevalence in Africa for a long time.  11) Heritage ‘Liberia: UN reports- Yeaten remains a threat to peace and security in Liberia’ 2013  12) Gettlement,J. ‘Africa’s Forever Wars’ Foreign Policy 2012

Private corporations have replaced mercenaries  Private Military Companies (PMCs) are independent, registered, corporate actors who have risen in prominence and replaced mercenaries in their security function. PMCs are different to mercenaries in the sense that mercenaries will fight for the highest bidder. PMCs on the other hand will only work for legitimate governments and intergovernmental organisations such as the UN1. Their main roles include; support services, logical support, humanitarian support and the upholding of law and order and defensive military action2. PMC activity has seen corporations operating on behalf of the Somalian government training coast guards to deal with the threat of piracy which peaked in 20093. The legal status of PMCs, compared with mercenaries, makes them a preferable choice for the aforementioned tasks reducing the prominence of illegal hired guns.  1) Jefferies,I. ‘Private Military Companies- A Positive Role to Play in Today’s International System’, 2002 Pg.106  2) Jefferies,I. ‘Private Military Companies- A Positive Role to Play in Today’s International System’, 2002 Pg.107  3) Stupart,J. ‘Somalia’s PMCs: What’s the Big Deal?’, 2012

PMCs are just mercenaries under a different name, demonstrating a continued prevalence of the dogs of war in Africa. To escape the name, and the illegal status, of mercenary a PMC must only avoid one of the several clauses laid out by the United Nations Mercenary Convention4 While they are rarely hired for fighting roles, companies such as Military Professional Resources Inc. have demonstrated a willingness to engage in military operations; making them guns for hire5. Executive Outcomes’ operations in Sierra Leone equated to mercenary work, as they undertook offensive military operations with a force of foreign soldiers for profitable gain. In this sense, mercenaries still maintain their position on the continent.  4) Sheimer,M. ‘Separating Private Military Companies From Illegal Mercenaries in International Law’, 2009 Pg. 624  5) Milliard,S. ‘Overcoming Post-Colonial Myopia: A Call to Recognise and Regulate Private Military Companies’, 2003 Pg.16

More than half of African countries are ruled by dictatorships. Authoritarian regimes remain numerous enough, and the opposition still prominent enough, for there to be adequate instability for mercenaries to gain employment. During the Libyan revolution, caused by the poor governance of Gaddafi’s regime, South African mercenaries attempted to extract Gaddafi from Libya with supposed Tuaregs joining his force as guns for hire14.  14) Hicks,C. ‘Tuareg rebels make troubled return from Libya to Mali’ 2012

Decreased Conflict and the end of the mercenary age  The decline of conflicts and mercenary freedom on the African continent has meant less work for mercenaries. The Congo conflict of the 1960s, is seen as the first mercenary age8. Hired guns fought on all sides of the conflict and enjoyed the freedom to act at their discretion. The 1976 execution of mercenaries in Angola was seen as a symbolic ending of this age. That said, mercenaries were still prevalent into the 1990s and early 2000s.  Since the peak of the 1990s, however, there has been a noticeable decrease in the number of conflicts in Africa from 27 civil wars and 9 interstate wars to 5 major civil wars and no interstate wars9,10 . As wars and civil unrest are an obvious source of employment for mercenaries; this decrease in conflict leaves them with fewer opportunities. The African Union’s promise to end war on the continent by 2020 also puts the future prospects of mercenaries in to question.  8) Keane,F. ‘There will be work for mercenaries in Africa until democracy replaces dictatorships’ 2004  9) The World Bank ‘World Development Report 2011’ pg.52  10) Wikipedia ‘List of ongoing armed conflicts’

The expansion of democracy  The increased presence of democracies on the African continent has led to greater security. Mercenary activity is usually associated with the presence of bad governance, which is most commonly featured in dictatorships. Dictatorships generally lead to corruption, unrest and economic collapse. The dispossessed in society then begin to resist, with the ensuing conflict providing employment opportunities for mercenaries. A prime example of this being Equatorial Guinea, where mercenary Simon Mann planned to use popular support to remove the infamous Teodoro Nguema13. Since the first mercenary age, however, the number of democracies has increased from 3 to 25 which has reduced instability on the continent in some regions, reducing opportunities for mercenaries.  13) Keane,F. ‘There will be work for mercenaries in Africa until democracy replaces dictatorships’ 2004

NGOs are actively discouraged from hiring mercenaries. In 2003, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw strongly advised against the use of mercenaries by British companies on the Ivory Coast. In addition to government deterrence, many charities are more likely to depend on the United Nations to secure conflict zones before they operate. In Darfur, aid agencies relied upon the United Nations to set up refugee camps in the region rather than seek protection from mercenaries27.  27) Pham,J. ‘Send in the Mercenaries’ 2006

Firstly, the emergence of the African Union (AU) as a peacekeeping force on the continent negates the need for mercenaries. The AU’s has become increasingly involved in peacekeeping since 200316. They are more willing to involve themselves in African affairs than the West, and have deployed the lion’s share of soldiers in peacekeeping operations as in the Central African Republic17.  Secondly, the UN has condemned mercenary use in general and it would seem hypocritical to begin hiring them. The UN’s weaker states have been reluctant to agree to UN mercenaries for fear they could be used against them18. The UN has actively criticised humanitarian mercenaries in the past for their lack of appreciation of conflict dynamics19, making them unlikely to employ dogs of war.  16) Pan,E. ‘African Peacekeeping Operations’ December 2005  17) Felix,B. ‘Militia attack Muslim neighbourhoods in Central African Republic’s Capital’ 2013  18) Avant,D. ‘Mercenaries’ pg.26  19) Chrisafis,A. ‘UN and aid groups criticise “Humanitarian Mercenaries’ 2007

Mercenaries still have a presence in coups  African Mercenaries have been crucial to the success of many coups in the 21st Century, and are a ‘ubiquitous factor in the continent’s conflicts over the years, often determining the duration or outcomes of such conflicts’20. The 2013 coup in the Central African Republic saw President Francois Bozizi ousted from power and was accomplished with support of mercenaries from Chad and the Sudan21. An attempted coup by Simon Mann against Equatorial Guinea failed in 2004 and Bob Dernard’s five coups against the Comoros22 demonstrate that mercenaries still have a role in the changing of political leaders within Africa.  20) Mwagiru,C. ‘Mercenaries: Are the ‘dogs of war’ still prevalent in Africa?’ 2012  21) Melly,P. ‘Central African Republic: France and the CAR- Now Comes the Hard Part’ 2013  22) Mwagiru,C. ‘They Kill Africans, paid by Africans’ 2012

Cyber Mercenaries  There is a new form of mercenary appearing on the continent which is hired to use technology, rather than a gun, to fight. Cyber mercenaries are a relatively recent phenomenon. In 2013, British intelligence service GCHQ stated that nations were beginning to employ hackers to ‘attack their enemies’28. Kenya experienced attacks by cyber mercenaries in 2013, with 91% of its organisations coming under attack from these hired hackers29. There is potential for this to become a substantial form of mercenary work in the future.  28) The Age ‘Hackers turn into cyber-mercenaries as nations battle a virtual war’ 2013  29) Murule,R. ‘Kenya: Firms Battle Cyber Crime’ 2013

Mercenaries are still hired by NGOs  Non-Governmental organisations struggle to operate in conflict zones, and still hire mercenaries to protect them. Extractive industries also require security for their installations and operations in unstable regions25. The massacre of 74 civilians at a Chinese oil field in Ethiopia in 2007 and the 2013 Amenas siege demonstrate the continued need for security, which mercenaries can provide. Charities have employed mercenaries in the past to ensure better security. In 2002, mercenaries were hired by the African Rainforest and Rivers Conservation Organisation to seek out elephant poachers who they could not pursue themselves26.  25) Avant,D. ‘Mercenaries’2004, pg.26  26) Astill,J. ‘Charities hire gunmen to stop elephant poachers’ 2002

Humanitarian mercenaries  Mercenaries are finding a more ethical role in the form of humanitarian missions. The idea of humanitarian mercenaries is a concept of hired guns employed by governments and the United Nations to prevent genocide in the place of nation state militaries. The major benefit of using mercenaries would be the absence of a political cost should there be mercenary causalities as seen in Iraq15. There will not be waning political support from the military’s home country. Early examples include the use of mercenaries in Sierra Leone. When the Revolutionary Unified Front (RUF) was advancing on the capital Executive Outcomes and other mercenaries held back the RUF, preventing a massacre. They would later seek out and destroy elements of the rebel group. The lack of political cost makes them ideal for operations where other countries have no domestic political will to intervene.  15) Raffin,R. ‘Humanitarian Mercenaries’ 2008

Hired hackers don’t count as real mercenaries. While it is true that they are not a citizen of either state’s military structure and that they seek to gain profit from their venture, they do not qualify under the UN mercenary convention. To be a mercenary, one must qualify under all the conditions listed in the convention. Cyber mercenaries are not directly involved in acts of violence, which disqualifies them under Article 1, sub-section 2.A of the UN mercenary convention30. Definitions will have to be updated in the future if cyber-mercenaries are going to be considered anything other than criminals.  30) United Nations ‘United Nations Mercenary Convention’ 1989

Coups are becoming less frequent and less successful. The number of coups, which some mercenaries headed personally, has decreased from an average twenty per decade between 1960 and 1990 to ten a decade23. Success has also been less forthcoming; Simon Mann’s attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea was met with failure when he was arrested in Zimbabwe, and Bob Denard was eventually arrested by French forces for disgracing France’s reputation abroad with his frequent coups24.  23) August,O. ‘Africa Rising: A Hopeful Continent’ 2013  24) Mwagiru,C. ‘They Kill Africans, paid by Africans’ 2012

The long-term security of Israel rests in a stable peace agreement with the Palestinians, not in attempting to bludgeon Hamas into a truce 'on Israel's terms'. To the extent that Israel's large scale assault on Gaza eliminated the hopes of such an agreement, the attacks worsened Israel's long-term security.  A crucial step towards peace is to bring Hamas to the bargaining table. Israel's levelling of Gaza emboldened Hamas' message of resistance, and allowed Gazans to continue to rely on Hamas. As long as Israel continues to justify Arab and Palestinian anger through its disproportionate response, it is unlikely that enough trust can be established to reach a peace deal.  Even Israelis recognize that this assualt has created an even larger barrier to peace. “This policy [Operation Cast Lead] is not strengthening Israel,” noted Sari Bashi, the executive director of Gisha, an Israeli human rights group that works on Gaza issues. “The trauma that 1.5 million people have been undergoing in Gaza is going to have long-term effects for our ability to live together."(10)

The military operations were necessary for long term peace:  As Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Haleviargue explain, “the Israeli public will not make territorial concessions on the West Bank or the Golan Heights if Gaza is allowed to become a neighboring terrorist state that can launch attacks with impunity. Israel had already had a bad enough experience letting that happen with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.”(1) Without the assurance that they will be allowed to protect their homes and families following withdrawal, Israelis will rightly perceive a two-state solution as an existential threat. They will continue to share the left-wing vision of coexistence with a peaceful Palestinian neighbor in theory, but in reality will heed the right's warnings of Jewish powerlessness.(4)  Meanwhile, the stronger Hamas becomes, the more resistance moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will face to making any concessions to Israel.(1) Therefore damaging Hamas, via Operation Cast Lead, actually aided the peace process in the long run, and was necessary in order to make an eventual two-state peace solution possible. The Israeli attacks may also eventually help force Hamas to accept a more durable ceasefire. Unlike the botched invasion of Lebanon in 2006, when Israel set itself the unattainable goal of eliminating the military capability of Hezbollah, during Operation Cast Lead it was made clear that the objective was not to wipe out Hamas, but instead to force the radical group to accept a durable cease-fire on Israel's terms.(8) This was necessary as prior to Operation Cast Lead Hamas showed no interest in peace, opting instead to pursue its political objectives through the use of terrorism. When Hamas came to power in Gaza in January 2006, it failed to control the rocket fire from the variety of miltary brigades, including its own al-Qassam brigade, into Israel and failed to establish internal stability. The widespread violence between Fatah and Hamas, which ended in June 2007, when Hamas took control of Gaza and ousted leaders of President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement, made Israel more wary of the security threat an unstable Gaza could pose.(9)  In Israel's view, Hamas' behavior and its reliance on terror tactics will never change if it thinks it can attack with impunity, and so the Israeli military operations were necessary and justified in the name of restoring Israel's deterrent and weakening Hamas, both of which make long term peace more likely.

Under the same logic, over 1 million residents of Gaza have been under occupation since 1967, facing limited rights of movement, regular air raids, military checkpoints, random searches and seizures, random arrests, the destruction of sanitation facilities, homes, schools, roads, shops, markets, and health facilities, and therefore Hamas has the right act in its own self-defense by whatever means it sees fit. If Palestinians do not have an army to call to its defense, how can the entire population be punished for the actions of non-state military groups?  Israel’s right to take positive steps of some kind in the interests of its own safety does not mean it has the right to do anything it wishes in order to protect itself. It is also evident that Israel violated international law and committed war crimes, was was reported in the Goldstone Report.  Between the time when the shelling from Gaza started in 2001 and Operation Cast Lead, 20 Israeli civilians were killed by rockets or mortars, according to estimates by Israeli human rights groups. That doesn’t justify an all-out ground invasion that killed more than 1,400 people.(10) As Javier Solana, chief of foreign policy for the European Union, said in late December 2008, "the current Israeli strikes are inflicting an unacceptable toll on Palestinian civilians."(14)  It is a widely accepted principle of international law that actions taken pursuant to a state’s right to defend itself must be proportionate to the danger that the state faces. While the 20 deaths that resulted from the actions of Hamas and its associates were tragic, the nature of these attacks did not justify a full scale military invasion of the Gaza strip, or the mass destruction of infrastructure essential to life in the strip.

The military operations were legitimate as Israeli self-defense:  The military operations were a legitimate use of the Israeli state’s right to defend itself and its citizens: To quote then-President-elect Barack Obama - "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing."(1)  Prior to Israel's 2008-2009 military operations, Hamas had consistently violated the terms of the ceasefire between Gaza and Israel. It launched a total 6,300 rockets during an agreed hiatus in the confrontation, killing 10 and wounding more than 780. Hamas refused to extend the truce past 19 December 2008 and subsequently resumed attacks, firing nearly 300 more missiles, rockets and mortars.(1) Hamas was the first to actually escalate the conflict after the ceasefire expired, with a systematic increase in rocket attacks to a magnitude of hundreds of rockets fired daily in late December.(2) The 250,000 Israelis who lived in the southern part of the country were under constant threat, often in bomb shelters, and the economy suffered as a result.(1) Israel went to great lengths to avoid its military escalation. Just a few days before Israel's military operations, outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an appeal on the Arab television station Al-Arabiya asking Gaza residents to stop the firing of rockets and mortar shells so that a military response could be avoided.(3) This appeal was apparently ignored by Hamas and the other militant groups in Gaza, and so Israel proceeded to respond militarily to remove the capacity of Gaza to launch rocket and mortar attacks – Israel was left with no other way to ensure that the inhabitants of the country’s southern regions would not have to live in fear of rocket fire.  Gaza was also a test case, intended to prove that Israel remained a legitimate and authoritative actor in the region. Much more was at stake than merely the military outcome of Israel's operation. The issue, rather, was Israel's ability to restore its deterrence power and uphold the principle that its citizens cannot be targeted with impunity.(4) Israel's military operations were a good tool to fulfill this need for self-defense and did so effectively. The Israeli strikes hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces, both to its leadership and to the tunnels from Gaza to Egypt that Hamas uses to smuggle in weapons and build its growing army.(1) Doing this damage was necessary as Israel could never be safe with a strong terrorist regime in control of Gaza. As David Harris, Executive Director for the American Jewish Committee, argued: "Israel could not tolerate a terrorist regime on its border that was launching repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli towns and villages."(5) Therefore there can be no debate that Israel had the right to defend itself as well as the right to determine how best to do so.  While it is easy for countries and foreigners to state their opinions about Israel's security interests and how its actions may or may not fulfill them, Israel's right to make that judgment itself must be respected. Therefore Israel's military operations against Gaza were justified as legitimate self defense against Hamas and militant aggression which was putting the lives of Israeli citizens in jeopardy.

Israel similarly violated the ceasefire prior to 2008, and had unlawfully kidnapped and imprisoned hundreds of Palestinians. Furthermore, Israel's attack on Gaza was not an act of last resort. Israel could and should have tried to negotiate a truce with Hamas based on the following principle: an end to the Israeli siege on Gaza in exchange for an end to Hamas-led rocket attacks on Israel. This is the deal Hamas offered Israel before Operation Cast Lead was launched. Israel should have accepted Hamas’s offer and assessed whether Hamas’s intention to be bound by its terms was genuine before launching a military attack.(6) If an action isn't truly an act of last resort, it cannot be legitimately termed 'self-defense', and so is not justified. Hamas were prepared to enter into negotiations with Israel and it was prepared to discuss the more intricate details of the deal it had proposed. Its attempts to avoid conflict were committed and consistent enough to suggest that Gaza’s leaders were not engaged in diplomatic posturing or sabre rattling. Israel targeted more than just military targets, including UN warehouses holding medical and food supplies, UN schools, and hospitals. Its imprecise tactics and refusal to allow access of humanitarian workers show that it was not merely self-defense.

The military operations were proportionate to the threat:  Operation Cast Lead was justified as it was proportionate to Hamas' rocket attacks against Israel. It should be remembered that 250,000 Israelis living in the southern part of the country had lived under years of terrorism before Operation Cast Lead was launched, often in bomb shelters, and the economy has suffered. The world's media may only have paid attention when Israel responded to Hamas' barrage, but this does not mean that Israel was not already under severe attack by this point.(1) Moreover, the Israeli strikes were rightly measured to disable Hamas rocket attacks.(11)  Terror groups fire indiscriminately at innocent Israelis and then complain of excessive or disproportionate force when Israel fires back. But according to internationally accepted laws of war, Israel is permitted to respond with the force necessary to end the conflict.(2)  Israel was legitimate in using full force to win its war on Hamas; Israel was under no obligation to restrain itself in what is, on Hamas' own terms, an existential war. Provoked by Hamas, Israel had every right to wage a disproportionate and overwhelming response. Hamas has repeatedly stated that its objective is to destroy Israel. Such an existential threat goes beyond simply Hamas' rocket attacks, as it portends much more destructive attacks in the future. This justifies defensive attacks from Israel that go beyond responding merely to the Hamas rockets, and would even justify Israeli efforts to fully demobilize or destroy Hamas.(12) In spite of this, Israel was actually far more restrained and proportionate than it was obligated to be. Israeli precision strikes sought to minimize civilian deaths, as Benjamin Netanyahu argued: "In launching precision strikes against Hamas rocket launchers, headquarters, weapons depots, smuggling tunnels and training camps, Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties."(13) Unlike Hamas, Israeli strikes targeted military sites, not civilians. As Gary Grant argued: "Even if you target your action at military sites, civilians are inevitably going to get killed...these need to be contrasted with the actions of Hamas where every single rocket is designed to attack civilian populations, so every single act of Hamas in firing these rockets is clearly an illegal act without any legal justification."(2)  Israel may have been justified in acting disproportionately, but instead chose to respond in a proportionate and limited manner which minimized civilian deaths in Gaza, and thus the Israeli military operations were certainly justified.

It is indisputable that Hamas has launched violent attacks against civilian targets. Israel, on the other hand, conducts its operations exercising all due care to limit civilian casualties. Hamas terrorists, however, set up their headquarters and store weapons in private homes, schools, colleges and mosques. Both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit have blamed Hamas for provoking the Israeli attack on Hamas targets embedded in civilian areas.(28) Israel's air assault has resulted in more Palestinian casualties, but that is in part because Hamas deliberately locates its security forces in residential neighborhoods. This is intended both to deter Israel from attacking in the first place as well as to turn world opinion against the Jewish state when it does attack. By all accounts, however, the Israeli strikes hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces.(1)  Israel actually put its own troops in harm’s way to minimize civilian casualties during Operation Cast Lead.(13) This shows Israel's commitment to preventing civilian casualties and thus the justification of Operation Cast Lead. The disparity between Israeli and Palestinian casualties can be explained by the fact that Israel has early warning systems and hospitals. Israel invests significantly more in stable buildings that do not crumble when subjected a blast, systems that can detect incoming rocket fire, and an extensive and modern network of hospitals and emergency response teams. This, and the fact that Israel does not attempt to shield its military installations behind civilian homes and businesses, helps lower the number of civilian casualties as compared to in Gaza.(2)  The claim that Israel violated the principle of proportionality, by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets, is absurd. There is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian.(29) Moreover, if Israel were to be 'proportional' and respond to the Hamas attacks in the same way, what would that mean? Would this require that it launch rocket attacks back against Gazan civilians? Obviously not (this would result in even more civilian deaths), and this is where the logic of proportionality against terrorist attacks makes little sense.

None of these arguments change that fact that 250,000 Israelis in southern Israel lived under constant fear of Hamas rocket attacks, which Hamas escalated after a ceasefire which it refused to extend. It is notable that Syria, an implacable enemy of Israel, actually played a significant role in triggering he conflict. The Damascus office of Hamas, which operates under the aegis of the regime of Bashar al Assad, vetoed the efforts of Hamas leaders in Gaza to extend the cease-fire and insisted on escalating rocket attacks.(4) The role of foreign powers in proving the conflict through Hamas has been recognized outside of Israel was well: Egypt's Foreign Minister, Ahmed Abul Gheit, assailed Israel's air strikes but also held Hamas responsible. The Egyptian government understood that Hamas, like Hezbollah, is increasingly allied with Iran and its goals for fomenting regional instability.(1) Israel could not possibly have been expected to thus not take military action to defend itself when coming under rocket fire from a terrorist government dedicated to Israel's destruction and under the direction of foreign states which are mortal enemies of Israel's existence. There was simply no other way to stop the rocket attacks. Moreover, Israel's blockade of Gaza was not a justified reason for Hamas' rocket attacks. Israeli control of Gaza’s borders was a response to Hamas’ exploitation of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza to turn it into an armed, Islamic state dedicated to the destruction of Israel above all else, even its own economy. Hamas was not provoked. Quite the contrary. Hamas’ arms smuggling was the provocation. Then, on top of this provocation, Hamas fired rockets indiscriminately into Israel. The idea that Hamas was provoked leapfrogs the facts.(27)

Israel's military operations harmed the chances of peace in the long term:  The long-term security of Israel rests with a stable peace agreement with the Palestinians, not in attempts to bludgeon Hamas into a truce 'on Israel's terms'. To the extent that Israel's large scale assault on Gaza eliminated the hopes of such an agreement, the attacks worsened Israel's long-term security.(10)  Operation Cast Lead ignored history, which teaches that there is no military solution to peace with the Palestinians. As a Daily Star Editorial argued, "For the Israelis, once they have exercised this latest spasm of gratuitous bloodletting, there will be yet another opportunity to accept the oft-proved impossibility of a military solution. The Palestinian people will not be battered into submission, no amount of air strikes will make the core issues in the moribund peace process go away, and all of the same difficult decisions will still be waiting when the dust settles."(18) Thus Operation Cast Lead actually undermined future peace by once more making Israelis believe they can fight their way to a solution, which they cannot. As Nicholas Kristoff argues, "What we’re seeing in the Middle East is the Boomerang Syndrome. Arab terrorism built support for right-wing Israeli politicians, who took harsh actions against Palestinians, who responded with more terrorism, and so on. Extremists on each side sustain the other."(10)  Israel cannot stop rocket attacks by military action alone; eventually a political deal will be needed.(19) Operation Cast Lead emboldened the anti-negotiation side of Israeli politics, however, which focus on their claim that Israel should not negotiate with Hamas. However, Hamas was democratically elected, and so Israel must make peace with them. If Hamas was an authoritarian regime, Israel could possible attempt to get rid of it and make peace with the Palestinians in Gaza separately. But, because Hamas was democratically elected, any efforts by Israel to destroy them will be seen in Gaza as an effort to destroy the Palestinians and their democratic will. This would not enable any long-term peace with the Palestinians. Therefore, a long-term peace depends on working with Hamas, rather than attempting to destroy them.(20) Instead, Israel pursued Operation Cast Lead, which included an Israeli ground assault in Gaza, the excessive force of which is likely to create more terrorists in the long run.(10) The fact that Hamas was always going to survive Israel's assault meant that Operation Cast Lead was always going to help to consolidate the legitimacy of the Hamas movement, and to ensure that all the efforts of Israel to eliminate that fundamental pillar of resistance will produce the reverse result.(22)  Israel's offensive gave Iran and its allies a way to pressure Egypt, Jordan and other Arab 'moderates'. Like the Lebanon war of 2006, Israel's battle with Hamas in Gaza produced a schism among Muslim states. Iran and its Lebanon based ally Hezbollah have joined Hamas's Damascus-based leadership in calling for a new intifada, or uprising, against Israel -- and also against the governments of Egypt and Jordan, which are accused of silently supporting Israel's air attacks.(23) Israel’s ruthless attack on Gaza and the massive civilian casualties it has inflicted has severely damaged the nation's moral stature in the world. This moral deficit will cause problems for Israel in its future engagements in the world. Therefore long term peace in the region was harmed by Operation Cast Lead, and so it was not justified.

Israel's military operations were disproportionate and harmed too many civilians:  The killing of over 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 4,500 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire. For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade on the coastal strip that brought Gazan society to the brink of collapse. In the three years after Israel’s redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. And yet in 2005-8, according to the UN, the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. Throughout this time the Gaza Strip remained occupied territory under international law because Israel maintained effective control over it.(15) The targeting of civilians, whether by Hamas or by Israel, is potentially a war crime. Every human life is precious, but the numbers speak for themselves: 800 Palestinians, most of them civilians, were killed during Operation Cast Lead. In contrast, around a dozen Israelis were killed, many of them soldiers.(17) Precision strikes which avoided civilian deaths were never going to be possible in the crowded Gaza Strip. As Akiva Eldar argued: "The tremendous population density in the Gaza Strip does not allow a 'surgical operation' over an extended period that would minimize damage to civilian populations. The difficult images from the Strip will soon replace those of the damage inflicted by Qassam rockets in the western Negev. The scale of losses, which works in 'favor' of the Palestinians, will return Israel to the role of Goliath."(24)  It is notable that Israel is more culpable for the civilian deaths it causes than Hamas is with its rockets, as Israel had options (such as ending the blockade and negotiating with Hamas) which could have caused fewer civilian deaths, whereas Hamas did not. Rather Hamas responds as the disproportionately weaker party; the Palestinians were compelled to use the crude means at their disposal to free their lands from Israeli occupation, even if this meant being unable to target them well and some civilian deaths resulting.(25) Israel's Operation Cast Lead was less legitimate as it was not Israel's only option, and so cannot be regarded as proportionate. Furthermore, Israel's use of white phosphorous in Gaza was a humanitarian crime. The use of white phosphorous by Israel to shield its military movements in Gaza was a humanitarian crime, as the chemical causes serious health problems to civilians that inhale it. And, by all accounts, the chemical was inhaled by many Gazan civilians.(25)

Israel's military operations were aggression, not self defense:  Israel has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that they amounted to an act of 'self-defense' as recognized by Article 51, United Nations Charter. This contention should be rejected: the rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they were, did not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defense. Under international law, self-defense is an act of last resort and is subject to the customary rules of proportionality and necessity.  Operation Cast Lead caused the deaths of over 1,400 Palestinians, over 300 of whom were children, injured 4,500 more and resulted in the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN facilities and government buildings. If, as Israel has stated, Cast Lead was carried out in accordance with the terms of international law, and the safeguards incorporated into the contemporary law of war, then Israeli forces had a duty to protect civilian infrastructure under the fourth Geneva Convention. The death and destruction that Israeli forces wrought throughout the Gaza Strip was not commensurate with the losses caused by Hamas rocket fire, no matter how horrific those attacks may have been.  Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defense, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary. Israel could have agreed to renew the truce with Hamas.(15) Israel's attack on Gaza was also not an act of last resort. Israel could and should have tried to negotiate a truce with Hamas based on the principle that Hamas stop firing rockets at Israel in return for Israel lifting its siege on Gaza. This is the deal Hamas offered Israel before it started Operation Cast Lead, and Israel should have taken it then and seen how went before resorting to military force.(6)  Israel arguably provoked the entire conflict by targeting Palestinian civilians with its blockade on Gaza. According to Hebrew University international law expert Yuval Shani, "It is my opinion that in this situation, and given the question marks regarding Israel's status in Gaza and Gaza's long-standing dependency on Israel, cutting off its water and electricity supplies would be equivalent to a direct attack on a civilian target, especially given that the motive for doing so is one of collective punishment, which is, in itself, a problematic motive."(26) Hamas had offered to renew the ceasefire if Israel reopened Gaza's border crossings. The strip had been sealed by Israel in an economic siege aimed at toppling Hamas. The blockade had brought the territory near economic collapse.(21) Therefore this blockade must be seen as the true cause of the conflict, and thus Operation Cast Lead was not a legitimate act of self-defense.  The lack of efficacy of Operation Cast Lead also undermines its legitimacy as 'self-defense': while Hamas's offensive capacities were blunted for a while, the likelihood, as with Hezbollah after Lebanon in 2006, is that it will quickly rebuild its military strength. Indeed, the assassinations of its leaders by Israel over the years- and the raids on its weapons workshops- did little to limit its rise to power.(16) Israel's overall strategy, moreover, is not one of 'self-defense' against Hamas, but rather to make ordinary Palestinians suffer in hopes of creating ill will toward their Hamas government. This is why, beginning in 2007, Israel cut back fuel shipments for Gaza’s utilities, and why, in the aftermath of the bombings, 800,000 Gaza residents were deprived running water. As Sari Bashi, the executive director of Gisha, an Israeli human rights group that works on Gaza issues, argued: “The Israeli policy on Gaza has been marketed as a policy against Hamas, but in reality it’s a policy against a million-and-a-half people in Gaza.”(10) Rashid Khalidi added to this argument: "This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about 'restoring Israel’s deterrence,' as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: 'The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.'"(17)  Israeli internal politics may also have played a role in determining the size and scope of Cast Lead. Israel was preparing for general elections on 10 February 2009. The prospect of a return to power by the hawk Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, promising tough action against Hamas, hardened the positions of Israel's more moderate political leaders, and may have caused them to launch such an operation to 'look tough', rather than judging its proportionality on its own merits.(21)Therefore Operation Cast Lead should be regarded not as legitimate self-defense, but rather as an act of aggression against the Palestinian people of Gaza, and consequently w

The most important thing for regional peace in the long run is not the belief among Israelis that there is a 'military solution' to the conflict, but rather the belief of Hamas and its backers in Syria and Iran that Israel can be 'solved' militarily. It is this belief that causes them to constantly return to using force against Israel, as they did with the rocket attacks. Therefore to establish peace in the long run, Israeli deterrent and demonstration that its citizens cannot be targeted with impunity are the most important factors, and these are exactly what Operation Cast Lead re-established. Moreover, Hamas may promotes itself as the legitimate power in Gaza, but in reality, Hamas is at its core a terrorist organization that refuses to renounce violence or recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. Hamas came to power in Gaza through a violent coup against the Palestinian Authority government. Since Hamas refuses to live in peace with Israel, the Israeli government has no choice but to seek Hamas' replacement.(2)

Because of the size of the global community, and ease of communication and transport, most countries can still attain necessary weapons and tools. As the world has globalized and information can be passed, attained, and hidden, with the click of a button, arms embargos are much more difficult to maintain. The UN placed an arms embargo on the Sudan due to fears of ethnic cleansing carried out by the Janjaweed, yet it was reported that there were violations of the embargo on all sides of the conflict. In fact, there were accusations backed up by pictorial evidence that even after the arms embargo was put into place, China and Russia, both members of the UN security council, were selling weapons to the country1. Arms embargoes often fall short of their goals. 1 BBC (2007), "China, Russia deny weapons breach", [Accessed June 10, 2011]

Sanctions can block the weapons that are used to perpetrate human rights violations.  Arms embargos are a type of sanction that specifically target types of weapons. If a country is being particularly violent towards its people or at risk of civil war, arms embargos can be used to decrease the weapons available to the government or the people. In 1993-1994 an arms embargo was placed on Haiti by the United Nations after a military coup by the group FaDH (the Forces ArmArmées d’Haiti). Forces were estimated to shrink from 6000 to 1000 by the time the US invaded in 1994 thanks to the arms embargo [1] . Preventing governments from attaining weapons can be the most effective way of stopping government violence. If they don’t have weapons to arm their military, civil war and genocide become more difficult to perpetrate. Arms embargoes have been successful and when used in conjunction with other policy actions can be an effective way of addressing fears of civil war, ethnic cleansing, government violence, and coups.  [1] Bromley, Mark (2007), “United Nations Arms Embargoes: Their Impact on Arms Flows and Target Behaviour. Case study: Haiti, 1993–94”, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,Bromley, Mark (2007), [accessed June 7, 2011].

Sanctions often hurt the people more than they hurt the regimes, rendering it difficult to discern whether the state(s) imposing sanctions truly care about the citizens involved or their own self-interests. Inflicting the pain of poverty and starvation obviously does not show solidarity, but instead can crush any opposition movement in the country. If people are worried about feeding themselves they are less likely to take action against their government. Additionally, sanctions are not the only form of supporting the people of a country. In the most recent Arab Spring, the US did not support protesters solely through sanctions, but instead publicly called for reforms1. Drawing international attention to certain issues can also be an effective means of taking action. Sanctions are therefore not a necessary or effective way of showing support. 1 Sharp, Jeb (2011), "President Obama Calls for Middle East Reform", PRI's The World, [accessed June 10, 2011].

Sanctions have been an effective long term policy tool in the past.  If sanctions are effective, their use is justified because they ultimately achieve a desired outcome. They cause financial pain to leaders pressuring them to reform. Long term sanctions on South Africa were an effective policy. They caused the living standards in the country to deteriorate, however this ultimately led to the right amount of pressure on the government for apartheid to be ended1. Economic restrictions were first placed on South Africa in 1963 and were ultimately lifted after the end of apartheid almost 30 years later. Nelson Mandela himself has stated that sanctions played a role in forcing the South African government to end apartheid2. The success of sanctions in the past has prevented the international community from taking military action against certain states. Due to prior success in South Africa, sanctions are an appropriate tool to push countries towards reform while preventing military escalation. 1 Foer, Franklin (1996), "Economic Sanctions", Slate.com,, [Accessed June 7, 2011]. 2 Laverty, Alexander (2007), "Impact of Economic and Political Sanctions on Apartheid", The Africa File, [Accessed June 10, 2011].

Sanctions have also failed in the long term. A recent study found that sanctions were used 116 times between 1914 and 1990, and after 1973 were only effective 24% of the time1. South Africa is not an appropriate example because the US and EU had a cooperative relationship with the country prior to sanctions therefore increasing the impact the trade restrictions had. Sanctions are now mostly used against isolated countries, like North Korea and Myanmar, who do not have a close relationship with international actors, and for whom cutting off trade is not such a detrimental loss. Since the countries sanctions are currently being used against do not fit the profile of South Africa, sanctions are ineffective and success in South Africa is irrelevant. 1 Gilboy, George (2008), "Political and Social Reform in China: Alive and Walking", Washington Quarterly, [Accessed June 10, 2011].

Recent sanctions failures can make sanctions a less viable threat. Seeing that Myanmar, Iran and North Korea have successfully been able to deflect the pain and pressure of sanctions onto their people1, the threat of sanctions becomes less powerful because it is less likely to spell the end of a regime2. The failure of sanctions, not the infrequent use, makes them useless. 1 The Economist (2011), "An aye for sanctions", [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 2 Noland, Marcus (2009), "The (Non-) Impact of UN Sanctions on North Korea", The National Bureau of Asian Research, [Accessed June 10, 2011].

Sanctions make clear where a country stands.  Sanctions send a strong message to the people of a country that the Western world is on their side and will not just remain compliant by dealing with an oppressive regime as if it has done nothing wrong. Part of what encourages peoples to stand up for their civil liberties is a feeling of support against their regime from outside actors. True reform needs to come from pressure within and outside of the state as it did in South Africa. The only way to incentivize internal pressure is by expressing support for civilian movements. In the case of the repressive government in Myanmar, the lifting of sanctions would be viewed as a betrayal by the Myanmarese and would reverse any progress that sanctions have helped to achieve. The leader of the opposition movement, Aung San Suu Kyi, in Myanmar has called for a continuation of sanctions, and in an act of support the US has complied1. Therefore sanctions can be an important signal of support to a country's people, which makes them more likely to stand up to their government and create the necessary internal pressure for reform. 1 Colvin, Jake and Cox, Simon (2007), "Are Economic Sanctions Good Foreign Policy?", Council on Foreign Relations, [Accessed June 10, 2011].

Just the threat of sanctions can be an effective coercive tool.  Most diplomatic negotiations occur behind closed doors, and it has been hypothesized that if sanctions are going to be effective it is the threat of the sanctions that forces the country to concede, not the sanctions themselves1. That said, if sanctions were never followed through, the threat would be meaningless. The use of sanctions builds up the fear of sanction. This fear can bend countries towards the will of the sanctioning nation. To maintain the threat of sanctions as a viable negotiating tool, sanctions need to be implemented on occasion to prevent sanctions from becoming an empty, meaningless threat. 1 Colvin, Jake and Cox, Simon (2007), "Are Economic Sanctions Good Foreign Policy?", Council on Foreign Relations, [Accessed June 10, 2011].

Free trade does not guarantee democracy and causes bargaining countries to lose leverage. In order to increase their own wealth most dictatorial oligarchies welcome free trade. Once they have been accepted into the free trade arena the West no longer has any leverage on them. It is true, for example, that a sanctions regime against China would be impossible to implement but that does not mean we should concede entirely. We should reinstate MFN as a lever and use it to force China to improve upon its human rights record. To believe that free trade can lead to democratization is naïve. It is far too hopeful to suggest that the wealth produced thereby will be allowed to filter down to the people. For example, pervasive poverty still persists in China [1] . In reality free trade has acted as a mechanism to worsen the living standards of the people in China as profits are concentrated in the business sector, and people are subject to terrible working conditions and low wages [2] . As this continues, China also suppresses the voice of the people and censors the internet [3] . Trade liberalization has clearly not made a China a democracy, and thus cannot be declared a more successful policy option than sanctions.  [1] Wall Street Journal (2009), “Facts About Poverty in China Challenge Conventional Wisdom”, [Accessed June 10, 2011].  [2] Roberts, Dexter (2007), “China's Widening Income Gap”, Bloomberg News, [Accessed June 10, 2011].  [3] Ramzy, Austin (2011), “State Stamps Out Small 'Jasmine' Protests in China”, Time Magazine, [Accessed June, 10 2011].

A unified front is not impossible, and when executed correctly can have effective results. Sanctions were used in South Africa, and due to grassroots pressures in the US and Europe trading with South Africa became stigmatized1. Even though it is difficult to create effective sanctions, it is not impossible particularly if there is pressure internally and externally on the country to reform. 1 Foer, Franklin (1996), "Economic Sanctions", Slate.com,, [Accessed June 7, 2011].

Sanctions are ineffective because they hurt ordinary people more than leadership.  Sanctions operate under the assumption that they will hurt leaders of a country so much that they will bend to the will of the sanctioning country. Yet this assumption is false: governments have the tools to insulate themselves thereby preventing sanctions from imposing necessary pressure. By keeping all available resources for themselves, the government ensures that the sanctions impact only the people. Governments that can achieve this deflection have a relatively powerless citizen base that even when they are suffering have difficulty standing up to the government. Punishing innocent people is immoral, because they are suffering for a crime they did not commit. When the US and UK placed sanctions on Saddam Hussein, it lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq, although the exact number is contested. Considering that US ultimately invaded Iraq, these children died in vain. In North Korea, it is thought that sanctions have led to the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people. In both Myanmar and North Korea most of the pain from sanctions is deflected onto the largely helpless population who have little ability to put pressure on their oppressive governments to stop the suffering1. Because this suffering often does not affect the leadership, they can essentially ignore any pressure to reform2. And, many of these governments simply don't have an interest in improving the lives of their people, making sanctions immoral and ineffective3. 1 Carpenter, Ted and Preble, Christopher (2006), "North Korean Sanctions: A Cruel Mirage", The CATO Institute, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 2 House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs (2006-2007), "The Impact of Economic Sanctions, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 3 Loyola, Mario (2010), "We Don't Need to 'Get Over the Sanctions Delusion'", National Review,, [Accessed June 10, 2011].

Sanctions are ineffective because they can be counterproductive.  Sanctions often cut off a country from the international community. This blocks the flow of outside information into a country and permits dictators to mercilessly use propaganda to strengthen their own position. It is impossible for the people to believe such propaganda is false when there are no competing external claims1. This propaganda can deflect blame for the economic suffering from the government to the international community. This is called the "rally around the flag effect" characterized by the banding together of opposing factions because of the adverse actions of an outside power2. For example, sanctions in Myanmar will only serve to insulate the SPDC, the ruling party, in power. The SPDC's grip on the national media means that it is able to disseminate propaganda which demonizes the West as the enemy of the Myanmarese, and casts the military junta as their hero. This can make the people more willing to stand up to the Western powers instead of their government. The lifting of sanctions may ensure that ordinary Myanmarese citizens are exposed to Western technology, labor practices and political ideologies which in turn will equip them with the belief and self-determination necessary to engineer change in their own country. The power of media cannot be underestimated, and isolation of sanctioned countries jeopardizes the opposition movements in that country integral to regime change. This threat ultimately outweighs potential benefits of sanctions. 1 Eland, Ivan (2006), "Economic Coercion Is Not an Effective Foreign Policy Tool", Independent Institute, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 2 Chapman, Terrence and Reiter, Dan (2004), "The United Nations Security Council and the Rally Around the Flag Effect", Emory University Political Science Department, [Accessed June 20, 2011].

Sanctions are the opposite of free trade and therefore should not be used because free trade has greater benefits.  Sanctions prevent free trade, which is ultimately more effective for incentivizing reforms. Three mechanisms can be broadly identified through which free trade brings about democratization. Firstly, it permits a flow of information from Western countries. Secondly, it leads to an increase in the wealth of everybody and thirdly it facilitates the growth of a middle class. The middle class is usually the one that calls for political reform, because they no longer have to worry about living from day to day, and are not complacent about their government's corruption and failure to address their concerns1.These three factors together result in internal pressure and consequent political change; economic freedoms lead to political freedoms. This approach was successful in helping to bring about the downfall of communism in the Warsaw pact and is starting to lead to increased freedoms in China. For example, China has been taking a slow path to government reform2. Previous policy directed toward China was to link trading rights, in the form of MFN (most favored nation) status to improvements in human rights. All China ever did was offer fleeting changes whenever necessary to preserve MFN status. It is only with unlimited free trade that we will see deep structural changes in human rights in China. Additionally, economic growth due to increased trade has not only impacted China, but other countries in the region as well, like Taiwan and South Korea. There, new constitutions and managed elections, led over time to a more meaningful democracy3. These success stories show that free trade can be implemented in other countries to produce effective government change over time and is a more viable option than sanctions. 1 Tlili, Moustapha (2011). "Tunisia's Revolution Was Led By Secular Middle Class", Daily Star (Lebanon), (Accessed June 20, 2011) 2 Gilboy, George (2008), "Political and Social Reform in China: Alive and Walking", Washington Quarterly, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 3 Heritage Foundation (1997), "A User's Guide To Economic Sanctions", , [Accessed June

Sanctions are ineffective because it is very difficult to unify an adequate number of countries to cripple an economy.  Many countries must employ sanctions for them to be successful, yet due to competing political objectives unifying enough countries is almost impossible. If sanctions are only imposed by a few countries, the sanctioned nation can replace lost trade from those countries with trade from other allies, deflecting the economic consequences of the sanctions. North Korea is so isolated from the international community that sanctions have had little effect, particularly because their most important trade partner, China, has continued to do business with them1. The UK and US sanctions have not been effective in the case of Myanmar given that the country mainly trades with other ASEAN member states, India, China and Japan. The violation of sanctions often has to do with political motives. In the case of ASEAN, the member countries are concerned that China may use Myanmar for military and naval bases, so they are pouring money into the country and breaking US sanctions to promote their own self-interest in the region and counter China2. Considering that every country has their self-interest in mind, it is ultimately too difficult to forge a united front between enough countries to cripple the country they are sanctioning. 1 Noland, Marcus (2009), "The (Non-) Impact of UN Sanctions on North Korea", The National Bureau of Asian Research, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 2 Heritage Foundation (1997), "A User's Guide To Economic Sanctions", , [Accessed June 10, 2011].

Not all peoples are so easily manipulated by a corrupt government. It is naïve to suggest that the Myanmarese people accept the government’s propaganda without question. After all, many are still reeling from the tragedy that befell them in 1990 when the results of democratic elections were annulled and scores of opposition party supporters were arrested and imprisoned without trial [1] . The popularity of Aung San Suu Kyi, the main opposition leader, and the NLD remain high [2] . Further, social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter make propaganda less effective and help disseminate criticism of governments even in times of extreme media censorship [3] . With current internet tools, crushing opposition movements, even with propaganda, is not so easy therefore countering the potential threat of sanctions.  [1] BBC (2010), “Burma's leaders annul Suu Kyi's 1990 poll win”  [2] BBC (2011), "Burma upholds dissolution of Suu Kyi's NLD party'  [3] Shirky, Clay (2011), “The Political Powers of Social Media”, Foreign Affairs

Although they do indeed hurt ordinary people, in the long term this can create appropriate pressure on governments. When people are suffering enough at the hands of the government, they are likely to take action. In Egypt and Tunisia the leaders were getting richer, and the people were becoming poorer, leading to the protests for regime change1. Sanctions worked in South Africa and in the former Rhodesia. It is true that they can lead to the mass suffering of the very people they are designed to help, as they did to the black population of South Africa2. Yet this suffering creates necessary internal pressure for regime change. By the utilitarian standard, which says it is just to help the most people, the current suffering of some due to sanctions is outweighed by the future freedom promised to all citizens. Sanctions are therefore justified and effective even though they hurt the people as well as the leaders of a country. 1 Bajoria, Jayshree and Assaad, Ragui (2011), "Demographics of Arab Protests", Council on Foreign Relations, [Accessed June 20, 2011]. 2 Heritage Foundation (1997), "A User's Guide To Economic Sanctions", , [Accessed June 10, 2011].

This is clearly extremely unfair on those countries that traditionally have much lower turnouts. It essentially means that countries with low turnouts will have less representation than they do at the moment. There is little reason why a nation as a whole should be punished by having less representation for some of its citizens not going out to vote.

Get out the vote!  In a system where every vote counts the same and where there are not set constituencies it is much more important to get the vote out. Political parties in countries with low turn outs, such as the UK which in 2009 has a turnout of just 35%, [1] will need to get their people motivated and voting if they want to win many seats as they currently control. If a country with a comparably sized electorate were to get twice the turnout then it would get twice the representation in the parliament regardless of the similarities in the populations of those countries. What would matter is getting the national constituency out voting. This will help show that individuals really do need to vote in order to get their voice heard.  [1] ‘European Parliament Elections 2009’, House of Commons, Research Paper 09/53, 17 June 2009,  p.23

It is not just much more choice but too much choice! Do people in Greece really want the opportunity to vote for the UK Independence Party? Will anyone really have the information to make an informed choice between all the possible parties throughout Europe? The European People’s party (one of the groupings in the European parliament) alone has 51 parties as members of its grouping is anyone really going to look up the different party policies to work out which best represents their views? [1]  [1] ‘Member Parties European Union countries’, European People’s Party,

Encourages Europe wide thinking  At the moment paradoxically European elections are often not about Europe. Much of the time they are about national politics, and since they are almost always mid-term what they are often about is punishing the national government. Governing parties’ almost always loose votes while opposition parties gain, it is notable that governing parties only gain if the election is held in their ‘honeymoon’ period after they are voted into power. More generally European elections are seen as an opportunity to vote for small parties rather than bigger ones – implying it is a chance to follow ones heart over one’s head. Europe however remains a minor element. [1]  This change in system is unlikely to mean that national governing parties gain significantly more votes but it will raise the profile of the European dimension in the elections. When people are able to vote for parties that do not contest their national elections they will have no choice but to see it as a European election rather than a national one. Voters will be much more likely to ask how the policies of these foreign parties affect them and some may even consider voting for them. A few particularly enterprising parties are likely to run transnational campaigns in the hope of picking up votes outside their home nation. The vote will simply be more European rather than the same old national parties being the only choice.  [1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol.69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510,  , pp.501, 503, 507

One person one vote that will count in exactly the same way as everyone else’s  The European Parliament has a proportional representation system meaning that almost everyone’s vote counts but the change to a single constituency would still improve this. Everyone’s vote should count for the same no matter where they live. This system ensures that there is such equality in the voting for the European Parliament. From the 2014 elections Germany will have 96 MEPs and Malta 6 [1] since Germany has a population of 82 million against Malta’s 400,000 [2] it has one for every 854,000 inhabitants against Malta’s one MEP per 66,000. Voters in smaller states have an outsize influence. Changing to a single constituency would make every European citizen’s vote worth the same.  [1] European Parliament, ‘How many MEPs will each country get after European Parliament elections in 2014?’, Europarl.europa.eu, 13 March 2013,   [2] ‘Member countries of the European Union’, Europa.eu,  , accessed 7 May 2013

While it may be true on an individual level that everyone’s vote would count for the same in practice when looked at from a broader perspective there will not be equality. It will mean inequality among nations as turnouts will differ. Moreover democracy is not just about equality but also about defending the rights of the minority so as to prevent a tyranny of the majority this system however does not protect smaller states but allows the larger much greater influence.

Simply allowing parties from other countries to compete is not going to encourage Europe wide thinking. There is very little to stop parties from other countries registering elsewhere already, and as the voting is already proportional there is already a chance that they could win seats. It has however not happened.

Far from rationalising the system the European Parliament elections will become more irrational with a single constituency. Everyone will find it very odd that they can potentially vote for parties from the other side of the continent that they have never heard of. It may make the system the same everywhere but this does not mean it is a sensible system for European elections. The number of parties makes it complex, as does the concept of an international parliament where all votes go into one central pool rather than being based on nationality.

Much more choice  Having only one constituency across the whole of the European Union would mean a lot more choice for the voter. They would not be restricted to just their own national parties, instead they could vote for parties from other countries across the EU. One of the most important things in a democracy is making sure that votes actually count – a greater choice helps immensely. There will not be any opportunity to say ‘they are all the same’ when there are dozens of parties to choose from. Everyone will be able to find a party that represents their views. For example a left wing voter in the UK might want to vote for the left party in Germany feeling that the Labour party no longer represents them.

Rationalises an irrational system  The current system for the European Parliament elections is irrational and quirky because it is partially set individually per nation. The vote is not held on the same day in every country – the elections take place from Thursday when the UK and Netherlands votes through to Sunday when most of the EU votes, [1] some countries divide themselves into multiple constituencies – such as the UK which has 12 [2] – while others like Germany have one constituency for the whole country. Perhaps oddest of all Austrians are able to vote when they reach 16 years old while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen. [3] And all this is before the oddities of little countries votes counting for more is included.  Rationalisation of this system is clearly necessary and this is what this proposal does. Clearly the main rationalisation is in terms of making the value of votes the same. It would also eliminate differences over constituencies. It is likely that it would eliminate the age difference too; Austria allowing its citizens to vote at 16 would effectively give it more say compared to its population size. The chances are then that other states would follow and reduce their voting age for European Parliament elections to 16. While there is no necessary link to voting on the same day it would also provide a good chance to make the change so the voting occurs at one time.  [1] ‘EU elections: Polling day will stay on Thursday, insists government’, BBC News, 13 March 2013,   [2] ‘Your Members in the European Parliament’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom,   [3] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu,  , accessed 3 May 2013

This assumes that there could never be agreement in the European Council, between member states, to set up such a system. Members have an interest in having a representative system that is fair democratic system of elections so should welcome these changes. The member states have already effectively agreed that the European Parliament can decide for itself what elections for the European Parliament should look like having agreed in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to accept European Parliament proposals for elections of parliament members. [1]  [1] ‘Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’, Official Journal of the European Union,  , Article 223

No nation in the European Union has a majority so this is a baseless concern. The biggest country in the EU is Germany with a population of 81.8million against a total of 508million so Germany makes up a mere 16.1% of the EU total. [1] This is certainly not enough to dominate the continent.  [1]

Punishes apathy  People have a right not to be engaged by voting, and all the more so for a parliament they see as a gravy train with little political power. The European Parliament has comparatively little power, and where it does have power it does not affect the issues that concern people; taxes, welfare, education, and health. [1] This policy however punishes their countrymen for their desire not to vote because political apathy means less votes within that nation – which in turn means that nation’s parties will be less represented in the parliament.  [1] Pech, Laurent, ‘European Parliament Elections: The Significance of Voter Apathy’, International Law Prof Blog, 3 June 2009,

Some countries may be left without representation  It is difficult to conceive of how a system can be fair when some countries will be left without any representation at all. On average there is one seat in the European Parliament for every 670,000 individuals in the EU however Malta (452,000) and Luxembourg (537,000) both have populations that are smaller than this. In effect each of these countries will only have around two thirds of a MEP. It is very unlikely that even the most popular Maltese and Luxembourgian parties will secure a seat in a fully proportional system with a single constituency. Two countries would therefore effectively be disenfranchised by this system.

This avoids the real questions about the European Parliament  The real problems with the European Parliament are not about the voting system; most people agree that the system is currently pretty fair. Rather the problem is with A, a lack of interest in European policies – only 43% are interested in European Affairs in 2013, a fall from 51% in 2012. B, the inability of the European Parliament to address the main concerns of the people which are in order unemployment, social inequalities, public debt, jobs for youth, it is not until the 7th most important challenge, immigration that the European parliament has a significant impact. [1] C, a lack of power, and where it has power lack of knowledge about the European Parliament. A change in voting system does not mean a change in the Parliament’s powers or perception.  [1] Directorate-General for Communication Public Opinion Monitoring Unit, ‘European Parliament Eurobarometer: One year to go until the 2014 European elections’, European Parliament, EB 79.5, 21 August 2013  , p.69, 81

Would undermine national sovereignty  Separating the European Parliament elections from the individual countries of Europe is clearly a challenge to national sovereignty. Each member state should be able to decide how it conducts its elections (within a certain general framework), what parties can compete in those elections, the rules governing campaigning etc. The basis of the European Union is what is agreed between the member states by the members of the European Council. In the treaty of Lisbon it was agreed that “Representation of citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State. No Member State shall be allocated more than ninety-six seats.” [1] A change to a single constituency would break this provision that has been agreed by the nation states.  [1] ‘Article 9 A’, Official Journal of the European Union, 17 December 2007,  C306/17

It is not true that they won’t have representation; they may not have a specifically Luxembourger or Maltese party but there will be so much choice of parties that their viewpoints will be represented. Additionally this system allows the parties from these small nations to solve this problem by appealing to a wider audience beyond their borders. It is simply an added incentive to Europeanise.

Big countries will dominate  This system would create a tyranny of the majority that the current system guards against. The reason why smaller member states have greater representation is to prevent the possibility of the bigger states dominating in the parliament. Having smaller countries with a greater share of the seats in parliament ensures that their voice is heard. A change to a single constituency would change this to a big advantage for the bigger states. Under the current system in 2014 Germany will have 96 seats; if it were exactly proportional Germany would have 120 – a gain of 24 seats (presuming the limit of 750 remains the same). The smaller states will on the other hand loose seats and their voice in the parliament will become much more marginal.

Discussing electoral systems may seem esoteric but the voting system makes an immense difference to the composition of a parliament. This in turn affects the balance of power in that Parliament and so what laws are actually passed. So a change in the voting system does not completely avoid the question of powers. It may also change perceptions because of the ability of parties to campaign in countries where they have not done so before.  While the lack of powers is a concern for the European Parliament this is something that is slowly changing anyway. The European Parliament was in 2009 made co-legislator with the council meaning it has much more power to stop European level legislation rather than simply being consulted. The change in 2014 to having an elected Commission President will also mean that parliament elections have some influence on the executive. Additionally even on those issues where the Parliament has little power this does not mean it does not take into account citizens’ concerns, on youth unemployment for example the parliament has launched a €15 million program of job creation aimed at youth. [1]  [1] ‘European elections 2014: Different this time?’, EurActive.com, 18 September 2013,

Part of the reason for such apathy is the belief that 62% of European Citizens believe that their vote “wouldn’t change anything”. [1] Why vote if it does not matter. However by changing the electoral system to being completely proportional as this change does peoples votes really do count, this is no longer a reason for apathetically not voting.  [1] Merritt, Giles, ‘European parliament: unpopular, uninteresting, indispensable’, theguardian.com, 31 May 2009,

In many cases, an impartial third party can be more effective. If we look at peace negotiations as an analogy and look at, for example, those between FARC guerillas and the Colombian government they began in Oslo, Norway,(1) not in Colombia or any other South American country. This happens as in order for a conflict to be mediated, you need to have a neutral third party which no party can influence and has no preference. The same can be equally true of peacekeepers.  Due to African membership, the AU is unlikely to be considered impartial putting troops between them African factions. Of course, those African countries are part of the UN too, but due to the sheer number of countries in the UN, it is clear that the influence is much more diminished.  (1) Rueda, Manuel, ‘The Ultimate Guide to Colombia’s Peace Negotiations’, Fusion, 17 October 2012,

African forces will be trusted by Africans  The primary purpose of international organisations is to resolve conflicts between members. In the case of the AU its first stated objective is “achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African countries”. The main threat to this unity as well as peace in the continent is rebel groups and internal conflict. Groups for whom the only goal is wealth or to get into power in their own country.(2)  An AU force’s role would therefore be to defeat these armed groups and to engage in peacekeeping. An AU force is always going to be better at handling these situations due to its legitimacy in Africa. In many African countries, the West is perceived as an imperialist power, due to their colonial past and as a result there is a serious lack of trust between the parties.  An AU force will also be better than any local force as a peacekeeper as it will, like the UN, be seen as being independent while also being African. It would also, like the rebels, be able to cross borders. Such a force would therefore be able to hunt down rebels like the Lords Resistance Army which has so far evaded destruction by moving between Uganda, Southern Sudan, and DR Congo.  (1) The Constitutive Act, African Union, 11 July 2000,   (2) Gettleman, Jeffrey, “Africa's Forever Wars”, Foreign Policy, April 2010

In a world which has been constantly militarizing for the past century it is very hard to believe that Africa will be capable of building, from scratch, such an army capable of impressing the developed world.  Any AU army will be small; the US has a military budget about 15 times all the African countries combined(1)(2), China’s military budget is growing at a double digit rate and many other countries have vasty superior armies when compared to the best in Africa. An AU force is always going to be severely limited by its low budgets and capabilities. It may win plaudits and influence for its help within Africa but it will have no role beyond the continent as it will never be a force used to project power. Changing a perception that Africa can do nothing on its own is one thing, it is quite another to gain influence outside the continent.  (1) Simmins, Charles, “Defense Spending in Africa Increasing”, Clearance Jobs, September 6, 2013   (2) ’Military expenditure’, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, April 2012,

The international community cant be relied upon  It is clear that Africa cannot rely on the international community to solve its conflicts. In order to be more independent, what the African Union needs is a standing army, which can intervene whenever there is a crisis.  First of all, when looking at statistics, having dipped in the 1990s the number of conflicts is growing once more, the most recent events of Mali and the Algeria serving as a perfect example(1). “following a year (2010) that signalled hope for a more peaceful development, the number of conflicts increased by nearly 20 percent “(4). This has served to demonstrate Africa’s need for a force to engage in peace keeping and peace making.  Despite the growing need for peacekeeping forces, there is reason to believe that the help coming from the international community will be insufficient. The dysfunctional structure of the UNSC, the body which approves all major international interventions. Russia and China, two countries which have a non interventionist approach on foreign policy, have veto power in this body; which means a lot of possible interventions get vetoed. The examples of Syria and Sudan prove the inability of the international community to intervene in crisis situations(2) (3).  (1) “Jihad in the Sahara”, The Economist, Jan 17th 2013,   (2) ‘Genocide in Darfur’, United Human Rights Council, 2013,   (3) Reuters, “Syria Death Toll Tops 115,000, Group Says”, Huffington Post , 1 October 2013,   (4) ‘The number of armed conflicts increased strongly in 2011’, Uppsala Universitet, 13 July 2013,  =

On this point, there are two main reasons why the AU will actually do a poorer job as far as security in concerned.  First of all, there are no assurances that African countries have the necessary expertize or financial capacity of supporting a well trained and always prepared military force. Only one country has a top military, Egypt,(1), and this is largely because African states cannot support big militaries of their own so how would they additionally support an AU force?  On the other side, we have seen the international community engaging successfully in peacekeeping missions, helping local governments defeat rebel groups. There are currently have 15 UN peacekeeping missions(3) in Africa and French troops are helping to stabilise Mali and the CAR(4).  Moreover, the institutional drawbacks that apply to the UNSC unfortunately apply to AU as well. The AU has 53 members and for an intervention to be accepted they would need a two-thirds approval rate. These alleged military interventions might get stuck in the same institutional gridlock as in the status quo. There even are some cases, like Congo, where other states (Rwanda and Uganda) actively supported anti-government Congolese rebel groups(2).  (1) Global Fire Power   (2) “DR Congo's M23 rebels: Rwandan support 'falling'”, BBC, 5 July 2013   (3) “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, 2013,   (4) “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, 24 January 2013

Showing Africa can solve its own problems  Countries desire to have influence among the international community. States gain this influence in all sorts of way; economic wealth, high technology, charismatic leaders, or a military power. Having an AU standing army would help provide Africa with influence; it would show the unity of the continent and its willingness to work together. A lot of influence is about perception and this is something that an AU army can change; Africa will no longer be a continent that cannot act for itself even on its own soil but will instead be taking the burden off more established peacekeeping countries. This is an important gain as influence is gained by being able to bring something to the table. Having an AU force means the AU will always be able to bring resources and capabilities when there is a crisis in Africa. The default position will no longer be to look to the UN, or even to France and the UK for peacekeepers when there is a crisis in Africa but to the AU itself.  But an AU army would have other benefits too as the continent would be a better investment opportunity if there is an army guaranteeing security and ensuring peace. The continent’s economic influence may also therefore expand as a result.

In such a situation, past war experience counts for little as every conflict is different.  First of all, African armies on the other hand are familiar with the territory, conditions and people. It is true that Nigeria never sent troops to Iraq, but by battling Boko Haram every single day, it is fair to assume that the strategies and the military techniques used by the army are improving constantly, as they are forced to improve them by the growing threat.  Secondly, The West has been forthcoming when it needs to share military counter insurgency techniques for example of training foreign armies. Through the NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan (1) numerous soldiers have been trained and thus the Afghan security situation dramatically improved. Even if African armies are be under experienced, by participating in joint military exercises with military experts from the western world, they could improve their capabilities quickly  (1) ‘NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan’, International Security Assistance Force, 5 November 2013,

It would be only beneficial to Africa to take matters into its own hands and not depend on some foreign country to save the day when they are in need. Even though at a diplomatic level, all big western liberal democracies are “committed” to helping Africa, it is clear that this may not always be the case.  The West has become fatigued by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as proven by the opposition to a proposed intervention in Syria. Prior to this, the West has failed to intervene efficiently, such as in Rwanda where the response to genocide was too late (1).Moreover the African Union is often much faster to respond to crises in Africa and is the ‘first resort’ while the UN or foreign troops is a last resort. Thus in the Central African Republic AU troops were deployed four months prior to the French intervention. Intervention by western powers will only happen when the crisis is serious, and putting a UN force together can take a long time. This is a very big drawback on the side of the international community and it most often translates into lost lives and increased damages.  (1) Usborne, David, ‘UN pilloried for failure over Rwanda genocide’ Independent, 17 December 1999,

Action would require UN approval  The AU’s powers will be at odds with those of the UN. While the United Nations accepts and even encourages regional organisations engaging in “pacific settlement of local disputes” the point of an army is to be able to intervene with more than just negotiations. “But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council” so any potential intervention of the AU in crisis zones will be conditioned by UNSC approval or not.(1)  If it will, it’s very easy to see how the creation of this standing army will be more or less in vain as it will either be prevented from intervening or act as a subsidiary to a better equipped UN force. The AU could choose to ignore the UNSC. However this option is also problematic as it would undermine the legitimacy of the operation and encourage the creation of regional organisations that try to keep the United Nations out of the region.  (1) United Nations, ‘Charter of the United Nations Chapter VIII: Regional Arrangements’, un.org, 1945,

An AU force will be inexperienced  An AU force won’t just be keeping the peace but it may also be involved in defeating rebel forces. One of the most important prerequisites for winning and ending such a conflict is experience.  When it comes to fighting insurgencies there are many countries that have experience fighting insurgencies; the French in Mail, NATO in Afghanistan, the British in Sierra Leone etc. In each of these national armies have gathered experience and learned counter insurgency techniques. This now makes them best able to solve conflicts.  On the other hand, when looking at the military campaigns of the AU or African countries, there has been little success. AMISOM (African Mission in Somalia) has been in place since 2007, yet Al-Shabaab is still in power in many regions including the capital city, Mogadishu, and the ending is nowhere near (1).  As a result, we should choose the ones with the most experience to handle such crisis rather than a newly created and unprepared AU force.  (1) Smith, David, “Al-Shabaab rebuilds forces in Somalia as African Union campaign stalls”, The Guardian, 28 October 2013

There is no need for an AU force  Western countries have military systems far more efficient than their African counterparts, so it is clear that their involvement would be much more efficient than any AU-lead intervention. UN has already embarked on a mission to end conflict throughout the world and help the continent reach prosperity. Therefore, it would be much more effective for Africa to concentrate and invest in other issues and let the international community handle security. France’s recent intervention in Mali is a testimony of the western world’s devotion when it comes to African security. The mission‘s ultimate objective is, in President François Hollande’s words, to “restore Mali’s territorial integrity”(1) and an AU army would be no better at doing this.  The first point is obviously costs. The cost of a large effective army is very high, especially equipping it for any eventuality. This is very problematic especially when a lot of African countries have poor economies, extremely high illiteracy rates, bad healthcare and virtually no modern infrastructure. It would be much more cost effective for them to concentrate on handling these issues while using UN peacekeepers to maintain peace. There are currently over 15 UN peacekeeping mission in Africa, and if needed, this number can increase.(2)  (1) “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, Jan 24th 2013   (2) “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, 2013,

The Security Council will be most unlikely to obstruct a recognised regional security organisation from doing its role. Any veto would be extremely costly for the power that did so as they would incur the ire of most of Africa.  Most of thesituations which the AU will want to intervene in are not of a high enough priority for the international community to devote significant resources to, but which are still big enough to seriously damage African countries. There will be no reason to veto. Moreover, there will be times when the world will be just too ignorant and too slow at some urgent matters which need immediate attention. A well-prepared standing army would have been able to stop the Rwandan genocide.  As a result, even though this policy is not perfect it would help the current situation in Africa improve.

That’s what the status is now. If Africa is indeed rising, surely that is a better bet for Cape Verde? Cape Verde is already being integrated into Africa; it is a member of the Economic Community of West African States. There is an intention for these regional African communities to at some point merge into a market stretching across Africa; The African Economic Community. Cape Verde should increase its integration with a community it is already a member of.  Looking to the European Union also ignores China, India and other important economise – including millions of fellow Portuguese speakers in Brazil, one of the much touted BRIC economies.

Its the economy, stupid!  Cape Verde doesn’t dislike West Africa – it just has no real economic connection to the region. Cape Verde’s main economic partners are in Europe, with over half of imports coming from Portugal and The Netherlands, and more than three quarters of exports going to Spain and Portugal together [1] .  If Cape Verde were to join the EU Internal Market, as discussed [2] , it would give Cape Verdean exports total unfettered access to the whole market and integrate them in to the systems of standards. Joining would mean lower tariffs so in turn Cape Verde goods being exported would be cheaper in their main European market so boosting exports while imports would be cheaper for consumers in Cape Verde meaning the residents are able to buy more.  [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Cabo Verde’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014,   [2] ‘Cape Verde could seek EU membership this year’, EUbusiness, 7 May 2005,

Schengen membership is not the same as EU membership – some non-EU states, such as Switzerland are part of Schengen, the UK and Ireland are EU member states but are not. Joining Schengen would involve the politically sensitive issue of undocumented migrants, which could not only be fatal to Cape Verde joining Schengen but to integration with Europe itself. Even if it is unlikely, is it that difficult for people to show a passport?  Besides, tourism is not just from Europe to outside – a Euro move would only stop Europeans from needing to change currencies. The peg is the best of both worlds in that it means that the currency is stable.

Cultural links  Cape Verde is not a good fit with the much of the history of Africa. It has been joined at the hip with Europe, if other things had gone other ways this debate would not be happening as the islands could have remained an integral part of Portugal as with Madeira and the Azores. Not all Cape Verdeans do consider themselves to be Africans [1] .  Cape Verde culturally and historically has more in common with Europe. It has a longer standing relationship with a European state than other African nations that were colonized; it was first settled by the Portuguese in 1462 and unlike much of Africa it was uninhabited before Europeans arrived [2] . It history has therefore been one that is linked to Europe not Africa.  A future orientated towards Europe would not have to be culturally exclusive. Cape Verde would not be giving up its independence, any more than Ireland gave up its independence by becoming part of the European Union. Cape Verde would still be free to explore cultural and historical links with Africa.  [1] See Duarte, Diana, “Diana Duarte on Blackness and Cape Verde”, Unchain Africa Press, 2009,   [2] Schultz, Colin, “These are all the places Europeans actually discovered”, Smithsonian.com, 16 August 2013,

While Cape Verde may have a history and culture that is closer to Europe than all other African states this does not mean it does not have an African culture. There are of course many African states all with their own histories, culture and independence dates – from Ethiopia in time immemorial through Namibia in the 1990s to the birth of South Sudan. Some will have more in common with European states than others.  Cape Verde has strong links to Africa; much of its population were originally slaves brought from Africa. The World Factbook gives its ethnic groups as 71% Creole (mulatto) – mixed race, 28% African, and only 1% European. [1] With its population being descended from slavery despite its history having been controlled by Europeans its peoples’ historical experience is more in line with other African countries that were the victims of slavery.  [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Cabo Verde’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014,

EU membership is good for tourism  Tourism is a key industry for Cape Verde. The archipelago is a popular destination for many from Europe. While the country is resource poor in terms of natural resources, three quarters of the country’s GDP comes from services [1] .  Integration with Europe could see a number of advantages. The Schengen agreement allows visa free, and border control free, travel between its members so this would mean a potential boom in the tourist industry. Joining the Euro would also mean a common currency with other European nations – the Cape Verde Escudo is already pegged to the Euro, and prior to that, it was pegged to the Portuguese Escudo.  [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Cabo Verde’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014,

EU member states regularly have territories even further abroad than off the coast of West Africa – including even territory on the mainland of South America, French Guiana, a French overseas region. Cyprus is an EU member state too, in the Eastern Mediterranean sea sandwiched between Turkey and Syria. Cyprus is over 300 miles from any other EU territory, over water. In an era of telecommunications and international trade, is this distance too much of a problem?

Size is not necessarily a problem; it means it is much simpler for the EU to pull Cape Verde up to European standards than it would be with a larger country. It also means there will be few concerns about membership; no one is going to be worried about emigration from a country with a tiny population.  The process would also not be immediate; countries take at a minimum five years and often over a decade to join the EU. There are other potential candidates such as Moldova, with a lower GDP per capita, which has been touted as a potential member by Romania [1] . Cape Verde has a service based economy, like many EU member states. It is already a member of the WTO, and has had good solid economic growth [2] . Moreover the entire accession process is built around helping potential member states achieve these criteria, and Cape Verde, due to its small size, would not face the biggest challenges to get in.  There is no reason why Cape Verde joining the EU is somehow impractical on an economic level.  [1] Nn, “Romania urges EU membership date for Moldova”, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, 19 March 2014,   [2] World Bank, “Cabo Verde Data”, data.worldbank.org,

Cape Verde should be a beacon for Africa  Rather than joining the European sphere or even looking towards Europe, Cape Verde could act as a beacon for the rest of Africa. Africa has a need for countries that are setting a good example in governance for others to follow. The country is already at the top of several sections in the Mo Ibrahim Index, notably those relating to human rights [1] .  Its former President Pedro Pires has also won the Mo Ibrahim prize for “transforming Cape Verde into a model of democracy, stability and increased prosperity”. The prize is only awarded when there is a peaceful, democratic transition and is in many years not awarded to anyone, it has not been awarded since Pires in 2011. [2] Instead of abandoning it Cape Verde should help build up Africa – a rising continent, rather than taking the tempting option of moving.  [1] ‘Cape Verde 3rd/52’, Mo Ibrahim Index, 2013,   [2] ‘President Pedro de Verona Rodrigues Pires, Cape Verde’, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2011,

Geographical stretch too far  Cape Verde is just too far from Europe – it is 400 miles off the coast of Senegal compared to almost 1,900 miles from the Portuguese mainland. [1] The European Union has never had a member from Africa, and neither have other European institutions such as the Council of Europe. [2] The Canary Islands and similar archipelagos are not helpful as a precedent because they are integral parts of other nations that are themselves clearly positioned on the European continent.  The sole condition for EU membership is that the applicant must be a European state, something Cape Verde is not. Would the EU really be willing to have a member so far from it as a full member, when Morocco, just across the strait of Gibraltar, was rejected for that reason? [3]  [1] ‘Distance from Praia to…’, timeanddate.com,   [2] ‘Member States’, coe.int,   [3] ‘Legal questions of enlargement’, Briefing No 23, europarl.europa.eu,

Joining Europe is unrealistic  A move towards the European sphere of influence might seem logical, but success is not guaranteed. In terms of population, Cape Verde would be the second smallest EU member state after Malta meaning it would have little influence over the Union when it joins. And there is little reason for the EU to desire Cape Verde’s membership as it will provide no real gains to the Union.  Also, its human development index is lower than that of Iraq [1] , over fifty places behind that of lowest EU member state Bulgaria – which when it comes to governance and development is subject to little more than ridicule in the media of other member states. Not every European nation would get in on economic criteria – Moldova joining is not likely in the near future either.  The only success from orientating towards Europe would be a burning of continental bridges with Africa.  [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Iraq’, The World Factbook, 11 April 2014,

Cape Verde should determine its own role in the world – not be beholden to the interests of a continental bloc.  Paradoxically by moving towards Europe Cape Verde could be a much better model for the African continent – it would show that African states, even small ones, are capable of becoming developed countries. An African country successfully joining European institutions would give hope to the rest of the continent that there could be closer integration and cooperation in the future.

Being leader should not allow you blanket immunity from persecution of crimes. If an agreement was able to be reached for these two men, surely a similar agreement can reached for others. Stability might be undermined more if leaders who are proven to committing war crimes are allowed to remain in power where they may do so again.

Having the president out of the country undermines stability  While Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto have been visiting the ICC, they should have been leading their countries. While the indictment has occurred both have remained the leaders of their countries, but have been absent while major events such as the Westgate shootings occurred. Despite the need to strong leadership in the midst of a potentially divisive event, Ruto was only granted one week away from trial. [1] Having a clear and stable leadership is important for Kenya to develop, restrict violence and ensure that policy development is able to continue, particularly given the cross-ethnic powering sharing arrangement between Kenyatta and Ruto. Absence of leadership during the fear and uncertainty surrounding this event might lead to a fresh round of violence as supporters take to the streets in protest – this election had put former enemies Kenyatta and Ruto together, easing ethnic tensions in the region [2] .  [1] Ndonga, Wamubi, ‘Kenya: Ruto Can Return to Kenya For A Week Over Westgate – ICC’, allAfrica, 23 September 2013,   [2] ‘Will Africa pull out of the ICC?’, BBC News, 11 October 2013,

In the five years since the violence occurred, very little action has occurred from the domestic forces; there have been only two murder convictions for the 1200 deaths. [1] Furthermore, these forces are working for the people they are meant to be investigating. The case of Kenyatta has seen accusations of witness intimidation on large scales, meaning objectivity in local courts is very unlikely to occur [2] . The result of the Waki commission was to hand over alleged perpetrators to the ICC directly, showing that Kenya felt the need to rely on this international framework [3] .  [1] ‘Kenya: Prosecute Perpetrators of Post-Election Violence’, Human Rights Watch, 9 December 2011,   [2] ‘Perceptions and Realities:Kenya and the International Criminal Court’, Human Rights Watch, 14 November 2013,   [3] Wachira, Muchemi, ‘Annan did not ambush Kenya says Justice minister’, Daily Nation, 13 July 2009,

The ICC indictment undermines democracy  Uhuru Kenyatta is a sitting president of a democratic nation. This means that he was elected by the people to serve them. By indicting a sitting leader, you undermine their ability to rule the country as they will be forced to spend long periods outside their country focusing on something that is irrelevant to the governance of their country. The ICC has demanded that Kenyatta and Ruto attend the trial in person. [1] By forcing the President and Deputy President to spend long hours away from the country involved in a trial the ICC is effectively disenfranchising the people who voted from him to be their leader. Further, Kenyatta is first and foremost accountable to the Kenyan people, who have chosen him as leader despite these claims. It is clearly unwelcome interference by the ICC for the court to take the President away from his duties.  [1] Statement by ICC, ‘Kenyatta case: ICC Trial Chamber V(b) reviews decision on presence of accused at trial’, whereiskenya.com, 27 November 2013,

It would seem to undermine democracy to allow a president accused of violence during an election to continue to serve. Elections are only one part of a democracy; another is a functioning and respected rule of law. When the president has charges to answer he should stand down, at least temporarily. It is wrong to assume that someone who is elected as representative should have some form of immunity and that outside forces should not be able to investigate him; a president has a lot of power to repress minorities. That repression being supported by a democratic minority does not make it any less wrong. Moreover Kenyatta was elected with 50.07% of the vote, not an overwhelming endorsement. [1]  [1] Gatehouse, Gabriel, ‘Kenya Supreme Court upholds Uhuru Kenyatta election win’, BBC News, 30 March 2013,

Far from too much interference that the trial is on the point of collapse shows there has not been enough. The ICC has found itself unable to protect witnesses, with the result that there have been two withdrawals. Both the defence [1] and the prosecutor claim there has been witness intimidation in the trial. [2]  [1] ‘Kenyatta lawyers demand trial scrapped, say witnesses intimidated’, reuters, 10 October 2013,   [2] Sterling, Toby, ‘Kenyatta war crimes trial: Prosecutor asks for delay after witnesses withdeaw in case against Kenyan President’, The Independent, 20 December 2013,

Kenya can prosecute these crimes itself  Kenya has a functioning judiciary and police force. They have successfully prosecuted some individuals for these crimes and it should be left to Kenya to deliver justice for itself. There have been several cases brought before the courts. [1] Kenyans overwhelmingly see the ICC is ‘imperialist’, and 61% want the ICC to terminate its case against Kenyatta. [2] If and when Kenya’s leaders should be tried should be left to the domestic judiciary to decide.  [1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘UN urges Kenya to probe violence after 2007 elections’, Reuters, 26 July 2012,   [2] Wanyama, Henry, ‘Kenya: 61 Percent of Kenyans Want ICC Cases Dropped – Poll’, allAfrica, 1 February 2014,

A pointless trial that victimizes African leaders  While the ICC feels free to interfere with African countries it would never dare to do so in a western country; leaders such as George Bush, Tony Blair, Nicholas Sarkozy and others who have launched various armed interventions have not been put on trial. Not only is it victimization and interference the trial of Kenyatta is also likely to be pointless; it is on the point of collapse. The prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has stated “Having carefully considered my evidence and the impact of the two withdrawals, I have come to the conclusion that currently the case against Mr. Kenyatta does not satisfy the high evidentiary standards required at trial”. [1]  [1] AFP, ‘'Not enough evidence for Kenyatta trial': ICC prosecutor’, Google, 19 December 2013,

The Kenyan Parliament decided against creating a special tribunal, the court should not have then gone over the elected representatives’ head to hand the case to the ICC. The Parliament has since shown its displeasure at the ICC’s interference by voting to leave the ICC entirely. [1]  [1] AP, ‘Kenya votes to leave ICC days before deputy president’s Hague trial’, The Guardian, 5 September 2013,

Justice can still be sought by either local courts or after Kenyatta’s term ends. Justice should be done without ICC interference in the domestic affairs of Kenya. Even so, this does not seem like the pursuit of justice by the ICC, rather a witch hunt by the ICC for African leaders [1] .  [1] ‘African Union accuses ICC of ‘hunting’ Africans’, BBC News, 27 May 2013,

Breaks cycles of violence  When violence is not punished, it tends to lead to more violence – such as the lack of prosecutions following the violence occurring after the 1992 and 1997 elections, to which people attribute to the air of impunity in the 2007 elections. This is firstly because people never heal from the initial violence – when justice is not seen to be done, they remain angry and partisan. Secondly however, a lack of retribution leads to increased confidence to repeat and exacerbate acts.

Kenyans wanted the investigation  It cannot be unwelcome interference in Kenya’s internal affairs when it was Kenyans who invited the ICC in. It was the Kenyan government that set up the Waki commission under Kenyan Court of Appeals Judge Philip Waki into the violence. It was then this commission that decided to pass the results of its investigation on to the ICC in order to get prosecutions due to the failure to set up a special tribunal. [1] The Kenyan government may have disliked the final outcome of its creation of such a commission but it was undoubtedly asked for by the Kenyan judiciary. Moreover until it became clear that the trial could collapse Kenyans were largely supportive with more than half the country supporting the trial. [2]  [1] Justice Initiative Kenya Monitor  [2] Maliti, Tom, ‘New opinion poll finds rise in support for ICC; many want Kenyatta to attend trial’, Kenya Monitor, 15 November 2013,

Justice is important  Justice is important in its own right, for the victims of the atrocities and for the development of Kenya. Victims have a right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1] to have access to justice. Being elected should not be a blanket ban from being prosecuted for your crimes. In fact, the rule of law establishes the principle that leaders are subject to the same laws as all citizens. By seeing leaders being prosecuted for crimes, everyone sees the system working, allowing citizens to trust and buy further into the democratic system. As a consequence, the pursuit of justice is the most important factor above and beyond any claims of interference.  [1] Article 8, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Justice for violence is not fundamental to peace, as can be seen by the comparatively peaceful 2013 elections. Having now established working relationship between ethnic communities, why stoke the fire by prosecuting community leaders? 60% of Kenyans say they do not believe that the case even if it runs to a conclusion will not help heal Kenya. [1]  [1] Wanyama, 2014

Israel has a better historical, moral and demographic claim to an undivided Jerusalem as its capitol than the Palestinians have a claim to East Jerusalem. This is both because Israel's historical claim is older, and indeed original, but also because Israel does govern all Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, both fairly and democratically. Moreover, the idea that Jerusalem could be is not practical. If all Jerusalem becomes the capital of both Israel and Palestine, this would create all sorts of potential problems. If it was shared for example, would a baby born in a shared Jerusalem’s civic nationality be Israeli or Palestinian? And if an act is committed in Jerusalem which one nation's government recognises as a crime but the other doesn't, who decides what should be done? Different countries sharing a disputed territory but not dividing it is very illogical, even more so if that territory is the capital of both. Imagine what would have happened if the UK, France, and the USA decided to share Berlin with the USSR instead of dividing it!

Palestine has as valid a claim to Jerusalem as Israel does:  The Palestinians have as valid a claim to Jerusalem as the capitol of their state as the Israelis has a claim to Jerusalem as the capitol of their state. At the end of 2008, the population of East Jerusalem was 57% Muslim (Palestinian) and only 43% Jewish, sowing a clear and workable Palestinian majority in East Jerusalem.(10) Both sides have important religious sites in the city. The dome of the Rock is integral to Islam to the prophet Muhammad’s night journey to the temple making it Islam’s third holiest place after only Mecca and Medina. It is equally important for Jews to have access to the Western Wall.(1)  For the Palestinians Israel has made its claim over the whole of Jerusalem more illegitimate by misgoverning the East of Jerusalem. For example, because there are no Arab’s on the committee that chooses street names in Jerusalem in the telephone book maps of Arab neighbourhoods are blank, like unexplored parts of the Amazon in the 19th century. As a result mail is seldom delivered there, and having Arabs' become perceived to be invisible, non-existent or else branded as terrorists.(5)  Throughout the Israeli occupation the demographic balance has served as the main consideration in Israeli decision making for both local and central government. This has been a deliberate attempt to forstall any attempt by the Palestinians to claim that they have an equal right to Jerusalem. Israeli policies have been directed to mainly serve spatial/demographic domination of "Jewish Jerusalem." There was no attempt to "integrate" the Palestinian neighborhoods' functions with West Jerusalem or the settlements built in Palestinian areas. On the contrary, the policy has been to separate and isolate them.  East Jerusalem serves naturally as a metropolitan center of the entire West Bank, until the Oslo agreement in September 1993, some autonomy of Palestinian Jerusalemites was allowed especially in educational, sport, health, cultural, religious institutions and community based organizations. There has however been a movement from "United Jerusalem" to "Jewish Jerusalem." From 2000 the Palestinian demographic threat, became the reason for "getting rid" of Palestinian Jerusalemites after Israel had accomplished its spacio-political goals for a "Jewish Jerusalem." Israel of today is in the process of replacing the slogan of "United Jerusalem" with great "Jewish Jerusalem" with the Old City as its core. As a result of the Israeli policy, Palestinian neighborhoods (including the available land for future development) consist of only 17 percent of the entire East Jerusalem area and 7 percent of total municipal Jerusalem. Israel restricted the Palestinian construction and economic development, which led to the emigration of the Palestinians from the city to new areas developed as suburbs of the city. This territorial/demographic domination and restriction on Palestinian development affected East Jerusalem by deteriorating its functionality in disconnecting it from its hinterland and West Bank areas.(14)  Israeli officials have also not been fair or protective of Palestinians, repeatedly being highly abusive, and Israeli security forces have been accepting of abusive Israeli civilian treatment of Palestinians.(2) Moreover, Jerusalem can be shared, and thus divided in practical terms but not "divided" per se. It has been a Palestinian position that Jerusalem can "remain the capital of Israel" and can "remain undivided". This is a as long as that does not preclude the Palestinians from also having their capital in a "shared" city.(11) What matters is that it is recognised that the Palestinians have as valid a claim to their part of Jerusalem as the Israelis do to their part, and as a consequence Jerusalem should be divided in such a way as to give the Palestinians control over their area as the capitol of their new state.

The 1947 Arab invasion invalidated the "international" status of Jerusalem. The Arab non-acceptance of Resolution 181 and invasion of Israel immediately upon its declaration of statehood essentially reneged the resolution and the creation of an Arab state at the time.(15) Furthermore, self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination, including not compromising the fundamental security or territorial integrity of the original state, which a Palestinian East Jerusalem would probably do.

Sharing Jerusalem is necessary for peace  The only sustainable solution is to divide and then share Jerusalem, and the Haram-Temple Mount. No final deal will be possible if one side or the other is not willing to embrace this. Sharing Jerusalem would involve acknowledging and respecting each other’s claims which would extend to the other problems preventing agreement. (1)  Sharing is the only solution that leads to peace, as the Palestinians in East Jerusalem will not tolerate permanent Israeli governance. Peace will always be a trade-off; Israel needs security while the Palestinians need territory and a viable capital city which they have dreamed of having in East Jerusalem for decades. (9)(5) In any peace deal Israel will have to accept that their security forces cannot be in control of Muslim areas. The Palestinians won’t trust them as a result of decades where they have not been fair to Palestinians and have been abusive rather than protective.(2) All this means that Israeli rule in East Jerusalem can never be legitimate in the eyes of the Palestinians, and so long term peace can never emerge as long as this rule continues.  French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in 2008: "There cannot be peace without recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of two states and the guarantee of free access to the holy places for all religions."(3) There has actually been recent recognition of this fact on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Hady Amr, Director of Brookings Doha Center, wrote in 2007: "At a recent closed-door gathering of former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators hosted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution...had come to realize just how painful the issue of Jerusalem was for both sides, that neither side could feel whole without Jerusalem, and that separation arrangements were unworkable when emotions flared over a few feet of Jerusalem stone. Although it took a decade, the Israelis realized that they could not be secure from Palestinian rancor if they deprived Muslim and Christian Palestinians of sovereignty over the Muslim Noble Sanctuary and the holy Christian churches. The Palestinian negotiators also acknowledged the corollary Israeli need for sovereignty over not only the Wailing Wall, but also the Jewish Temple Mount."(4) A poll in 2000 showed some 40 percent of Israelis were ready to give up Arab East Jerusalem without even knowing what they would get in return.(1) While it is an unlikely solution most of the more likely methods have already been tried so new more unconventional solutions need to be tried. The division of Jerusalem could be such a solution that would kick start the rest of the peace process. The benefits of ending the conflict would be immense.(4)

Dividing Jerusalem would simply turn the city into a war zone, with the battle lines being drawn wherever the dividing lines are drawn, as the two mixed-up and opposing communities fight for control over streets, holy sites and neighbourhoods. Moreover, it is simply not true that the inhabitants of East Jerusalem necessarily want to be the inhabitants of the capitol of a new Palestinian state rather than inhabitants of Israel. An opinion poll of residents of all 19 Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem conducted in 2011 showed opposition to a transfer of control to the Palestinian Authority. 40% said that they would move to Israel if their neighbourhood was transferred to the Palestinian Authority, and 39% believed most of their neighbour’s preferred Israeli citizenship. On the other hand only 29% would move to a Palestinian neighbourhood if theirs remained in Israel, and 31% estimated that most of their neighbours preferred Palestinian citizenship. 35% prefer Israeli citizenship compared to 30% preferring Palestinian citizenship, with 30% not knowing or not answering. Residents therefore seem to be satisfied with their current situation of having Israeli identity cards which entitle them to all the rights of Israeli citizens except the right to vote in national elections. They are also all entitled to citizenship upon request, in which case they may vote in national elections.(6) This means that sharing Jerusalem will not be a simple solution and that the Palestinians can come to trust the Israeli government and its security services.

International law supports dividing Jerusalem  The Palestinian people since 1967 have demonstrated through resistance to Israeli occupation their desire for an independent state of their own.(7) An undivided Jerusalem forces the Palestinians living in East Jerusalem to live under the control of a state they do not wish to be a part of, a violation of their right to self-determination under international law. The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: “All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right”.(12) Because Israel captured East Jerusalem during the 1967 war, it is considered occupied territory under international law, and it is illegal for Israel to annex it.(7) This is why most countries do not recognise Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem and in fact keep their diplomatic missions in Tel-Aviv today and do not consider Jerusalem the official capital of Israel.(15) The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory or holding on to East Jerusalem, and so international law supports the return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.(8)

Dividing Jerusalem will not alienate Jews from their heritage. Dennis Ross writes in the book "the Missing Peace", that it is a myth: "that all of Jerusalem, including the exclusively Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, must remain Israeli lest the division of East Jerusalem rob Israel of its link to its Jewish heritage."(22) Furthermore, splitting Jerusalem will establish needed peace for economic growth. Without peace, it is impossible for Jerusalem to thrive economically as it should. If splitting Jerusalem is the best way to establish peace, then it is also the best way to stimulate economic growth. Finally, even if it would be damaging to Israeli society or culture to lose East Jerusalem, the fact that Israel illegitimately acquired it in a war means that this is a burden the Israelis should bear, instead of forcing the harm on the Palestinians.

The Palestinians will accept a peace deal that gives them East Jerusalem, and so the fears over 'Hamas' are misplaced as the conflict will end. In October 2010 Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that it desires, if the Americans would only present a map of the future Palestinian state that includes all of the territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem. “We want to receive a map of the State of Israel which Israel wants us to accept. If the map will be based on the 1967 borders and will not include our land, our houses and East Jerusalem, we will be willing to recognize Israel according to the formulation of the government within the hour. ” added Rabbo.(18) Moreover, Jerusalem has been psychologically and religiously divided since 1967. The walls may be invisible, but they are high and thick. Many Israelis never go to the Arab neighbourhoods or the Old City, because they know, even though Israel controls them, they are not welcome. Many Arabs don't go to the Jewish sections, because they too know they are not welcome. And tens of thousands of secular Israelis have fled Jerusalem for Tel Aviv, because they do not feel comfortable in a city dominated by the ultra-Orthodox.(1) Only formalizing these divisions can end the conflict.

Jerusalem belongs to Israel  Jerusalem became a city in 1010 B.C.E. when King David defeated the Jebusites. King David made that city his seat of government. In fact, King David loved Jerusalem that he brought the sacred Ark of the Covenant into that city and stripped the so-called twelve tribes of Israel of some of their spiritual and administrative functions. The Torah is the History of Israel. Jerusalem historically was created and founded by an Israeli and therefore remains the heritage of all Israelis forever, as it is irrevocably bound up not only in their history and culture but also in the Jewish religion.(19)  Moreover, Israel has fought for East Jerusalem and so has no reason it should give it up. Chris Mitchell argued in 2008: "Despite any public warnings, the private negotiations continue for the November summit...In the midst of these plans, some see an irony of history...This year, Israel celebrated the 40th anniversary of the re-unification of Jerusalem...The battle 40 years ago during the 1967 Six Day War reunited a divided city between Jordan and Israel. And for the first time in more than 2,000 years, Israel controlled the city of Jerusalem...Some fear that what Israel won on the battlefield could be lost at the negotiating table."(16) Moreover, Israel has not lost its legitimacy to govern East Jerusalem, as it governs it was well as it can and does so democratically. Israel is a democracy and is doing a fair job in keeping the city open to all three main monotheistic religions. Despite the Inquisition which ruined the Jews and the city, Christians today have been welcomed to the city and their holy places have been given both respect and honour by the State of Israel. Even Muslims have been given the right to maintain their Dome of the Rock - or the Al-Aksa Mosque. There is no reason why this fair religious arrangement should be changed. Even Rome, the seat of the Catholicism has accepted and appreciated the manner by which Israel is keeping Jerusalem free for all religions.(2)  It is for such reasons that a 2011 poll showed that 35% of the inhabitants of East Jerusalem prefer Israeli citizenship, 30% prefer Palestinian citizenship, and 30% didn't know or preferred not to answer. This poll, conducted in all of East Jerusalem's 19 Arab neighbourhoods, shows that Palestinians are mostly satisfied with their present conditions. Their Israeli identity cards entitle them to all the rights of Israeli citizens except the right to vote in national elections, though they can still vote in municipal elections. They are also all entitled to citizenship upon request, in which case they may vote in national elections.(6) Israel offers the opportunity for Palestinians to become representatives of their local communities, but that Palestinians reject this opportunity out of fear of being seen as sympathizing with the enemy. They shirk the opportunity to govern themselves and inflame tensions with Israel. They are, therefore, largely responsible for the poor state of East Jerusalem. Israel should not be held solely responsible.(5) Therefore Israel has a superior claim to all of Jerusalem than the Palestinians do to East Jerusalem, and so the city should not be divided.

Dividing Jerusalem would harm Israeli society:  Besides the aforementioned security concerns, many other harms would also result to Israeli society if Jerusalem were divided. Jerusalem is simply too important to Israeli society to be divided. Ben Gurion explain in 1937, "for the Jews, the millions of the Jews who do not know the difference between the Sharon [or the Jezre'el] and the Valley [or the difference between Rehavia and the Old City] the name Jerusalem means everything."(20) This remains true today: Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky said in 2000, "Above all, Jerusalem is the base of our identity."(21) This is why sharing Jerusalem is forbidden under Israeli law. In 1980, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, passed the "Basic Law". This proclaimed, "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel." This makes it unlawful, under Israeli law, to now divide Jerusalem and share it as a joint capital with a Palestinian state, and shows how deep Israeli attachment to an undivided Jerusalem is.(15)  Dividing Jerusalem would destroy the city, Roni Aloni-Sadovnik argued in 2006: "Yet there is a truth that has yet to be spoken: Any division of Jerusalem will bring about the city's destruction. Maybe, after 3,000 years of bloodletting and destruction, the time has come to understand that the road to peace does not run through Jerusalem."(18) A divided Jerusalem would also be less viable economically. Dividing a city in two means cutting off commerce between the two sides. It means cutting markets in half, reducing the market of suppliers for consumers and consumers for suppliers by 50%. This is highly problematic for a city that aims to become an global centre, and this is even more problematic when the city involved is considered to be a holy one by three faiths, all of whom want to see it prosperous and strong. Therefore dividing Jerusalem would be too harmful to Israeli society and to Jerusalem itself, and so it should not be divided.

Jerusalem cannot be neatly or peacefully divided  Dividing Jerusalem would simply draw up battle lines through the city. With layers of neighbourhoods so close, security is a very real concern. Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed this issue: "We've seen what happens when we leave. It's not an Arab majority. It's Hamas. Let's be very clear. It's an Iranian base," he said. "If we leave here, Hamas comes here. They start rocketing. They don't have to rocket. They can use small arms fire right into every one of these neighbourhoods. Look how intertwined it is." Finally he complained, "It's hard for me to see how people cannot see that instead of being the end of conflict, it would be the beginning of a conflict we cannot even imagine."(16) Nadav Shragai, a foreign affairs analyst, argues: "The moment that we re-divide Jerusalem and divide up the Old City of Jerusalem, we're going to create chaos. Look what's happening in Iraq where mosques are getting blown up and churches are being attacked. Do we really want to put that in the heart of Jerusalem, with Hamas and a Palestinian version of the Taliban?”(17)  Giving the Palestinians control over the Temple Mount, the "outlying neighbourhood" next to the Western Wall, will mean that Jews are no longer be able to pray in peace at the Wall, or hold Memorial Day ceremonies or induction ceremonies for paratroopers there; nor will they be able to ensure the safety of the president or prime minister should either wish to participate in such ceremonies. Imagine the street battles in the alleys of Sajiyeh and Beit Hanun, in the Gaza Strip, transferred to the ancient streets of Jerusalem, which today teem with Jews. Think about how bar-mitzvah ceremonies or wedding pictures could be held at the Western Wall, or even plain old visits to place a note in the cracks, if Palestinians "controlled" the area a few hundred meters away.(17) The examples of Rachel's Tomb, which the Oslo Accords turned into a half-abandoned border post on the outskirts of Bethlehem, and 19 years (from 1948 until 1967) years in which Jews were forbidden to visit their holy places, even though the armistice agreement with Jordan ostensibly guaranteed such visits, are pertinent here in demonstrating that religious rights would most likely not be respected in a divided Jerusalem.(17) Dividing Jerusalem will fail like all divided cities have failed historically. In the city of Nicosia in Cyprus, for example, they decided to build a wall to separate Turkish and Greek Cypriots, but this failed to solve the economic or political aspects of the conflict between the two peoples. And in Berlin, the wall brought no positive results, and was eventually toppled by residents themselves.(18) The idea of dividing Jerusalem between the Israelis and Palestinians presupposes that Jerusalem is capable of a neat division. But it is not. Somehow, any separation of the city into component parts has to recognize that there are myriad economic and cultural links among political adversaries. Moreover, the monuments and shrines of the Old City attract visitors from all over the world: Muslims who want to worship at al-Aqsa Mosque; Jews seeking to pray at the Western Wall; Christians keen to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or follow the Stations of the Cross. Try as one might, it is not possible to count out the lanes of the Old City so that each of them is controlled by only one faith, one ethnicity. Dividing Jerusalem, says Daniel Seidemann, a lawyer and expert on Jerusalem affairs, is "a political impossibility and a historical inevitability. It will take microsurgery, and I'm afraid the politicians will go at it with a hatchet.”(5) For all these reasons dividing Jerusalem would not be a neat, peaceful process but rather a contested and bloody one which would let forth a new conflict on the very streets of Jerusalem.

While it is technically true that the first founders of Jerusalem were Jewish, this in no way established a de facto right to that city. While Jerusalem may have technically been founded by a Jewish king, the intervening years saw more rule by non-Jewish peoples than not. Furthermore, the communities living there, particularly the Muslim populations, also built their own religious monuments and sights there, most notably the Dome of the Rock (the site of the Prophet Muhammad's ascension to heaven is Islamic teachings). Arguing this ignores the many years of control that followed the founding of Jerusalem. It ignores centuries of cultural and religious heritage that subsequent, and more contemporary, populations have developed in Jerusalem, and it ignores the equally valid claims the Palestinians groups have to Jerusalem. While it would clearly be unfair to give the capitol entirely to the Palestinians, it must also be recognized that their claim must be recognized as having equal legitimacy as Israel's. If Israel claims it deserves the city because of history and religious significance, then the Palestinians can say the same thing right back.(19)

An apparently strong UN obligation to intervene in order to protect innocents will not necessarily provide a positive, deterrent effect. Rather, it could merely serve as an incentive for dictators and generals to commit their atrocities quicker. For example, when the United Nations first considered intervention in Libya, Colonel Qaddafi responded by strengthening the crackdown on protestors and preparing for an all-out assault on the Eastern town of Benghazi [1] . The intent to protect civilians in this case served only to increase the will of the leader to harm them. Furthermore, many of the nasty or failing regimes who might be fearful of intervention have a Security Council patron whom they can rely upon to prevent any action being taken against them. If the UN has an obligation to act to prevent atrocities such as genocide, then vetoes will be used to prevent the Security Council recognizing that such a situation exists in the first place. Though it has recently joined UN resolutions on Sudan, China blocked moves to impose sanctions on Sudan before 2007, largely due to favorable economic ties with the state [2] . Finally, this proposal may make atrocities more likely, by encouraging rebel groups to provoke ill-disciplined government forces into committing gross human rights violations, such as massacres, in the hope that such a response will draw in international forces on their own side.  [1] Buck, T. &amp; Clover, C. (2011), “Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi”, Financial Times,   [2] BBC News (2007), “Chinese leader boosts Sudan ties”, BBC News,   Al Jazeera, 'China bolsters economic ties with Sudan', 29 June 2011,

A strong United Nations commitment to the Right to Protect will create an effective deterrent to future atrocities.  Governments and leaders who are considering attacks on their own people, or who are wavering in their commitment to defend them from harm, will be aware that ignoring their own obligations could bring swift action from the international community. Only once their ability to hide behind claims to absolute sovereignty has been removed will human rights have to be taken seriously by dictators and extremist regimes. Thus by adopting a strong UN position on the Responsibility to Protect, we can hope to make states take their own responsibilities more seriously and make the need for any actual intervention rare. For example, Omar Al-Bashir of the Sudan has committed horrible atrocities against his own people. He is complicit in committing genocide against Darfur populations, yet remains in power. There is a warrant for his arrest from the International Criminal Court, but they have little ability to act upon their threats [1] . A strong commitment to the responsibility to protect would ensure leaders like Bashir think twice before permitting such atrocities to take place, through fear for their own grip on power.  [1] New York Times (2011), “Omar Hassan al-Bashir”,

That creates a slippery slope. When does the UN draw the line that a government has revoked its sovereignty? How many people have to die? How can it be justified that only if x number of people die, then we will intervene? Additionally, as soon as the UN gets involved in a civil war or dictatorship and has deemed the government no longer sovereign, then who is in charge? Is the UN going to set up a new government and country in the aftermath? That is a large commitment that such a large organization may not be able to execute no matter how ideal.

The United Nations has a responsibility to prevent genocide and mass atrocities.  Citizens should be protected by individual governments, however if governments are either partaking in or failing to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, then another global actor needs to take action. The United Nations should take on this responsibility to protect people when their governments are unable or unwilling to do so, in order to prevent mass killings, genocide and other atrocities [1] . If we believe human rights have any meaning at all, then they must be universal and therefore our obligation to protect citizens from such horrors must apply regardless of state boundaries. Moving from a situation where the UN placed the rights of states above those of their people, to one where individual rights are given the greater priority is surely morally essential.  [1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”,

There is a procedural contradiction in the Proposition's position. If there is a universal responsibility to protect, why must this only be exercised through the United Nations, dependent upon Security Council recognition of a crisis and support for action? The United States believes that in some cases it would be right for individual states, or coalitions of the willing to take action to protect innocent life elsewhere in the world, even if the Security Council refused to deliver on its promises. Under the proposition, NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1998/99 was wrong, and so was Vietnam's in Cambodia against the Khmer Rouge, Tanzania's in Uganda to stop Idi Amin's bloodshed, etc. - none of these had Security Council support.

Not all crises can be dealt with militarily. Often an invasion only creates more problems. Further is the UN ready to take on the underlying problems in cases of genocide and civil war. Those rifts may take decades to heal and is the UN truly invested because simply providing aid and military support will not solve the deep seated tensions in countries like the Sudan and Somalia [1] . Talk of prevention and of using non-military means to ensure states protect their own people properly is little different from existing UN commitments. The UN has failed in the past to head off humanitarian crises and there is nothing in the new Declarations to make it more likely to be successful in future. If the responsibility to protect means anything, it is to weaken the concept of sovereignty and make military intervention more likely.  [1] Genocide Intervention, “Sudan”,

Countries and governments have an obligation to protect human rights and defend their citizens from harm  We can no longer argue that sovereignty must be considered absolute. Sovereignty was created as the means by which states justified the control of their territory to prevent foreign aggression. Since the creation of the United Nations, sovereignty is no longer as necessary to protect states, as most wars are not about territorial acquisition. Now it is primarily a barrier to the international community intervening when the state is abusing its own population. A better principle is if governments today are unable or unwilling to perform the duty to protect their people from harm (including state-imposed harm), then their claims to sovereignty lose their moral force and intervention becomes justified [1] . For example, Qaddafi of Libya was likening his citizens to cockroaches and rats, threatening to kill them house-by-house whilst speaking of his intent to indiscriminately attack the population of Benghazi [2] . As such, there was significant concern that violence would have devastating impacts on Libyan civilians. The United Nations, in response, authorized NATO action [3] . Through unleashing state military assets to attack his own population, Qaddafi made it clear that he was not a fit leader. The United Nations, as the representative of the international community, has the responsibility to protect those whose leaders have let them down.  [1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”,   [2] BBC News (2011), “Libya Protests: Defiant Gaddafi refuses to quit”, BBC News,   [3] Chivers, C.J. (2011), “In Libya’s West, Signs of Growing Frustration With NATO”, New York Times,

It is better to save lives than stand idly by.  It is immoral to let people die when something can be done about it. It inherently values the lives of victims of genocide and civil war less than other lives. The world and the United Nations have for too long stood by and watched atrocities unfold. Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur are all horrible examples where genocide and other appalling violations of human rights were inflicted upon civilian populations while the UN failed to act [1] . Clearly in all the past cases where action might have saved lives and delivered hundreds of thousands of people from evil, no action was taken by the Security Council. Therefore those who argue that future challenges should be considered purely on a case-by-case basis must accept that this is likely to mean yet more refusals to act decisively and so more needless suffering. We must place an obligation to act on the Security Council so that they are predisposed to respond seriously and swiftly in future. If there is a known atrocity going on in the international community, the Security Council should no longer be allowed to ignore it based on their individual ties. For example China could not defend the Sudan even though they have close financial ties when intervention for human rights abuses is the norm [2] . The world responded to the holocaust saying ‘never again’, yet similar ethnic cleansing has happened over and over again, and in defense of human rights the UN needs to adopt a no tolerance policy. Countries who are not prepared for this obligation should step down from the Security Council.  [1] Prevent Genocide, “Past Genocides”,   [2] Aljazeera (2011), “China Bolsters Economic Ties with Sudan”,

The United Nations does have a problem raising sufficient money, troops and resources to meet its present needs for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. This is precisely because all such operations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the approach so beloved of the opposition for dealing with any challenge. Without a clear global commitment to the Responsibility to Protect, the UN will always be scrabbling scrambling around to meet its needs in dealing with individual crises. Once there is clear agreement on the kind of situation which will in future prompt intervention, the UN can begin to plan ahead to build up resources, create contingency funds, and seek pledges of military units from member states, to be activated swiftly as needed. This could most easily be done regionally through the regional security organizations such as NATO and the African Union that it was originally intended would provide this kind of security. If the member states of one organization lacked some necessary equipment such as transport capacity they could borrow them from neighboring organizations.

The UN is the organization best equipped to deal with these types of interventions. If individual countries take action there are automatically thoughts of motive, and they can never be seen as a pure unbiased actor. Further, countries don’t want to take action because they do not want to become tied to the countries that they helped, whereas the UN does not have an aversion to commitment [1] . Having a strict framework directing intervention can prevent the UN from becoming the international government.  [1] Clarke, Walter; Herbst, Jeffrey (1996), “Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention”, Foreign Affairs Magazine,

Blanket commitment creates a slippery slope of when to intervene.  A blanket commitment could lead the United Nations and the word into great dangers. It must be considered whether intervention with force is always practical. For example, in the past China's government has committed horrific human rights abuses, such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen Square massacre. These surely show a state unable or unwilling to protect its citizens and would have invited intervention under this proposal. Or perhaps you feel these are purely historical examples - but what if the Chinese regime in future used horrific force to put down future risings by Uighur or Tibetan ethnic minorities? Or what about present Russian behavior in Chechnya? Would the UN really deliver on an intervention in members of the security council? Where do they draw the line? How do they decide which countries have revoked sovereignty with their actions? How many people have to die? One of the concerns with the NATO invasion in Libya is that it sets a dangerous precedent [1] . The UN would very likely be taking far too much on if they truly adopt the “responsibility to protect” particularly because it is difficult to justly define when a government has gone too far.  [1] Bajoria, Jayshree (2011), “Libya and the Responsibility to Protect”, Council on Foreign Relations,

Actions to intervene in internal situations need to be determined on a case by case basis.  We all have a moral duty to protect human rights and prevent atrocities, but we do not need to make a vague and open-ended commitment. In particular there is a big difference between a genocide pursued by a strong, centralized state victimizing its own people, and the inability of a failing state to protect its civilians in a time of civil war or ethnic unrest. For example the genocide in Sudan is inflicted by the government, yet the situation in Somalia is entirely different since they lack a government and violence stems from rebel groups in the country [1] [2] . Making decisions on a case-by-case basis recognizes that every crisis is different in character and requires a different and proportionate response be it military or humanitarian.  [1] New York Times (2011), “Somalia”,   [2] Genocide Intervention, “Sudan”,

The UN does not have the necessary funds or expertise.  The United Nations struggles to meet its current needs, in terms of funding for emergency relief, development work, health initiatives, etc. and also in terms of peacekeeping troops, military hardware and transport, etc. It is in no position to make sweeping promises about future commitments that might involve large-scale military interventions around the globe, perhaps sometimes in more than one place at the same time [1] . At the very best, such an extra burden would draw resources and funding away from the UN's vitally important current programs. At worst, intervention would be undertaken with too few troops, badly equipped and unable to fulfill their mandate. The United States intervention in Somalia failed miserably because it was at best half-baked—the UN would be lucky if not every one of their interventions suffered from the same problems [2] . This would only worsen the situation. Additionally, taking on these conflicts also includes nation building and government development post conflict which may be difficult for the UN to organize and commit to.  [1] Schaefer, Brett, (2005) ‘The U.N. Summit Document: At What Cost?’, The Heritage Foundation,   [2] Clarke, Walter; Herbst, Jeffrey (1996), “Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention”, Foreign Affairs Magazine,

The UN would be turned into something that it is not.  From a group of cooperating but sovereign states, secure from external intervention if they live peaceably with their neighbors, the UN would be turned into some sort of global congress of humanity, where borders played no part. This may seem a utopian vision, but the nation state has a good record of delivering responsive, accountable government to which individual citizens can feel a strong personal commitment, and which is able to meet their particular cultural, religious, environmental and economic needs [1] . International institutions are at best impersonal and remote and at worst an unaccountable and undemocratic imposition. It is right to oppose any language and commitments which would advance the cause of those who would turn the UN into a world government.  [1] The Economist (1999), “Garibaldi and the 1,000”,

Acting on a case-by-case basis does not establish an effective deterrent. If a leader does not know for certain that their action is going to lead to an intervention, they can’t be deterred. In order for them to be deterred, they need to know by which standards their actions will be assessed and acted upon. On a case-by-case basis, there is no such consistency established.  The UN needs to adopt an equal treatment of every country and situation under a responsibility to protect clause so that the least powerful in this world do not go unprotected.

It is not difficult to set up basic guidelines as to determining when a situation has gone too far. Even proponents of Responsibility to protect agree on certain criteria particularly right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable  Prospects. [1] The last of these criteria will rule out any intervention against a great power such as China where there would not be reasonable prospects of success unless disproportionate means (something like a preemptive nuclear strike) was used. Questions like ‘how many have to die?’ are therefore not asking the right questions because the loss of life could be relatively small (it also assumes that only killing matters) if all the criteria are fulfilled. While this would regrettably constrain any ‘responsibility to protect’ it would at the same time mean that R2P would not become an excuse for starting large scale wars.  [1] Evans, Gareth et al., The Responsibility to Protect, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001, p.32

A referendum would not be a legitimate use of government money, for it would not be practical. Holding a referendum on an issue the country already approved in 1975 would be a waste of time and resources. The expense of referendums is abhorrent to the UK taxpayer; the Alternative Vote referendum held in 2011 was believed to have cost £250 million, excessive at the best of the times, irresponsible during times of financial austerity.1 Moreover, the practice of holding national referendums must be stopped as it undermines parliamentary sovereignty and the parliamentary system. Regarding public will, referendums are not hostage to the demands of the public, for dissatisfaction with the status quo rarely leads to or justifies a referendum. If 71% would vote ‘no’, but 83% admit they know little about the EU, then a referendum on the issue cannot be deemed a legitimate representation of the United Kingdom’s views on EU membership.  1PORTER, ANDREW. February 15, 2011. “Voting referendum will cost £250 million claim campaigners”, The Daily Telegraph , 201

An in or out referendum would be legitimate.  Parliamentary and logistic precedents indicate that holding a referendum about an issue of sovereignty is practical and practicable. There have been two successfully-held national referendums, one the direct antecedent of this one (the 1975 EEC vote) and one recently (the 2011 AV vote). The history of national referendums therefore indicates that they are both constitutional and logistically viable. Furthermore, the referendum is legitimized by public desire. A BBC poll in 2009 indicated that 71% would vote 'no' to EU membership if a referendum was held, a level of dissatisfaction which indicates the need for a public discussion and vote.1  1 MORGAN, CHARLES. January 2, 2009. "No change in British public opinion on Euro" Cafebabel

Referendums are not a right. Parliament has passed no law governing when referendums must be held. Because Parliament has set itself no guidelines on when to call referendums, the public has no right to one even if similar situations in the past have warranted them. Moreover, a system of representative democracy means referendums are not necessary -- it is MPs' job to make decisions. The public have the right to vote for leaders and hold those leaders accountable, not a right to vote on individual issues.

A referendum will create a better political climate.  The general public will be appeased: 75% of voters want the vote held.1 MPs will fulfil their duty to represent constituent interests by calling the referendum. A contented electorate will be more supportive of government and feel included in political life. Not only individuals but also parties will be appeased: the far left and right each feel strongly about this issue. Euroskeptic parties like UKIP and the BNP have agitated for an in-or-out vote for years, and disguise racism and anti-immigrant sentiment as Euroskepticism in the process. A vote either way would settle the issue and make it harder for them to disguise antisocial aspects of their platforms. Pro-Europeans like the Lib Dems also want the referendum: leader Nick Clegg said that "nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide"2 by not holding one. Both sides of the political spectrum wants this issue definitively settled. Once it has been, politicians will be able to redirect focus and work on crucial issues like the economy.  1 LITOBARSKI, JOE. February 18, 2011. "In or out? Labour shouldn't fear a referendum on Europe." The Guardian. accessed June 15, 2011.  2 CLEGG, NICK. October 15, 2003. "We need an EU referendum." The Guardian.accessed June 14, 2011.

A good political climate is one where government functions properly. In a representative democracy, decision-making is not intended to be majoritarian. Elected officials are in place to make decisions on behalf of constituents, as they continue to do with matters relating to the EU. As such, a referendum is a direct rebuke to their own power. Therefore MPs should not hold one, even if some constituents want it. It is not the job of government to neutralize radical voices, but to offer better alternatives while preserving freedom of expression. If parties want to resolve the Europe question, they should do so through established political channels.

A vote will make the government look weak. The government will seem like it's avoiding a difficult issue by shifting responsibility for the Europe question to the public. Europeans will see the British government as an unreliable political partner willing to gamble EU membership at a volatile and dangerous time for the continent's economic and political future. To lose the trust and co-operation of Europe by permitting a referendum would be myopic at best, and replace long-term political co-operation and security with short-term appeasement of the general public.

The public have a right to a referendum.  The public deserve to vote in this referendum because it regards a constitutional issue – sovereignty. Beyond constitutionality, referendums maintain democratic society when the public’s views and MPs’ clearly misalign, as they do in this case. This vote will also maintain the established precedent of holding referendums on EU issues. If the British people had to be consulted on EEC membership, as happened in 1975, they must be consulted on EU membership: the current EU barely resembles the EEC that the UK voted to join long ago, but has greatly magnified stature and power.

The referendum is good PR for the UK.  A referendum, regardless of the result, will prove an effective public relations boost for the United Kingdom. UK citizens will feel more confident in their government, as some currently see EU membership as an illegitimate breach of the social contract and others argue that the UK is not doing enough to co-operate. Europeans also will improve their view of the United Kingdom: a "Yes" vote will minimize the perception of the UK as a foot-dragging, reluctant participant in Europe; a "No" vote will be seen to end a half-hearted charade. Either way, a more straightforward relationship with Europe will minimize UK-Europe mistrust, which will benefit each politically and economically.

The referendum will be legitimate. Referendums have become an important part of the UK's political process. They spark public discussion of important issues and lead to a more educated and engaged public. They also entrench the principle that the state is directed in its actions fundamentally by the wishes of the people. Representative democracy makes the further basic assumption that citizens are capable of making important and informed decisions when they vote. To suggest otherwise is elitist and undemocratic.

Referendums are a positive democratic force. The argument that the UK has always been a representative democracy does not preclude integrating elements of direct democracy into the political process. If referendums reinforce the legitimacy of government, strengthen the social contract and keep the citizenry engaged, to reject them because they are relatively new is simply reactionary. Those who decide to call a referendum can be held politically accountable, which means that the volume, expense, and quality of referendums will be held to standards. In addition, there is no reason why referendum use shouldn't or wouldn't be codified as it continues to be incorporated into the British political process. If the coalition government deserves to stay in power, it will find ways to cooperate and coexist: if not, the country will be better off with a more functional one.

EU membership is too important to gamble.  Membership of the European Union is too valuable to be cast aside. Prime Minister David Cameron refuses to hold a referendum for a good reason: he knows that leaving the EU would inflict great harm on the UK.1Economically, the UK is weaker on trade negotiations, especially with the US,2 as a lone entity. In international society, the country will be seen as unreliable, and the UK's already fractured relationship with Europe will sustain further damage. Keeping strong ties with Europe as well as the US is essential for UK well-being. If the UK left, the EU would be weaker and might collapse. The organization is at a crossroads given the collapsing Euro and it must weather this difficult time in order to prove its sustainability. If it lost the UK's financial support, the economic fallout in Europe would further weaken the continent's economies, which would in turn harm the UK, whose economy would necessarily remain tied to its European trading partners and financial service customers.  1 PHIBBS, HARRY. March 14, 2011. "Is Cameron worried that withdrawal from the EU would be a foregone conclusion if a referendum is agreed?" The Daily Mail., accessed June 20, 2011.  2 BOWLBY, CHRIS. November 16, 2009. "If the UK left the EU what would the consequences be?" The BBC, accessed June 16, 2011.

The vote will be illegitimate.  The public will not be properly informed: the issue is too complex for the average citizen to understand, and 83% of British voters know "little or nothing about the EU."1 A referendum cannot be permitted when the public simply does not know the repercussions of its decision, for it only fosters misinformation and subjectivity on the behalf of campaigners. Racist far-right parties can easily exploit European issues by playing on public fears about immigration. The referendum lead-up would provide a megaphone for these parties' unacceptable views. The 2011 Alternative Vote referendum campaign showed that the public readily believes misinformation and scare tactics and meaningful discussion of issues is drowned out. Leaving the decision to elected representatives preserves the rationality of the debate.  1 LITOBARSKI, JOE. February 18, 2011. "In or out? Labour shouldn't fear a referendum on Europe." The Guardian. accessed June 15, 2011.

The referendum is inconsistent with the UK's tradition of representative democracy EU membersh  Referendums are philosophically inconsistent with representative democracy. The public don’t have the time or resources to govern as effectively as Parliament: MPs have access to expert advice and are paid to learn about issues: the resources their position affords are a major justification for representative democracy. The UK must reverse its recent referendum trend (which only began in 1973) to avoid undermining government legitimacy and stability. In the status quo, referendums are deployed inconsistently, used as a political tool to hedge on issues, and used by parties to avoid tough internal conversations. Referendums also harm governmental accountability, which is key for a functional representative democracy because it protects voters. MPs avoid being held accountable by their constituents and fulfilling their own role in parliamentary democracy by using referendums to avoid taking a stance on politically contentious issues. In addition, the overuse of referendums causes governmental paralysis: see the US state of California’s initiative addiction. Referendums are a poor use of public funds: each costs £80-100 million 1 -- especially unacceptable since MPs can call referendums on a whim with no guidelines. In the current political, the referendum might tear apart the coalition government. Lib Dems and Conservatives are deeply divided from each other and internally over the issue. If the parties campaigned against each other the divisions formed during the AV campaign would widen. A broken coalition and new general election would interrupt government in a time of recession when the country desperately needs new policies and programs.  1 BBC NEWS DESK. February 1, 2011. “MPs reject Tory MP's call for 'in-out' EU referendum.” The BBC, accessed June 15, 2011.

EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK. 1 If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pass bills that have the support of the British population but not the approval of the EU, like a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote. 2 The country could also negotiate better trade deals, as its economy is stronger than the EU average. Freedom from EU trade rules would also prevent farcical situations like EU residents being able to apply for London 2012 Olympics tickets despite their countries being allocated a proportion of tickets already. 3  1 DAILY MAIL COMMENT. March 14, 2011. “Europe and the case for a referendum.” The Daily Mail, accessed June 22, 2011.  2 CHAPMAN, JAMES. February 11, 2011. “Day we stood up to Europe” The Daily Mail. Accessed June 27, 2011.  3 Patrick Sawer, “Thousands of foreigners snap up Olympics tickets meant for Brits” accessed June 27, 2011

Through the processes of committing to Aid programmes and the UN, the US has incorporated a certain amount of internationalism into its legal system. The power given to Congress by the War Powers Act must be balanced against the fact that the executive retains control over US foreign policy.  Secondly, a UN resolution that allowed the use of air power by countries to protect civilians.1 This means that fears of conflict escalation are unfounded and given that the UN resolution exists, the war powers act is not weakened significantly as it would still mandate a UN resolution to prevent conflict escalation.  Even if the U.S. government sought regime change however, it has moral legitimacy in doing so because of the demand for such changes from a large number of members of the international community.2  Lynch, Colum, ‘Security Council passes resolution authorizing military intervention in Libya’, Turtle Bay Foreign Policy, 17 March 2011,  “War Powers Act.” Cornell University Law School.

US intervention is not consistent with other aspects of US law  Firstly, Libya did not attack US soldiers and did not harm US citizens. Given that this is true, then engagement with Libya to begin with goes against the spirit of US law. Given that the situation is not an emergency for the U.S. circumventing congress in order to prosecute the war is incredibly harmful as it undermines one of the core institutions in U.S. democracy.  Further, the use of international organisations such as the UN and NATO to circumvent congress has bad ramifications for the future as in doing this the U.S. government has significantly lowered the burden required to go to war should it wish to do so in the future.  This is problematic because the decision to go to war should never be one that is taken lightly. Should the U.S. wish to go to war again then it might end up in a situation such as Vietnam, the conflict that inspired the creation of the war powers act.1  Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011

The US has the authorization of NATO, the UN and has acted in concordance with the mandates that these organisations have put up.  The US does not harm the powers of the US constitution by helping the UN and NATO in this area because the US committed to these organisations with the knowledge that it might have to compromise sometimes in order to fulfil the responsibilities it has taken on within these organisations.  Libya is simply an example of one of these compromises and this does not harm the constitution any further than the US initially did by entering into these agreements and institutions. 1, 2  Editorial: “Obama’s illegal war” The Washington Times. 18/03/2011  Stone, Daniel. “Is the Libya War Legal” The Daily Beast. 22/03/2011

The United States engaged in "hostilities" under War Powers  There are multiple arguments indicating why the U.S. might be engaged in hostilities under the War Powers Act, enough so that this single argument could make an entire two person case.  The U.S. has engaged in sustained hostilities in Libya which have resulted in regime change within the country. The President himself admits that causing regime change would be unjustifiable in his speech justifying the war by pledging that “broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”2 However, regime change was the result of the mission and NATO and U.S. played a significant role in facilitating that change.  Secondly, the War Powers act covers the U.S. fighting in a supportive role in wars. "For purposes of this chapter, the term 'introduction of United States Armed Forces' includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.”3 Hence the U.S. is acting in violation of this condition.  Further, troops do not need to be on the ground to call the Libyan engagement hostilities. U.S. men and women have firstly died in the conflict, but secondly if troops were needed on the ground for a war, a U.S. president could potentially fire a thousand missiles at a country without the engagement being considered a war.  Further, even though the U.S. gave powers to NATO, it maintained a lead role in this coalition force. As such, the engagement should still be subject to U.S. laws and rules.  Finally, the sheer cost of the engagement to the U.S. taxpayer implies that it should be considered a war. The cost of the war has been more than $1 million per day.1  Greenwald, Glenn. “The illegal war in Libya.” Salon. 19/05/2011  BBC News, ‘Libya: Obama says US intervention will be limited’, 29 March 2011,  United States Congress, 50 USC CHAPTER 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION, 7 January 2011,

The president’s office released this statement, justifying the engagement in Libya: "The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors." 1  As such it is justifiable to say that the conflict in Libya do not amount to legal hostilities. Secondly, the U.S. gave control of the operation in Libya to NATO on April 1st 2011. As such the U.S. government is not in violation of U.S. laws as it is not the U.S. prosecuting hostilities should they be considered to be happening. It is instead NATO doing it. Given that NATO is part of U.S. spending and that NATO commitments require contribution from all member states in some way, the U.S. does not have to justify the engagement in law as the U.S. is not culpable for its participation, NATO is.  Further, whilst regime change was a consequence in Libya, it was not the military objective of the campaign in Libya, which was to simply limit Gadaffi’s ability to use aircraft to visit harm upon his citizens. Regime change was just a happy coincidence that benefitted the people in Libya. As such the conflict did not amount to “hostilities” as U.S. participation in said conflict was incredibly limited. 2  BBC News, ‘Libya: Obama says US intervention will be limited’, 29 March 2011,  Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011

The Libya intervention lacks sufficient international authority  Firstly, the UN intervention in Libya wrongly rests on NATO authority. The use of NATO to circumvent congressional approval in this situation violates the initial agreement regarding the participation of the U.S. in NATO that was ratified by congress. As such, even if the U.S. is legitimate in going to war and the circumvention of war powers can be justified, the circumvention using NATO cannot.  Secondly, the use of UN approval to circumvent congress means that the UN charter and the ideals of the UN have been placed by the government at a higher level of value than of the US constitution. If this is the case then the government has undermined the validity of the US constitution and through doing that has undermined all laws within the U.S. which is harmful should the U.S. wish to project power in a way that is contrary to the UN’s wishes.1  Editorial: “Obama’s illegal war” The Washington Times. 18/03/2011

Firstly, the Obama regime had plenty of time to get congressional approval. It would have been fairly easy for a bipartisan bill led by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to get through congress in time for the U.S. to successfully intervene in the area. The United States through a joint session of congress declared war on Japan within two days of the Japanese launching their attack on Pearl Harbor showing that declarations of war can be pushed through congress quickly when there is the need.1  Secondly, whilst some of congress, the leadership was consulted regarding the actions in Libya, all of congress was not. This harms the portrayal of congress as an important and representative body when more minor members are not consulted for very important decisions made by the state. As such, no discretion can be allowed in this area because to do so is to harm the institutions upon which the US is founded.2  ‘Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War  Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011

The intervention in Libya has run contrary to the interests of the US by giving the president stronger powers. When Bill Clinton intervened with NATO in Kosovo he had to gain the approval of congress following the 60th day, with the conflict ending on the 78th. In allowing Obama to do this, a fundamental part of the U.S. democratic system has been undermined and more powers have been given to the presidency. In the future this could lead to further bad decisions for the united states as presidents are required to prove less in order to take stronger action.1  Greenwald, Glenn. “The illegal war in Libya.” Salon. 19/05/2011

Congress was appropriately and openly consulted  Firstly, the Obama administration did not truly have time to gain congressional approval for their actions. Obama’s justification of the Libyan conflict claims: "As his troops continued pushing toward Benghazi, a city of nearly 700,000 people, Qadhafi again defied the international community, declaring, “We will have no mercy and no pity.” At that moment, as the President explained in his speech to the nation on March 28: “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” Stopping a potential humanitarian disaster became a question of hours, not days. The costs of inaction would have been profound. Thousands of civilians would very likely have been slaughtered, a ruthless dictator would have been triumphant precisely at a time when people across the region are challenging decades of repression, and key U.S. allies, including Egypt and Tunisia, would have been threatened by instability on their borders during a critical point in their own transitions toward a more promising future.”1  Further, even if this is not true Obama did consistently consult congress regarding the mission, with Obama’s justification claiming: "The Administration has consulted extensively with Congress about U.S. engagement in Libya. Since March 1, the Administration has: testified at over 10 hearings that included a substantial discussion of Libya; participated in over 30 Member and/or staff briefings, including the March 18 Presidential meeting with Congressional Leadership, Committee Chairs and Ranking Members; all three requested 'All Members Briefings' (two requested by the Senate, one by the House); and all requested 'All Staff Briefings;' conducted dozens of calls with individual Members; and provided 32 status updates via e-mail to over 1,600 Congressional staff."  Finally, the Senate was also consulted and passed a resolution that condemned the gross and systematic violation of the rights of the Libyan people by Gadaffi. As such, a large portion of the U.S. governing body was consulted by Obama and as such, a small amount of discretion in this area can be tolerated. 2  United States Activities in Libya, p.7,  Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011

Humanitarian reasons prompted swift intervention  The US intervention in Libya was necessary because Gadaffi had shown and has shown before that he is willing to kill and abuse citizens en mass in order to preserve his power. The U.S. intervention was necessary in order to prevent the indiscriminate bombing of towns by Gadaffi’s air forces. Such bombing attacks led to significant civilian casualties.1  Following the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 the United States placed on itself a moral mandate that ‘never again’ would such massacres be allowed to continue without intervention. Had the uprising been put down, reprisals by Gadaffi would have been swift and likely resulted in many innocents being killed. 2 The United States had to step in.  Obama Libya Speech Strongly Defends Intervention (FULL TESXT)’ AP/The Huffington Post, 28 March 2011,  Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011

The intervention was necessary in order to protect US interests in the region  If it can be proved that the intervention was incredibly important to the US for both its own interests as well as for its moral imperative then the US bending the War Power Act can be seen as a legitimate exception to constitutional rules that has to be borne despite the harms such a breach might cause.  Violence and insecurity within the Libyan region would negatively affect US security. Firstly through the fact that poverty and conflict often breed religious radicalism and can often result in terrorism which directly harms the US as the most visible world power. Secondly, the US intervening is necessary to show members of the Middle East and North Africa that it is willing to support the region during a time of taxing transitions from old dictatorships to often weak democracies. Further, it shows that the US is compassionate in that it is unwilling to stand by and allow regions to descend into humanitarian crises.  The intervention also prevented a flood of refugees into Egypt and Tunisia.1 Egypt itself is currently undergoing democratic change and such a crisis might have forced that process backward. Tunisia is undergoing a similar transition and America needs to show support for these countries so that the governments that are established in the future will view America in a positive light.  Finally such an intervention is necessary owing to the role that the US and the people of the US feel that it should take in the world. Standing aside whilst a humanitarian crisis unfolds goes against the ideals that the US stands for. Further, given this revolution is likely seeking a democratic government it seems inconsistent that the US would not help countries aiming to become more like the US. 2,3  Wauquiez , Laurent, ‘Libya/no-fly zone/sanctions/refugees – NATO intervention/Arab reaction’, France in the United States, 8 March 2011,  Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011  Text of Obama’s Speech on Libya: “A Responsibility to Act.” NPR.org 28/03/2011

Firstly, the Obama regime had plenty of time to get congressional approval. It would have been fairly easy for a bipartisan bill led by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to get through congress in time for the U.S. to successfully intervene in the area. The United States through a joint session of congress declared war on Japan within two days of the Japanese launching their attack on Pearl Harbor showing that declarations of war can be pushed through congress quickly when there is the need.1  Secondly, whilst some of congress, the leadership was consulted regarding the actions in Libya, all of congress was not. This harms the portrayal of congress as an important and representative body when more minor members are not consulted for very important decisions made by the state. As such, no discretion can be allowed in this area because to do so is to harm the institutions upon which the US is founded.2  ‘Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Japan (1941)’, ourdocuments.gov,  Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011

Through the SIS the Schengen Area has been able to streamline immigration and asylum policy, thus making it easier to manage immigrants in a consistent manner across Europe [1] . However, countries are not wholly dependent on external borders for security and immigration checks, and so immigrants approaching from external countries can still be caught by individual countries within the Schengen area. Police are allowed to conduct random identity checks throughout the territory of any particular member state: travel advice for Schengen countries warns that while there are no longer any land border checks, you should not to attempt to cross land borders without a valid travel document because it is likely that random identity checks will be made in areas surrounding the borders [2] .  Fears over immigration and the Schengen area seem to be actually more an issue of perception than flows of people; the economic crisis has heightened anti-immigrant feeling across Europe. For example, the actual number of refugees arriving in southern Europe as a result of the 2011 Arab Spring has been fewer than expected: “Out of more than 700,000 migrants displaced by events in the western Arab states of North Africa, around 30,000 (4-5%) have attempted to reach Europe,” according to demography expert Philippe Fargues [3] . The other 95% have headed mainly for African and Asian destinations [4] .  [1] ‘Legal instruments governing migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II’, Europa, 13 July 2010   [2] ‘Advice for travel to the Czech Republic’, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 6 February 2012,   [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,   [4] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,

The freedom of movement the Schengen area allows increases the difficulties of controlling immigration  The borderless nature of the Schengen Area makes it increasingly difficult to track and detain illegal immigrants. It is often easier for illegal immigrants to enter through countries such as Italy or Greece (and, as is feared when Bulgaria and Romania eventually join, Eastern European countries) and then continue on to countries like France and Germany [1] . For example, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's decision to grant temporary residence permits to more than 20,000 Tunisian migrants fleeing the violent uprisings in April, was made in the knowledge that many of the migrants would end up travelling to France, the former colonial ruler where many of the migrants have relatives [2] . France accused Italy of abusing the Schengen Agreement.  [1] Lipics, Laszlo, ‘Focal points on the external borders of Schengen’, AARMS, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2010 pp.229-239,  has a map of focal points of pressure of illegal immigration, all of which are in Eastern Europe  [2] ‘France and Italy call for tighter border controls’, theparliament.com, 27th April 2011

While the EU is indeed a union, it is also a union of states with recognized rights to shape their own security and justice affairs. Unlike the continental members of the EU, Britain and Ireland have traditionally looked at borders not as sources of conflict but rather as natural mechanisms of defence, because of their position as islands. The Schengen agreement has allowed them to also collaborate within the SIS and EUROPOL, thus complementing the traditional framework of the Union, of which, ultimately, the Schengen Agreement is a part [1] . This means that Britain and Ireland are as included as they wish to be. The split in the Schengen agreement will not result in any new differences of interest between Britain and Ireland and the rest of the EU.  [1] Select Committee on European Union, ‘Schengen Information System: New Functions’, www.parliament.uk , 9 April 2003,

The Schengen Agreement is an anachronism of a safer age.  Since the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a much more dangerous place. The war on terror has already brought bombings to a number of European cities, and this changed circumstance makes Schengen a luxury the EU can no longer afford. September 11th has created a preoccupation with the security of the Union’s external borders. [1] Even before September 11th 2001 the drawbacks of open borders in terms of crime were obvious - which is why Paris controversially imposed stricter checks against drugs flowing into France from the more relaxed regime in the Netherlands using a broad interpretation of the rules for temporary issues of public order. [2] Since 9/11 there is a pressing need for stricter border controls to catch international terrorists and prevent the movement of dangerous materials which could be used in terror attacks.  [1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118,  p.104  [2] Easton, Susan H., ‘Honor Thy Promise: Why the Dutch Drug Policies Should Not Be a Barrier to the Full Implementation of the Schengen Agreement’ Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.23., Issue 1., (12-1-1999),   See also the Text of Schengen Agreement, especially Article 2.2

As the Schengen area gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to police and this increases the risk of rogue elements being able to move freely between countries  As new members are accepted and the Schengen area expands, it becomes more and more difficult to police. For example, once terrorists have gained access to the area, they are free to move within almost the entirety of Europe. The same applies for traffickers of people, drugs and arms. This was the rationale behind the blocking of Romania and Bulgaria from entering the zone at the same time as they entered the EU [1] ; they failed to curb organised crime before their accession and if they were join access routes would be opened to the whole of Europe.  This means that all countries are dependent on the security forces of countries monitoring external borders. It is key that Member States with an external EU frontier have a responsibility to ensure that proper checks and effective surveillance are carried out at the EU's external frontiers. It is vital that checks and controls at the EU's external frontiers be rigorous enough to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling and other unlawful activities [2] . Given the different enforcement abilities of different member states, the security of one state is often not protected because of the carelessness of another. Dissolving the Schengen area gives countries responsibility for the protection of their own borders and thus makes Europe safer as a whole.  [1] Kelly, Tom, ‘EU borders will stay shut to influx from Romania and Bulgaria over fears of crime flood’, The Daily Mail, 23rd December 2010,   [2] The Schengen Convention: Abolition of internal borders and creation of a single EU external frontier, eurotool,

The expanding Schengen area does not make it more difficult to police due to the lack of border controls. Anyone attempting to enter the Schengen area will be checked at least once, this is exactly the same as anyone entering an individual country. Americans do not consider themselves less safe because they do not have border posts between Maryland and Virginia. The key therefore is not to dissolve Schengen but to ensure that all countries border police are of equally high quality and that they share information as is being done through the Schengen Information System (SIS) [1] and Europol.  [1] Schengen Information System, Wikipedia,

Scrapping the Schengen Agreement in the face of terrorism would be to give in to the terrorists. The Agreement is part of the open, free society which the extremists are attacking, with its aim of cooperation between different nationalities and the development of a peaceful European identity. Retreating behind national borders would only encourage them in their attacks, and would be ineffective in seeking to prevent future violence. Investigation of attacks in Madrid, London and Paris have all revealed that the terrorists were legal residents, free to come and go regardless of border restrictions. Rather than dissolving Schengen the solution to terrorism lies in better intelligence gathering and cooperation between states (not likely to be encouraged by a retreat behind national borders), and by addressing the problems of alienation and poverty within our societies which serve as breeding grounds for extremism.

While having to get a Europe wide visa can be a problem for the countries that newly border the Schengen there are also benefits. The Schengen agreement often favours those who apply for Schengen visas since once a visa is granted, they can easily travel throughout all the countries that have signed the Agreement. This process not only saves money but it also allows for more freedom of movement for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. Countries are free to choose whether they want to become part of the Schengen regime or not, and are thus making a rational and informed decision on whether the Schengen agreement serves them better than maintaining open borders with traditional allies that are not part of the Schengen area.

Schengen helps divide Europe as not all members take part.  The Schengen Area, adopted by some countries in Europe but not others, will create a difference of interest which will irrevocably divide the EU over time. The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided in two areas: one in which the free movement of people is achieved and one in which it is not. This threatens to create two different ways of approaching the questions of justice and security within the EU: one that is managed through the SIS system and Europol, and one that is managed through the traditional justice and home affairs legislation within the Union framework itself. This could turn out to be a particularly divisive force within a Union that is already faltering having failed to sign a common Constitution and settled for a watered down treaty instead.

Schengen tightens external borders, creating a ‘wall’ around Europe.  The Schengen agreement has opened internal borders within Europe, but externally the opposite is true. Thus, while citizens of the belonging countries enjoy complete freedom of movement, citizens of non-member countries find that it is more difficult to receive entry visas to enter the Schengen area. As the Schengen area continues to expand, it enforces more and more restrictions on countries that lie outside its borders, turning borders that have historically been open into real fortresses and thus significantly affecting the political and economic relations between long-term allies. For example, the eastern borders of East European States that already enjoy some Schengen privileges are hardening in order to be allowed fully into Schengen as the existing members need to agree that they are implementing border controls satisfactorily. [1] The result is that they are cutting their inhabitants off from neighbours such as Ukraine, Belarus and Russia in order to give them better access to western Europe. Former members of Yugoslavia that before Schengen was implemented could travel to all the members of the EC (such as Macedonia) have had travel restrictions imposed and this burden has been increasing as more of their neighbours, such as Slovenia, join the zone or make free travel arrangements with it (such as Serbia and Croatia). [2]  [1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118,  p.106  [2] Reactor, Taking Down the Schengen Wall, April 2009, pp.1-2,

Pan European crime fighting efforts would have occurred anyway. It was the increasing globalization of crime that has forced combined crime fighting efforts not the Schengen agreement. The first moves towards creating Europol came in the 1970s with the setting up of the Trevi group by the then European Communities’ interior and justice ministries. This was long before Schengen was created. [1]  [1] Europol, ‘About Europol’,

Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border [1] . France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic [2] . It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise [3] . France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination” [4] .  [1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011,   [2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011,   [3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011,   [4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010,

The Schengen Area eases the free movement of goods and people that the EU strives for  The freedom of movement of goods and people is a fundamental aspect of the European Union [1] , and the Schengen Agreement is a crucial part of making that a reality. This is not just useful in terms of cutting the cost of conducting business across Europe; it also makes it easier to have holidays too. The Schengen Agreement paved the way for the Schengen visa [2] to come into being, which is what actually makes the EU free movement policy a reality; visitors to the 25 countries above now only need one visa to visit all of them. The Schengen visa also gives non-members of the European Union the ability to travel unimpeded through all of the countries that take part in the program. Obtaining the Schengen visa is the same as any visa process: you apply, send in your passport and then receive a stamp in it if you are approved. This process not only saves money – as you do not have to pay and apply for a visa for every country - but it also allows for more freedom of movement even for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. All members of the EU believe that “the free movement of people is one of the Union's key achievements and we have to maintain and safeguard this” [3] .  This is only a single point in favour of the Schengen area, but the freedom of movement clause is the very essence of the EU. Without the Schengen Agreement the most basic tenet of the European Union would cease to be. This far outweighs many of the technical disadvantages.  [1] ‘Free movement of persons, asylum and immigration’, Europa,   [2] ‘The Schengen Agreement: History and Information’, ACS, 2011,   [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,

Schengen has allowed cooperation in fighting global crime  Criminality has become globalized, particularly in areas such as drugs that have long supply chains. The response to these threats has to involve large numbers of countries as well and Schengen has provided the impetus for such cooperation. The Schengen Information System (SIS) has been a very successful tool for managing and curbing crime and illegal immigration in the Schengen area [1] . Between August and November 2008, in the first months since the introduction of the SIS database in Switzerland, Swiss authorities queried it about 130,000 times a day [2] . Of an average 30 hits a day, the SIS has found 25 people wanted by another European country in connection with serious crimes [3] . About 900 hits have been for people who have been denied entry into the Schengen area, while another 500 hits have been for missing persons [4] . The database produced about 600 hits for stolen property within its first few months in operation [5] . The Schengen members are now working on developing the SIS II system which will make it easier to manage a constantly expanding Schengen area [6] .  In addition, with the creation of a parallel European wide criminal intelligence agency, Europol, information can now be easily exchanged and tracked throughout the different member states, making it easier to catch and keep track of criminals across the Schengen zone [7] . Integration and unity is a better way of dealing with a global threat such as terrorism and trafficking [8] than unilateralism and nationalism. It must also be noted that countries are allowed to re-assume control of their own borders if there is a “grave threat to public order or internal security” [9] .  [1] ‘New functions for the SIS in the fight against terrorism’, Europa, 22 August 2006,   [2] Brooks, Robert, ‘Schengen Information System proves its worth’, Swiss Info, November 15th 2008   [3] ibid  [4] ibid  [5] ibid  [6] Schengen Information System: SIS II, Wikipedia,   [7] Europol Public Information, ‘EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment’, Europol, 28 April 2011,   [8] Norwaygrants, ‘Schengen Co-operation and Combating Cross-border and Organised Crime, including Trafficking and Itinerant Criminal Groups’, European Economic Area, December 2010,   [9] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,

The Schengen Agreement is both a symbol of and fundamental means of upholding the unity of the European Union  The Schengen Agreement has been supported by the majority of EU members since its inception in 1985 (it covers all the continental states of the EU) and has not caused any of the feared divisions in the 20 years of its existence. Indeed, the idea of freedom of movement creates a united Europe. Most EU leaders, together with a majority in the European Parliament, oppose any major restrictions to Schengen, which they see as a core value of European integration – both as a potent symbol (ranking close to the euro) and a fundamental reality of European solidarity. European Parliament negotiator Carlos Coelho said "Schengen is free movement and, like the euro, is one of the symbols of Europe" [1] . There is thus little reason to believe that major divisions will occur any time in the future. Italy and France’s disagreement actually produced a unified response about how to reform the Schengen Agreement for the good of all within it [2] .  [1] ‘EU warned against changing Schengen deal on borders’, BBC News, 3rd May 2011,   [2] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011,

Losing Schengen would have little impact on the goals of the European Union. The Schengen agreement is not necessary for economic or monetary union as goods will still be able to travel around the EU. Ireland by not being part of Schengen but very much a member of the European Union and Eurozone has shown that not being a part of the passport free area does not have any negative effects.

The only precedent for this is the disastrous Iraq war where the reason for the invasion was given as disarming Saddam of Weapons of Mass Destruction he turned out not to have. Most countries would therefore be justified in being skeptical of any country claiming the right to disarm another of WMD. Additionally when this is done by the major powers the action is likely to be seen as being hypocritical. In the case of Chemical Weapons the United States does not have a particularly clean record. The United States used less deadly chemical weapons, Agent Orange, in Vietnam in order to clear foliage, and in Iraq it used white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon. The United States has so far failed to decommission its own Chemical Weapons and instead keeps getting extensions. [1] Similarly both Russia and the United States had Biological Weapons programs, and although these have ended still maintain large smallpox supplies.  [1] Monbiot, George, ‘Obama’s Rogue State’, monbiot.com, 9 September 2013,

Disarming illegal weapons  A second possible justification for intervention is when the state that is intervening against is itself breaking international law such as the Chemical Weapons Convention or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The intervention would then be to force compliance of the treaty; this would mean forcible disarmament of illegal weapons. In the case of Syria the country could be deemed to have violated its own legal obligations due to its having broken the 1925 Geneva Protocol [1] that bans the use of chemical weapons. Since manufacturing and possession of these weapons is banned if it is considered that having such weapons is a ‘gross violation of international law’ then a limited use of force to destroy these weapons could be considered to be legal. [2] This could be considered to be analogous to the police stepping in to confiscate a banned weapon, with no police internationally other states have to be the ones to step in.  [1] 1925 Geneva Protocol, League of Nations, 17 June 1925,   [2] Dr Wolff Heintschel, ‘Viewpoints: Is there legal basis for military intervention in Syria?’, BBC News, 29 August 2013,

Current international law does still matter, each time a state takes such action without consent other states object, they are simply not powerful enough to prevent it but this does prevent any norm being created by the aggressor.  If however international law does no longer matter then any war is legal, or rather at least not illegal. This potentially means going back to a situation where any state has a sovereign right to engage in conflict for almost anything it sees as an infringement of its sovereignty. The best we might hope for would be that states could agree that while war might be legal it has to be under the conditions of launching a just war under jus ad bellum. There are six requirements:  just cause – defence of oneself, allies, or innocents or punishment for wrongdoing  right intention – no ulterior motives beyond the stated cause  Proper authority and public declaration – must be open and done publically  Last resort – have expended all peaceful alternatives  Proportionality – must create more good than evil so that the action is worth the costs  Probability of success – there must be some likelihood of making a difference and concluding the conflict quickly. [1]  In most cases military action would not meet all of these requirements.  [1] Orend, Brian, "War", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition),   Also see the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes there can be such a thing as a just war ’

A moral imperative to intervene  When a massacre is about to happen it is legal to intervene to prevent that massacre. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ which was accepted by the UN in 2005. Resolution 60/1 at the 2005 World Summit stated, there was international responsibility “to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner.” Though this will only happen “should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations”. [1] This is most certainly the case in Syria where the national authorities are the ones doing much of the killing.  It must be proved that the Syrian regime is responsible for the attacks; the US and UK say there is such evidence but so far the link is not crystal clear. Even the UK government accepts that there must be “convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief”. [2] As the doctrine states peaceful means must have been tried – and in Syria after two years of conflict we can safely say a peaceful resolution is not in sight. And the use of force must be proportionate – which since there is no plan for a full scale invasion in Syria it will be. [3]  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’, Resolution 60/1 2005, p.30   [2] ‘Chemical weapon use by Syrian regime – UK Government legal position’, gov.uk, 29 August 2013,   [3] Cassese, Antonio, ‘Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community?’, EIJL, Vol.10, 1999,

In the case of Syria these conditions have not been met; the evidence has not yet been provided – the weapons inspectors have yet to report, there have been very few peace talks to try to reach a peaceful solution or attempts at peaceful coercion such as sanctions. Will the attacks be proportionate? They will simply cause more damage and unless they are very large will not stand a chance of halting the violence.  Moreover in general terms it is difficult to see whether a responsibility to intervene really exists. There does not seem to be much agreement that humanitarian distress and the need for urgent relief allows unilateral action if the state that is in need of relief does not want it. There is certainly very little state practice (well not since 19th century imperialism anyway) where it has happened. [1] Even in the last decade there have been failures to intervene against states killing their own civilians in Chechnya, North Korea [2] and Uzbekistan. [3]  It is notable that this was very much scaled back from a more general doctrine of humanitarian intervention. This doctrine does not allow for any nation to take it upon itself to ‘protect’ another’s civilians rather it provides an opportunity for the United Nations to do so. [4] “The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter” this simply provided a mandate for the UN Security Council to intervene in such situations.  [1] Booth, Robert, ‘Syria: legal doubt cast on British government’s case for intervention’, theguardian.com, 29 August 2013,   [2] Ryall, Julian, ‘Up to 20,000 North Korean prison camp inmates have 'disappeared' says human rights group’, The Telegraph, 5 September 2013,   [3] ‘Uzbekistan: No Justice 7 years after Andijan Massacre’, Human Rights Watch, 12 May 2012,   [4] Thakur, Ramesh, ‘Is America now becoming an international outlaw?’, The Japan Times, 3 September 2013,

Current International law on the use of force no longer matters  The international prohibition on the use of force has always been honoured in large part in the breach leading to the question of whether it should really be considered to be binding international law at all. Almost every major country has launched an illegal offensive action at some point; The USA has been involved in Kosovo and Iraq, the UK and France in attacking Egypt in 1953, China in attacking Vietnam in 1979, and Russia (as the USSR) in attacking Afghanistan also in 1979. In each instance of unilateral offensive action there will be justifications and a ‘smoke screen’ to make the conflict appear to be legal when in fact it is not. Major powers should simply admit that they do not regard the prohibition of the use of force as binding on them. Even without admitting it because international law is based upon state behaviour the use of force is legal as Michael J Glennon suggests “The consent of United Nations member states to the general prohibition against the use of force, as expressed in the Charter, has in this way been supplanted by a changed intent as expressed in deeds.” [1]  [1] Glennon, Michael J., ‘How War Left the Law Behind’, The New York Times, 21 November 2002,

An international norm is being breached one way or the other the only question is which one is to be breached. Those in favour of intervention consider that lives saved is worthwhile compared to the problems the breach of a norm against humanitarian intervention might create. All of these norms are there with the intention of saving lives; that is what a norm of preventing any infringement of sovereignty without UN approval is supposed to prevent – conflict and the lives lost this causes. But Internal conflict and genocide has since become much more the problem than aggression between states requiring a rebalancing of which norms are kept.

The problem with relying on the Security Council is that it effectively means that the world is saying that five states can decide what is legal and what is not. Should the five countries who are probably most inclined to interventions, and are usually at loggerheads really be the ones to decide in such situations?

Uniting for Peace  One interesting possibility that could help short circuit the problems on the Security Council that prevents action either through UN Security Council action or through the Responsibility to Protect would be to take the case to the UN General Assembly. There was a resolution in 1950 that “Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” [1] The General Assembly is clearly the more legitimate body, and it also does not have the problem of vetos. It is however unlikely that UN Security Council members France, the UK, and the USA would want to create such a precedent. [2]  [1] ‘Uniting for peace’, General Assembly – Fifth Session, 377, 3rd November 1950,   [2] Dapo Akande, ‘Viewpoints: Is there legal basis for military intervention in Syria?’, BBC News, 29 August 2013,

There is no point in defending some norms at the costs of breaching others  Intervention is almost always about upholding ‘international norms’. Thus the attack on Syria is to disarm Syria of its banned chemical weapons because it “risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.” [1] With Iraq it was once again a norm against WMD with Tony Blair arguing “UN weapons inspectors say vast amounts of chemical and biological poisons such as anthrax, VX nerve agent and mustard gas remain unaccounted for in Iraq.” [2] This means that the nation that is going to engage in offensive action is attempting to prevent the breach of one international norm against certain weapons by breaching a norm against unauthorised military action.  In Kosovo it was even more hypocritical; NATO acted to make sure Milsovic “honor his own commitments and stop his repression” with the intent that “if President Milosevic will not make peace, we will limit his ability to make war.” [3] So we will protect the norm against conflict by initiating a conflict of our own. Defending one international norm by breaching another is both pointless, because it undermines all norms, and hypocritical because it says those norms apply only to someone else.  [1] President Obama, ‘TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Aug. 31 statement on Syria’, The Washington Post, 31 August 2013,   [2] ‘Full transcript of Blair's speech’, BBC News, 20 March 2003,   [3] Clinton, Bill, ‘Statement on Kososvo’, Miller Center University of Virginia, 24 March 1999,

Military action is only legal with UN Security Council approval  Traditionally (by this I mean since 1945!) there are only a couple of ways in which a war is legal. The first is simple; self defence. The UN charter allows “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” [1] but this does not fall into that category. Assad is attacking his own people, not another state that is entitled to self defence. No state is able to claim the right to provide self defence for those who Assad is attacking.  A much more viable proposition is to go through the UN Security Council. The charter allows that “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace… Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 [sanctions and other non-forceful methods of applying pressure] would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” So the UN Security Council certainly could authorise the use of force. Unfortunately a Security Council member, Russia, has already effectively ruled out authorizing military action with its foreign minister urging the US not to repeat “past mistakes” (i.e. Iraq and Libya) and warning “It’s a very dangerous slippery slope that our Western partners have gone on before. I hope common sense prevails.” [2]  [1] United Nations, ‘Chapter VII: Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression’, Charter of the United Nations, 1945,   [2] Meyer, Henry, ‘Syria Is Headed for Western Strike, Russia Says’, Bloomberg, 26 August 2013,

Uniting for Peace is well over sixty years old and yet has only been used once, to intervene against a full scale invasion of South Korea. This is hardly a good precedent for using against a state that is not involved in aggression against another state. The intent of Uniting for Peace is to restore “international peace” not domestic peace. It says nothing about intervening in internal conflicts without approval from the Security Council.

Stability could have been ensured without a military alliance like NATO. The European Union could have managed to create stability on its own, the EU itself since the Lisbon Treaty has gained the role of the West European Union security organisation. Additionally admission to NATO (and incidentally the EU) require social harmonisation and stability to occur before a new state can join, to quote the NATO Handbook directly; “States which are involved in ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes, must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles, before they can become members.” [1] If these nations had to sort out their problems first what was the point of enlargement, it is not enlargement per se that is meaning that these disputes are solved.  [1] NATO, The NATO Handbook; The 1995 Study on NATO's Enlargement, 1995,

NATO expansion was, and is, necessary for international stability  Enlargement was necessary to prevent Europe “reverting to type”. The rise once again of the ethnic and religious causes of war. [1] And this is still a reason for NATO to expand to help stabilise Europe. The Balkans is only the worst area for Ethnic tensions; there are similar cases all over Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The history of Eastern Europe has been one of empires not the nation state. Stalin had a policy of divide and rule; he made sure each soviet republic included substantial minorities in order to prevent the growth of nationalist movements. [2] Stalin only continued a long tradition of ethnic movements within empires in Eastern Europe. The Balkan problem for example is considered an effect of the Ottoman empire; hence the Christian/Moslem divides in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Austrian Empire settled people on its frontiers in much the same way; the result is that none of the eastern European states is ethnically homogeneous. The Violent break-up of Yugoslavia showed the way many other states could potentially go, NATO wished to avoid this and enlargement was its best solution.  [1] Coker, Christopher, ‘The Geopolitical Implications of the Expansion of Europe’ pp5-12 NATO looks east ed. Piotr Dutkiewicz and Robert J. Jackson (Westport, Praeger publishing, 1998) p.8  [2] Keylor, William R., The Twentieth Century World (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001), p.460

Again NATO need not have been the method why which these were fulfilled; the EU could equally provide collective defence within Europe and create the trust between member state’s militaries. It is also the European Union that has done most to turn Robinson’s ‘insecure and uncertain East’ into being part of ‘a prosperous, secure and self-confident West’. While it may be able to unite East and West Europe NATO is itself a symbol of division to others – particularly to Russia.

NATO expansion would benefit eastern European and post Soviet states  The opportunity of NATO membership creates the incentive for the newly independent republics to achieve internal stability. The criteria for NATO membership include stable democracy; civilian control of the armed forces; a sufficient military capacity to make a meaningful contribution to collective security; and the absence of active disputes on or within the borders of the State. [1] This incentivisation is critical given the European Union was and still is expanding slower than NATO – many new NATO members such as Albania are years away from achieving EU membership. [2] NATO membership will help these fledging States to help themselves.  [ NATO, ‘NATO enlargement’, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 4 May 2011,   [2] BBC News, ‘Albania applies for EU membership’, 28 April 2009,

The objectives of creating stability in these fledgling democracies could be better achieved under the existing ‘Partnership for Peace’ (PFP) programme. The policy received strong support under the Clinton administration involves regular consultations, exercises and opportunities for education that seek to professionalize the civilian and military institutions of the republics of the former Soviet Union. Moreover this was individually tailored to each member based on their own requirements. [1] This policy of genuine aid is preferable to the wish-list of democratic ideals that compose the criteria for NATO membership. Paradoxically, if a country was actually able to achieve all the criteria delineated for membership, the necessity for their NATO protection would be marginal. Conversely, were the republics predictably unable to realize these goals, the protection of NATO through expansion or PFP would be genuine. Yet, it is in these situations of tenuous stability that States will be denied proper civilian and military aid from NATO.  [1] The NATO Handbook; Partnership for Peace, Aim and scope

NATO is a fundamental part of the international architecture used to further peace and prosperity in Europe  Peace has many foundations and no one international organisation can create all these foundations itself. NATO is therefore just as necessary to the peace of Europe as the OSCE or EU and all of these organisations need to expand to cover the states within Europe to promote peace. NATO therefore in its Message from Turnberry – its response to the end of the cold war - “express our determination to seize the historic opportunities resulting from the profound changes in Europe to help build a new peaceful order in Europe, based on freedom, justice and democracy.” [1] Collective defence is as necessary as economic cooperation in creating peace, this is something that in Europe only NATO can provide. Peace is also promoted by NATO through the security cooperation that it provides; building trust between the member states. This need for trust and equality between the parts of Europe was also explicitly stated by NATO’s Secretary General when he stated “Without enlargement, we would permanently frustrate the ambitions of countries of Central and Eastern Europe for inclusion in the transatlantic security and defence community. That would perpetuate an unnatural and potentially dangerous division between a prosperous, secure and self-confident West and an insecure and uncertain East.” [2] NATO enlargement helps heal this fault line and shows the cold war in Europe is really over.  [1] NATO, ‘The Message from Turnberry’, NATO website, 1990,   [2] Robertson, George, "NATO: Enlarging and redefining itself" Speech 18 February 2002

It ought to be accepted that the NATO alliance is already diluted. It should not be perceived as a standing military force, but a holding company whose individual members can draw upon a collective infrastructure and military support in the event of intervention in and around Europe. The expansion of NATO should be the opportunity to re-examine the current force deployment and strategic capability of the alliance. For example, the US maintains significant permanent deployment of infantry, aircraft and armour in Germany that could possibly be transferred to a more active role in protecting the borders of the newly independent republics. Similarly, the NATO ‘After-Action’ report into ‘Operation Allied Force’ in Kosovo highlighted the dependence of the offensive on the US capacity for strategic airlift. The acquisition of the requisite air transport by the Western European States would allow more credible guarantees of security throughout Europe. Forward deployment of NATO troops into the new republics is not a prerequisite for expansion. The core of the alliance is the pledge to protect which is undiminished by the addition of new members.

The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the protracted collapse of the Soviet Union into the Commonwealth of Independent States did remove the overwhelming threat of the USSR against Western Europe. However, the threat persists in a different form. The newly independent republics remain vulnerable to the vast political and military influence of Russia. The new threat is the destruction of stability of the new republics, and thus Russian expansion that is hostile to both the republics and the Western European states in their proximity – worry that this would occur lead to many eastern European states applying to NATO as soon as they could. [1] The solution is pre-emptive expansion in the other direction. The broadening of NATO to include the Eastern republics shall offer a bulwark against Russian expansion. NATO shall continue to perform the role of a defensive alliance against a putative military threat.  [1] Keylor, William R., The Twentieth Century World (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001) pp.455, 458, 461-2, 475

Further expansion of NATO will antagonise Russia  Russia considers NATO expansion to be very antagonistic towards it. Continued NATO expansion would only serve to manufacture the expansionist demon that NATO fears. The election of the ultranationalist Duma in 1996, the choice of the hardliner Yvegeny Primakov as foreign minister, and the failure of the reformist party ‘Russia’s Choice’ under Yegor Gaidar even to clear the 5% hurdle for Duma membership was in whole or in part, due to the Russian sense of isolation from Western Europe. President Putin has also made a lot out of his opposition to NATO expansion which he has opposed since he was first elected President. [1] This sense is dramatically emboldened by such provocative actions as threatening to station NATO troops on its borders. The Russian people are unlikely to consider that the forward deployment is not directed against them, as is shown by Russia’s worries about and threats in response to National Missile Defense which is not aimed at them, [2] but instead is only designed to maintain internal stability in the neighbouring republics. By inflaming Russian nationalism, NATO expansion is obstructs democratic development for Russia and undermines the security of its neighbouring republics.  [1] BBC News, ‘Putin warns against Nato expansion’, 26 January 2001,   [2] Quetteville, Harry de, and Pierce, Andrew, ‘Russia threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile shield deal’, The Telegraph, 17 January 2012,

The cost of expansion is prohibitive  The costs of NATO expansion are prohibitive at a time when the Western European members are scaling back their defence budgets and the reducing the size of their conventional forces. The Clinton administration estimated the costs of the initial expansion to be $27 to $35 to 2010, but this is mostly the costs restructuring and of making forces interoperable rather than the costs of protecting the new members. [1] The cost of stationing forces in Eastern Europe would be considerably higher and if NATO ever had to defend these countries the cost would be higher still. Given the fragile economies of the new republics, the existing NATO States will be obliged to absorb the expense of expansion. Even a decade after expansion the new members have mostly not succeeded in reaching the 2% of GDP the alliance targets and their combined defence budgets are only a third of Russia’s. [2] The proper question is whether the taxpayers of the US and Western European States wish to pay to protect citizens of distant republics from phantom threats.  [1] ‘Administration Releases NATO Expansion Cost Report’, Arms Control Association, March 1997,   [2] The Economist, ‘Scars, scares and scarcity’, 12 May 2011,

Expanding NATO will overstretch the resources of its core members  NATO expansion can in the long term only lead to the overstretching of the organisation and thus the undermining of stability for the entirety of Europe. The credibility of the commitment of article V of the NATO Charter in which every member pledges to come to the defence of another has already been undermined by the inclusion of small countries that would be unable to defend themselves and are practically indefensible. [1] NATO runs the grave risk of becoming so large and diverse it resembles a political organisation rather than a military alliance. The military contribution of the new members would be by definition limited. Were these republics already capable of providing sufficient security to their borders, there would be no necessity for NATO membership. At the point where the NATO commitments become more declaratory than real, the security of every State including the new members is called into question. There are already worries, particularly from the United States, that the U.S. provides a free guarantee while Europe free rides, this is even more of a problem with smaller countries who cannot defend themselves even if they did spend NATOs agreed 2% of GDP on defence. [2] Thus NATO expansion might in fact assist any State eager for its own expansionism in Eastern Europe.  [1] The Economist, ‘Georgia’s prospects’, 19 October 2006,   [2] Haddick, Robert, ‘This Week at War: Moral Hazard at NATO’, ForeignPolicy.com, 17 June 2011,

Russia is no longer a threat  Russia no longer presents a credible threat to Eastern Europe or the existing NATO States which NATO expansion could counterbalance. Russia can no longer offer the conventional military threat of the Cold War. The acceptance of this reality by the US is evidenced by the fact that troop numbers in Europe are much reduced from a peak of 277,000 troops and will be reduced further to 30,000 in the next few years. [1] This is the key question for a military alliance as defence is the key purpose. Expansion should therefore be decided based upon the yardstick of whether the expansion is necessary for the security of NATO members. If there is no credible threat then there is no reason to expand the alliance. At the same time while Russia is no longer a conventional military threat it still has its immense nuclear armament. This will remain a threat no matter how many of Russia’s neighbours join NATO but Russia could feel increasingly obliged to focus on its nuclear arsenal to respond to NATO expansion – something which would create a threat to western Europe.  [1] Shanker, Thom, and Erlanger, Steven, ‘U.S. Faces New Challenge of Fewer Troops in Europe’, The New York Times, 13 January 2012,

The expense of NATO expansion is marginal when compared to the defence budgets of the major NATO States. The US defence expenditure alone for the fiscal year 2012 is $553 billion. [1] Further, the correct equation is not between the expense of stationing troops in these new States and the current saving from non-deployment. The balance is between the expense of forward deployment or other military investment and the prohibitive cost in dollars and lives from a conflict between NATO and Russia, or a conflagration in any of the Eastern republics. NATO expansion is nothing more than a cost-effective insurance policy against a very real risk.  [1] Department of Defence, US budget, gpoaccess,

NATO expansion is not the cause of nationalism in Russia, rather the Russian leadership stokes nationalism in order to direct attention away from the government. The Russian people are concerned about hardship and hazard within their own borders rather than without. Yes it is true that the expansion of NATO antagonises Russia but this should not be a major concern of NATO, any expansion of a military alliance is likely to worry those countries that are outside that alliance. Moreover, failing to expand NATO to countries that are potentially threatened by the same nationalism and belligerency of Russia would be implicitly rewarding that belligerency. NATO should not be teaching Russia the lesson that hostility in Eastern Europe gets results that lessen the security of all.

Here the argument presented by the proposition is an attempt to deceive the opposition and the house. The act that the proposition has presented has not been passed by the US government and is highly unlikely to happen in the future as well. The argument is right if the assumption that the deficits are long term. And it is not so. The deficit as a proportion of GDP is still more than manageable and more spending is needed. The only current indication of this is long term interest rates on US treasury bonds and these have been falling.  Secondly from a purely economic viewpoint, the battle between US and Taliban is not entirely negative. Historically military spending can help boost growth as was shown by World War II pulling the US out of the great depression of the 1930s. What nations need when in a recession is more economic activity and the arms industry and the countless other industries a war necessitates makes this war as good as it gets for the economy. Of course there is a danger of the US budget deficit leading to higher long term lending costs but if we look at the date from the last ten years interest rates on US treasury bonds have been falling. Therefore the US can borrow cheaply, has 9 million plus unemployed and companies are not willing to hire as they are already reaping huge profits off labor cost cuts. Economically the war in Afghanistan is good for America.

The war is too expensive, so a deal needs to be made to end it.  President Obama himself has said, “Ultimately as was true in Iraq, so will be true in Afghanistan; we will have to have a political solution.”  At a time when fiscal policy has become a major concern among western legislatures and commentators, the increasing cost of the war is proving to be politically contentious. Therefore, a political solution to the conflict is no longer merely desirable, but necessary. Continuing the war will cost too much, both in political and budgetary terms. USA and UK have to make financial considerations in light of the continuing aftermath of the global financial crisis. One glaring estimate suggests that America will spend over 700 billion U.S dollars on the military in 2010. The conflict in Afghanistan cost approximately $51 billion in 2009 and was expected to hit $65 billion in 2010. The purchase of air conditioning systems for Afghani facilities accounts for more than $20 billion of this figure.  Obama's policy of deploying more and more troops has cost the American people significantly more than the status quo would have. Every extra thousand personnel deployed to Afghanistan costs about $1 billion. [1] In the current financial climate taking on such exorbitant costs is not in the economic interest of the USA. It is not only sending troops (and reinforcements) to Afghanistan, but also the medical treatment of war veterans when they return that is costing America huge sums of money. The number of psychologically ill soldiers; as well as those suffering from near-fatal and/or debilitating injuries is still climbing tragically upwards, furthering the cost. To top that, war veterans feel that Americans are not paid enough. Mr.Obey, Rep. John P. Murtha and Rep. John B. Larson have proposed levying an annual tax of $30,000 on US citizens to 'share their(the military's) burden. [2]  [1] Doug Bandow, «A War We Can't Afford The National Interests», January 4, 2010,   [2] ibid

How can the Taliban be included if they absolutely disagree on negotiating, but instead want to overthrow the government? So far the Taliban has always insisted that they will refuse to negotiate until all foreign forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan. [1] This means that we are actually making the problems worse for the people over there instead of better.  We really need to have a reliable partner in the region. Nowadays Pakistan is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States with fighting Taliban. In 2007, the National Security Council of Pakistan met to decide the fate of Waziristan and take up a number of political and administrative issues in order to control the “Talibanization” of the area. The meeting was chaired by President Pervez Musharraf and attended by the Chief Ministers and Governors of all 4 provinces. They discussed the deteriorating law and order situation and the threat posed to state security. The restoration of peace in North and South Waziristan will be a great challenge. The dilemma is not only that the local Taliban in North Waziristan are not ready to speak with the government, but they also disallow anyone else in the region from speaking with the authorities. In these troubled areas, political agents are seen only in their official functions and troops are limited merely to forts and bunkers. [2]  Yes, Pakistan already has nuclear weapon, but it is important to underline that legitimate government has it, not the terrorists group. If we go through, we can say, a ‘blackmail’ of terrorist having a nuclear weapon we are risked to have them a chance to capture the power and provide their cruel politics.  [1] Andrew Blandford, «Talking with the Taliban: Should the U.S. "Bargain with Devil" in Afghanistan?», Harvard Negotiation Law Review,   [2] Sohail Abdul Nasir, «The Talibanization of the North-West Frontier», Terrorism Monitor Volume: 4 Issue: 12, June 15, 2006, 01:57 PM,

We have successful precedents in Iraq and Africa, proving that a power-sharing approach works.  African countries and in Iraq have proved that power-sharing deal works. So, it means that it is possible to find a solution for Afghanistan. For example, Iraq seems to be no need for us to prove that power-sharing has worked to greatly improve conditions in the country. Conditions that horrifically grew at an incredible pace during the war in Iraq. [1] The Iraqi government comprises of many members of the late Saddam regime who have been granted amnesty for their crimes. Members of the Taliban can be instated in governments through power-sharing (not giving) deal; in the same way.  Talks in Kenya ensued during the Bush administration when funds for the recuperation of fourth world African affairs were channelled to the region, jointly by the USA and UK. Both Blair and Bush worked side by side with formerly corrupt and violent African leaders to pick the Countries up. South Africa, which is ranked as an upper-middle income economy by the World Bank [2] (formerly a fourth world country) is now doing better than both India and China (third-world countries) on the economic front. [3]  [1] Obama: Time for Iraqis to 'take responsibility', NBC News and news services, updated 4/7/2009 1:29:02 PM ET,   [2] World Bank Data – South Africa,   [3] Bush urges Kenya power-sharing, BBC News, Last Updated: Saturday, 16 February 2008, 18:05 GMT,

The campaign is unpopular among the majority of NATO countries citizens, so we should solve the Afghan problem in diplomatic way, specifically through a power-sharing deal with the Taliban.  The majority of citizens in the USA and the UK oppose the war in Afghanistan and want troops to come back home. As was the case in Iraq, a diplomatic solution is required to end the war as smoothly as possible. As at 12 August 2011, a total of 379 British forces personnel or MOD civilians have died while serving in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001. [1] About 2000 coalition soldiers in total expired in Afghanistan. [2] More than 1340 British soldiers have been wounded in action. U.S opinion poll proclaims that 62% of Americans want troops home as soon as possible while the rest want a timetable for troop withdrawal. [3] According to Michael Moore, Obama is the new war president. He needs to prove that he is a peacemaker to retrieve the support of his people. [4] The media agrees that the war is unpopular and there needs to be an end creating sentiment like “I wish they would bring them all home.” Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian argues “I think the people in Wootton Bassett [where UK soldiers are repatriated] are representative of a very widespread... feeling, actually, of outrage on their behalf that is quite new in British politics. A complete withdrawal is in public demand. This requires a power-sharing deal.” [5]  [1] Ministry of Defense, Operations in Afghanistan: British Fatalities,   [2] Devin Dwyer and Luis Martinez, «Afghanistan War Costs More Than 1,000 U.S. Service Members' Lives», abcNEWS, May 28, 2010,   [3] CBS NEWS POLL, for release: July 13, 2010,   [4] Michael Moore, «An Open Letter To President Obama On Afghanistan», Posted November 30, 2009 04:00 AM, Huffpost World,   [5] PBS REPORT War Weary British Seek An End in Afghanistan, Margaret Warner travels to the tiny English village of Wootton Bassett and finds growing unease about British involvement in Afghanistan, Dec. 8, 2009, Transcript

The argument here presented by the proposition that the majority of people in US are fed up with the war, true. But that is because they were not the ones facing abuse at the Taliban hands or fighting a civil war which resulted in the killing of 100,000, but the minority will be slaughtered if this is allowed to happen. [1] This genocide in the making should not be allowed to happen. This will also lead to a civil war. Though the minorities are exhausted but they broke it and have a moral imperative to fix it. A lot of people have come out in support of the "western" forces, they will face retribution and future attempts to win hearts and minds will fail when the fickleness of our resolve is exposed. This is a slippery slope if we slide down there is no telling how far down we will fall. This should be the centre of the discussion; our opponents want to put popularity before lives and security and which is wrong.  [1] Dexter Filkins, «Overture to Taliban Jolts Afghan Minorities», The New York Times, published June 26, 2010,

It should first be pointed out that all conflicts are unique, products of the political and social settings in which they arise. Geopolitics and foreign policy are not as dependent on precedent as most debaters would like to think.  The main objective of the USA and the UK behind the power sharing deal in Africa is to extract the resources of the African continent. The proposition is basically trying to deceive us with this point. The power sharing deals made by the USA (collaborating with the UK, at times) are all for their own selfish interests. Be it in Africa or Iraq, USA has applied its own vested interest in most cases. Africa is very rich in resources. The US saw all of these and then shared power with the nation just to earn some benefit in utilizing the resources. Furthermore, the United States went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, a greater concern to the USA than that of searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) [1] and taking Saddam Hussein out of power.  The power sharing in Afghanistan and Pakistan would not only to exploit the oil resources but also have a watchful eye towards China, India and Russia.  [1] Aryn Baker, «Afghan Women and the Return of the Taliban» , The Time Magazine, July 29, 20,

This is the weakest argument by far. It isn't logical. As all of us who've read about Karl Popper will attest that a historical trend is not an indication of future courses unless causality can be proven. Here it can’t. It’s a different war altogether. Historical parallels make sense in college classrooms, not when a Taliban fighter faces a drone attack; Did the soviets have drones? No, they didn’t.  Also «Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban» is factually incorrect. The Pakistan president said that talking with the Taliban is not an option «unless we want to breed terrorism».  The current scenario is completely different from the past, not only about the time factor but also political conditions. Previous battles were fought against not only the militia but also its supporting government. This time, the battle is against an independent Taliban force that is backing up the Al- Qaeda group.

The threat of Talibanization is too great under the status quo to continue with current policy.  If a diplomatic solution is not reached or even proposed , the security situation in both Afghanistan and Pakistan will deteriorate and this is a matter of serious concern since the latter is a nuclear power. Violence in the region can only be disseminated if the Taliban feel they are not being attacked but are included; then peace has a chance of prevailing. If the region were to be left as is Increasing Taliban activity could further destabilize the border regions of Pakistan, while attacks mounted against the Afghan interior would cause significant damage and endanger thousands of live. [1]  An entrenched Afghani Taliban could support and embolden groups with similar ideologies elsewhere in central Asia and the subcontinent. For instance, groups ideologically identical to the Taliban effectively subdued the Pakistani military in the Swat Valley allowing them to impose their version of sharia law and institute measures that included closing girls' schools, banning music, and installing complaint boxes for reports of anti-Islamic behaviour. [2] Continue with the status quo and the Taliban will simply re-conquer Afghanistan when the coalition leaves.  [1] Amna Saboor, «The Waziristan problem», December 14th, 2008,   [2] Jane Perlez and Zubair Shan Truce in Pakistan May Mean Leeway for Taliban, The New York Times, published March 5, 2009,

Afghan history shows failings of foreign invasion, so this campaign is also doomed to failure.  No state has ever been able to impose alien political institutions on the Afghani people, whether by force or by flattery. The Russians tried and so did the British, but neither was successful. In fact, the greatest massacre of British soldiers happened in Afghanistan in 1842. The British then awarded these tribesmen with fancy titles and the Khyber pass was thereafter protected by Pakistani and Afghan tribes (the ancestors of the Mujahadeen &amp; then the Taliban). The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was thus never manned by British soldiers. More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon made it alive to Jalalabad. [1] The Russians threw bombs, tanks, landmines and napalm at the Afghan guerrilla army, the Mujahadeen. They killed around half a million people, injured many more but they still faced dismal defeat in the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Therefore before the situation spirals out of control, the British and the Americans should commence a power sharing deal with the Taliban. [2] The opposition may argue that the Taliban cannot be trusted. Nine insurgents are very capable of fibbing about the Pakistani intelligence. There is no way that funds siphoned off from any clandestine secret intelligence agency can realistically be traced to it. Word of mouth, especially when the mouth belongs to the enemy is rarely credible. Therefore negotiating with the Taliban directly feels ineffective. They might argue that talks solely with Pakistani-Afghan government representatives is a rather more feasible and less dangerous means of achieving the coalition's desired end. However, such talks frequented have borne little fruit. In fact Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban if any progression towards peace is to be made. The coalition's ancestors were wise.  [1] Robert McNamara, «Britain's Disastrous Retreat from Kabul»,   [2] «Obama Will Vow Troops Leaving by July 2011», CBSNEWS, December 1, 2009 9:35 PM, Updated 3:44 p.m. ET,

It was not the fault of the Taliban that there were several years of drought in Afghanistan, something which would cause great suffering in any peasant economy. And while some Afghan refugees specifically fled the Taliban’s austere regime, most were displaced during two decades of warfare that preceded it, or left the country for economic reasons. Nor is it surprising that the Taliban had difficult relations with the representatives of the United Nations, as it is not recognised by the UN, where the Afghanistan seat in the General Assembly was still held by the discredited regime the Taliban overthrew.  The opposition seems to think that negotiations equal to condoning human right's violations and handing over a sort of Carte blanche to the Taliban. Whereas talks pressurize such groups effectively to give up their evil ways.  The point of talks is to give very little power on very definite humanitarian conditions/terms. To trade.  If there are no talks; then the Taliban will proclaim victory (as they do already) once the coalition forces are withdrawn and continue fighting local governments at the cost of civilian lives in the region. (The eventual withdrawal of coalition forces is not being debated).The war is in an economic loss and the people/governments of the democratic nations of the UK and USA frankly care more about their/our failing economies than the state of Afghan civilians who have been suffering with the coalition's knowledge since before 1989. To clarify further for the opposition seems to not be wary of this; in democracies, countries should and in time do; work according to the will of their people.

The Taliban were not the only oppressive regime in the world and it was hypocritical to single them out, especially when many of their practices are shared by friendly, pro-western states such as Saudi Arabia. Their views were not an entirely alien imposition upon Afghan society, but were rooted in the traditions of the Pashtun, one of Afghanistan’s largest ethnic groups.  The war has done nothing to improve the conditions of women and children in the war-zone! Women' rights are already being violated in both coalition countries and the war-zone. Rape, murder and theft are soaring the world over. While petty financial crimes are reduced. [1] Domestic violence especially against women and children is on a steep climb and remains largely under-reported. Only 35% cases are reported in the UK  The proposition has however provided evidence that the conditions of Afghan and Pakistani civilians have deteriorated as a consequence of the war: air strikes, drone attacks, physio-psychological trauma and so forth.  The proposition has time and time again asserted that the war must be put to an end and the only means to win it in real terms is to talk the Taliban out of it. Both the Americans and British have a history of accomplishing peace with groups that the Taliban roots from by bargaining with them to renounce their natural guerrilla-fighting instincts.  [1] Crime Statistics,  , Domestic violence statistics,

The Taliban supports terrorist organizations, so they are not to be trusted.  The Times Square attack and the Twin Tower attacks are examples of how the Taliban are actually cultivating terrorists to carry out international terrorist acts. The Taliban sheltered international terrorists, of whom Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaida organisation were the most prominent. In addition to Al-Qaida’s strikes against American targets worldwide, fundamentalist terrorists trained in Afghanistan have been active in Chechnya, Kosovo, Central Asia, Indian Kashmir and China. This has resulted in the destabilisation of the region and contributed to a great deal of human misery. Therefore, the US and UK cannot afford to risk their nation's security by leaving Taliban to raise, equip and fund terrorists. Even for their own safety, they cannot leave the Taliban in power. The Obama administration is working on establishing a stable government - a government that has trained police force, trusted government officials and better educational system. Therefore, letting the Taliban share power means they will try to reinforce their own system which means none of the above can actually happen. This is not acceptable. [1]  [1] The Economist, Debate: This house believes that the war in Afghanistan is winnable, May 17th 2010,

The Taliban manipulates the drug trade according to its will, so it should not be included into the government.  The Taliban are responsible for flooding the world with heroin produced from the opium grown there; over 90% of the heroin on the streets of the UK originated in Afghanistan.  In 2000, the Taliban issued a decree banning cultivation. [1] By 2001, production had reportedly been reduced from 12,600 acres (51 km2) to only 17 acres (7 ha). Opium production was reportedly cut back by the Taliban not to prevent its use, but to increase its price, and thus increase the income of Afghan poppy farmers and tax revenue. [2] Therefore, the regime relied upon levies on the movement of drugs as one of its principle sources of funding. No other government has ever been so complicit in a trade that kills and ruins lives all over the world.  [1] Afghanistan, Opium and the Taliban, February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST,   [2] Benjamin, Daniel, The Age of Sacred Terror by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, New York: Random House, c2002, p.145) (source: Edith M. Lederer, "U.N. Panel Accuses Taliban of Selling Drugs to Finance War and Train Terrorists," Associated Press, 2001-05-25.

The Taliban failed to provide good government for Afghanistan.  The Taliban is more concerned with religious purity than the physical welfare of the people. As a result, millions of Afghans still live in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, while millions of others are desperately short of food and face starvation. The Taliban made the situation worse by harassing UN workers and aid agencies, in defiance of the usual diplomatic norms, imprisoning westerners on religious charges and impeding the flow of humanitarian relief to their own people.  During the five-year history of the Islamic Emirate, much of the population experienced restrictions on their freedom and violations of their human rights. Women were banned from jobs, girls forbidden to attend schools or universities. Those who resisted were punished instantly. Communists were systematically eradicated and thieves were punished by amputating one of their hands or feet. Meanwhile, the Taliban managed to nearly eradicate the majority of the opium production by 2001. [1]  [1] Afghanistan, Opium and the Taliban, February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST,

The Taliban is a cruel and undemocratic regime, and so it should not be given any power.  The Taliban oppressed their own people, especially women and ethnic or religious minorities. A very strict, distinctive interpretation of Sunni Islam was enforced zealously (with public executions and amputations) as they attempted to build the world’s purest Islamic state. Television and music were banned, women had to be fully covered up and were forbidden from receiving an education or working (despite many families having lost their male members after years of warfare, and so rendering many families entirely dependent upon food aid for survival), and their access to healthcare was restricted.  The well-known story provided by Time Magazine: Aisha who ran away from her husband’s house. Her husband was abusing her physically and mentally. When she was caught by the Taliban «soldiers», she was taken to the Taliban Court and given a punishment in their law. The punishment was, her ears and nose was cut. She was then left for dead however she survived because an Afghan Rights group managed to save her. She is just one example. Therefore, if we let the Taliban participate in power-sharing, they will try to implement their form of justice which is totally biased when it comes to women. We cannot afford to sacrifice women rights for peace in Afghanistan.  Another example of the violence is the massacre of Yakaolang in January 2001: Hazaras were victimized for 4 days, detained 300 civilian adult males, including staff members of humanitarian orgnisations. Men were shot at public places. Rocket launchers were fired at Mosques were 73 women and children were sheltering. In May 2000, 26 civilians of Hazara Shi’as group were executed in robatak pass. In August 1998 Taliban captured Mazar- I- Sharif. Reports of killing of around 2000- 5000 people mostly of Hazara clan were presented. [1]  All of this shows the barbarity of the Taliban’s activities, which so far hasn’t stopped.  [1] Eyewitness accounts of Taliban massacre in Yakaolang, By RAWA reporters, June, 2001

Intense international demand for opium has led to poppies becoming a preferred cash crop among Afghan farmers. Although historically known for its fruit and vegetable production, the high prices commanded by opium mean that it is regarded as financially resilient, immune to large price fluctuations and still offering decent returns, even if a large proportion of a crop fails. Although the Taliban profited from levies on the opium trade, so did the warlords they displaced. In fact, in 2000 the Taliban, responding to global concern over the heroin trade and its own religious impulses, issued orders that opium should not be grown. As a result, production dropped by over 90% with a noticeable impact upon street prices of heroin in Europe. This suggests both that engagement with the Taliban was potentially constructive, and that a collapse of central control would give drug runners a free hand.

The Taliban are not the only regime in the world to have sheltered terrorists – Syria, Iran, Iraq, Cuba and North Korea are all viewed by the USA’s State Department as state sponsors of terrorism. Indeed, although the Taliban provide shelter for terrorist groups to train, the other states could be seen to go further, by actively initiating and funding terrorism. Moreover, given that Russia and the Central Asian former soviet states have been opposed to the Taliban from the start, and backed the Northern Alliance against it in the Afghan civil war, it is hardly surprising that the Taliban backed their own rebel movements. It could also be asked whether rebels in Chechnya, Kosovo and China should be seen as terrorists or freedom fighters.  The opposition cannot be expecting the proposition to defend the reinstatement of the pseudo-religious-extremist-fundamentalist Taliban regime. We are in fact calling for exactly the opposite: Please the Taliban by negotiating with them on the coalition's terms not theirs and avert the old form of Taliban rule in the region. If the coalition leaves without any talks whatsoever then an extremist Taliban takeover of both Pakistan and Afghanistan is a distinct possibility. If the coalition leaves after buying the Taliban out while imposing conditions imperative to human rights and western values (including respect for other ethnic/religious/ideological groups). Then we have a chance for peace. To claim that aggressively fighting on the ground will end racial conflict when 9 years of fighting have only exacerbated these problems; is rather ignorant. It entails learning nothing at all from history/past-mistakes. If this kind of warfare which the Taliban are much better at; continues the war will be lost. If instead as the wonderful Obama has suggested we resort to peaceful talks this time directly with the Taliban, then we have a chance of winning.

The example of Kosovo is not similar because of the terrible treatment including ethnic cleansing, mass murder and torture that Kosovars suffered within the former Yugoslavia and Serbia. Even if other examples are more similar, they are regrettable themselves, we should be seeking to bring nations together through means such as the EU and UN not split them apart.  The main reason for Kosovo's recognition stemmed from the fact that it was never really simply part of Serbia. Until the illegal constitutional changes made by Milosevic in 1989, Kosovo was a part of the Yugoslav federation in its own right, with its own seat on the Yugoslav presidency. One can't possibly claim the same constitutional status for RS, which is quite simply the areas of Bosnia which the Bosnian Serb forces were able to ethnically cleanse and keep after the war ended in 1995. Unlike Kosovo, the RS has no historical, legal or constitutional precident and is to a large degree the product of ethnic cleansing.

There is legitimate precedent.  Kosovo became formally independent from Serbia in 2008 [1] and Montenegro became independent from Serbia in 2006 [2] as a result of referenda within those territories. If these states and the many, many others which previously achieved independence have a right to self-determination why doesn’t RS? To deny some groups of people access to self-determination is hypocritical and unjust.  [1] BBC News, ‘Kosovo MPs proclaim independence’, 17 February 2008,   [2] BBC News, ‘Montenegro declares independence’, 4 June 2006,

This is just an argument for reforming state structures to reduce dysfunction, perhaps by moving to majority votes instead of each side having a veto. Additionally if the two sides have difficulty cooperating now, why would that cooperation become easier when they no longer share a state? This would at the minimum lead to two neighbouring states without a functional relationship and thus limited ability to act collectively on cross border crime or trade.

Increased sense of identity with the state increases social solidarity.  Where groups of people do not identify with the state they are less likely to be willing to invest in more generous state services since they do feel that peoples with whom they have no affinity will benefit from them. Conversely, where people feel like the state is mostly composed of people like them, they are more willing to invest in education, healthcare and a welfare state. These things will ultimately significantly improve the lives of the people in each new state and lead to stronger states than the one that exists now. For example the Scandinavian states, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland with their largely homogenous societies are also associated with very high levels of social happiness and generous welfare provision.

Serbs have a right to Self-Determination.  The right to self-determination is a basic human right which underpins the legitimacy of the nation-state. Where a large group people do not feel represented or accepted by a state and thus do not consent to its rule, the states control over that people becomes illegitimate. The right to national self-determination is enshrined with the UN charter [1] and formed the basis for the independence of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo and Montenegro.  [1] United Nations, ‘UN Charter, Chapter I: Purposes and Principles, Art. 1, Part 2’. 26 June 1945,

Where does self-determination end? Do cities or towns have a right to self-determination, what about individuals within the state? Allowing further secessions will just lead to increasingly smaller and less viable states without producing benefits. Nations are invented human constructs with no inherent value. The right to self-determination is limited, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that there were only three circumstances in which external self determination to three circumstances (a) those under colonial domination or foreign occupation; (b) peoples subject to "alien subjugation, domination or exploitation outside a colonial context;" and, possibly, (c) a people "blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally." [1] None of these apply to RS.  In the case of RS there were Bosniaks and Croats who were already in the region and were expelled in the 1990s who in many cases formed a majority in many municipalities in what is now Republika Srpska. Should these smaller groupings have the same right? And if so would individual villages within these municipalities then be able to exercise their own self determination?  [1] Van der Vyver, Johan D., ‘Self-determination of the p[eoples of Quebec under International Law’, J. Transnational Law &amp; Policy, Vol.10 No.1, p.12,

Some groups of people will always not identify with the state, for class based, political and cultural reasons. State solidarity has to be based on a common humanity as that is the only fundamentally unifying factor.

Areas of intermixing do exist, such as the capital, Sarajevo. Steps should be taken instead top encourage communities to live together for example with housing subsidies for mixed developments and with cross communal education.

The present state structure does not work.  The existing state structure does not work, because it requires agreement between the representatives of RS and the FBH, Given the fundamentally divergent aims and opinions of the two sides compromise is almost impossible leading to perpetual gridlock on basic issues such as policing and education. This gridlock can be shown by the fifteen months it took for Bosnia and Herzegovina to form a government, and even then a compromise was only reached due to financial pressure from the IMF and EU. [1]  [1] Szpala, Marta, ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina: the financial situation forces politicians to reach a compromise regarding the government’, Centre for Eastern Studies, 4 January 2012,

The people within the state have no desire to live together.  The constituents peoples (Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks) live almost entirely in separate segregated areas with very little communal intermixing. They already essentially live in separate states but without the ability to actually direct their own affairs or receive international recognition. [1] It should be remembered that the Bosnian Serbs have already voted ponce for secession as in a referendum in November 1991 in areas which were Serb ethnic 96.4% voted for an independent State within the then Yugoslav federation. [2]  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina’,   [2] Application of Genocide convention, ‘Dissenting opinion of Judge Kreca’, International Court of Justice, 11 July 1996, p.738,

The region is no longer the powder keg of tension it once was. The independence of Kosovo did not lead to widespread fighting, but only to localised rioting for a period of days or weeks and the Montenegrin secession was entirely peaceful. The awareness of the possibility of escalation of tension will only to serve to make the new states and the international community even more focused on preventing violence and they are thus likely to react accordingly with peacekeepers, international monitors and aid.

Whether or not Nations are imaginary, they are seen as being important and form a key part of individual’s identity. Nationalism does not have to lead to a sense of superiority, nations can be proud of their identity without being disrespectful of other nation’s culture and history.

Secession will hurt minorities in the new state  This increased nationalism will hurt minority ethnic groups within the new states, both already existing minorities such as Jews, Roma, and foreign immigrants who will no longer be part of a largely diverse state with strong legal protections for minority rights, where there are mechanisms for preventing either side dominating, [1] but will instead be part of new ethnically defined states to which they will be perceived as not belonging. Additionally it will hurt the ‘new’ minorities, the Bosniaks and Croats in RS and the Serbs in the FBH, who will be physically and mentally cut off from the state which at least in some respects formerly represented them. Instead they would be made a minority within a group of people judged fundamentally different from them and incapable of living with people like them.  [1] Szpala, Marta, ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina – an ongoing erosion of the state’, Centre for Eastern Studies, 30 March 2011,

Republika Srpska cannot survive economically as an independent state.  The RS and FBH have very little industry and few exports, RS for example only exports 720million euros worth compared to imports of 1.25billion euros, [1] the economy is largely based on tourism and foreign aid both of which would likely be adversely affected by the turmoil of secession. A new RS would therefore likely quickly become economically dependent on Serbia and would be unable to make the investments needed to ensure a successful new state. The drop off in tourism revenue will also reduce the prosperity of the citizens and increase poverty in the area.  [1] Remikovic, Drazen, ‘Devicit of Bosnia’s Republika Srpska half billion euros’, Balkans.com, 30 August 2011,

Secession will strengthen Nationalism in neighbouring states.  The upsurge in Nationalism would not be limited to just the two parts of Bosnia &amp; Herzegovina, given the ethnic kinship between the Croats and Serbs of Bosnia and those of Croatia and Serbia, but would also in all likelihood lead to renewed nationalism in Serbia, Croatia and other FYRs as happened during the earlier rise of the nationalists before and during the Yugoslav wars [1] . This would jeopardise the progress made within and between these states and damage international cooperation. It would also likely set back the drive towards increased integration, the close cross national feeling and shared culture termed ‘the Yugosphere’ and ultimately being joined together again within the EU.  [1] Pesic, Vesna, ‘Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis’, Peaceworks No.8, April 1996, United States Institute of Peace,  .26

Secession will lead to renewed conflict.  The combination of an increased nationalism and the plight of minorities trapped within states overwhelmingly composed of the ‘other’ people is likely to lead to low level tension, rioting and even potentially warfare particularly over areas which have large Serbs or Bosniak populations forming enclaves within the other state as has happened in many previous secession disputes such as the Croatian secession from Yugoslavia [1] This would plunge the area and the whole region back towards the catastrophic fighting of the 1990’s and needlessly cost many lives as happened in the partition of India [2] . It would also likely lead to waves of refugees and decreased investment and tourism in the new states blighting their futures.  [1] Reuters, ‘Roads Sealed as Yugoslav Unrest Mounts’, The New York Times, 19 August 1990,   [2] Brass, Paul R., ‘The partition of India and retributive genocide in the Punjab 1946-47: means, methods, and purposes’, Journal of Genocide Research, Vol.5, No.1, 2003, pp.71-101, p.75,

Both Montenegro and Kosovo had similar economic situations and have subsequently prospered after independence. Even if there were economic problems they were also both still allowed to become independent. Independence can also lead to an economic boom with new investment and diaspora emigrants returning to the country as happened with the Baltic states after independence. [1]  [1] Fifka, Matthias S., ‘The Baltics: Continuing boom or bursting bubble? A rocky short-run should not obscure a promising long run’, Business Economics, October 2008,

Secession strengthen Nationalism in the new states  Nations and Peoples are invented human constructs that have no intrinsic value. [1] Self-determination merely reinforces the idea that different groups of people are fundamentally different and not part of a shared humanity. Nationalism leads to a belief that some groups of people are superior to others, which in turn leads to discrimination against groups of people who are not seen as part of the nation. [2]  [1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, p.48,   [2] Ajnadžić, Mirza, and Kamber, Ajdin, ‘Bosnia’s “Others” Fight for Their Rights’, Institute for War &amp; Peace Reporting, 746, 19 June 1012,

The progress in the other former Yugoslav Republics is now largely irreversible as young people grow up without experience of fighting or significant ethnic division. The processes of education and increased prosperity that have led to this phenomena mean that it will likely be largely unaffected by events in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The constitutions of the RS and FBH already enshrine the protection of linguistic and religious minorities and the new states will be aware of the international focus on the ‘new’ minority groups and will thus focus resources on protecting them in order to protect the reputation of the new state.

While it is undoubtedly true that some foreign aid money will flow into the hands of US firms it is wrong to argue that this is beneficial to the economy. What needs to be considered is not just whether some aid money ends up in the hands of Americans but whether that same money could be spent in such a way where more of it would. The answer is undoubtedly yes. The same money would benefit the economy much more if handed back to the citizen to spend themselves or directly invested in the United States. The developing world would then in turn benefit because more Americans spending means more purchasing of goods made in developing countries. The United States exports $2-3billion worth of goods to Africa every month while it imports around $6billion [1] clearly then Africa is benefiting from trade with the United States and more spending in the United States will benefit Africa.  [1] ‘Trade in Goods with Africa’, U.S. Department of Commerce United States Census Bureau, 2012.

Foreign aid benefits the United States  While foreign aid is obviously for the benefit of the recipient country that country is not the only one that benefits; U.S. business is often a major beneficiary. It does this in two ways: First they benefit directly through carrying out the contracts for supplying aid, for example Cargill was paid $96million for supplying food aid in 2010-11. [1] Secondly there are also indirect benefits. Through the work of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Obama administration hopes to “develop partnerships with countries committed to enabling the private sector investment that is the basis of sustained economic growth to open new markets for American goods, promote trade overseas, and create jobs here at home”. [2] Essentially, through foreign aid, both the economies of the developing world and the United States come out ahead. Even Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates has been quoted as saying that the 1 percent the United States spends on foreign aid “not only saves millions of lives, it has an enormous impact on developing countries – which means it has an impact on our economy”. [3]  [1] Provost, Claire, and Lawrence, Felicity, ‘US food aid programme criticised as ‘corporate welfare’ for grain giants’, guardian.co.uk, 18 July 2012.  [2] ‘What we do’, USAID, 12 September 2012.  [3] Worthington, Samuel, ‘US foreign aid benefits recipients – and the donor’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2011.

Everyone is for transparency when it is taxpayers’ money that is being spent however transparency does not make it a worthwhile investment. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General says that “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.” [1] This means huge amounts of money is not helping development as it is meant to. Obama’s transparency initiatives will no doubt help show what the US is spending and where but will it tell us who else benefits? Moreover the administration’s record on aid transparency is very patchy; some budgets like the Millennium Challenge Corporation, created by the Republicans during the Bush Administration, are very transparent while big departments like State and Treasury are just the opposite. [2]  [1] ‘At high-level discussion, UN officials highlight costs of corruption on societies’, UN News Centre, 9 July 2012.  [2] ‘2011 Pilot Aid Transparency Index’, Publish What You Fund, 2012.

The aid budget has to increase to meet rising commitments  Despite a large national deficit, the Obama administration has stated over [1] and over [2] again that they have no plans to cut Official Development Assistance (ODA), and the 2011 budget reflects that by putting the United States on a path to double foreign assistance by 2015. [3] The Obama administration has requested $56 billion for international affairs in Fiscal Year 2013 that would go towards USAID funding and programs. [4] This would go a considerable way towards the target, first pledged in 1970, of rich countries committing 0.7% of GNP to Official Development Assistance. [5]  This increase is necessary because Obama has increasing commitments to meet. The administration wants to embrace the United Nations Millennium Development Goals [6] to cut global poverty by 2015 in hopes that foreign assistance can help countries build “healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth”. [7] The Obama administration wants to increase foreign assistance to make investments to combat terrorism, corruption and transnational crime, improve global education and health, reduce poverty, build global food security, expand the Peace Corps, address climate change, stabilize post-conflict states, and reinforce conflict prevention.  In a speech promoting good governance in Ghana, President Obama stated, “the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of aid that helps people scrape by—it is whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change.” [8] The goal remains to expand diplomatic and development capacity while renewing the United States as a global leader.  [1] LaFranchi, Howard, ‘Obama at UN summit: foreign aid is ‘core pillar of American power’, The Christian Science Monitor, 22 September 2010.  [2] Zeleny, Jeff, ‘Obama Outlines His Foreign Policy Views’, The New York Times, 24 April 2007.  [3] ‘U.S. Department of State and Other International Programs’, Office of Management and Budget.  [4] Troilo, Pete, ‘Ryan VP pick could yield clues on Romney’s foreign aid plans’, devex, 13 August 2012.  [5] ‘The 0.7% target: An in depth-look’, Millennium Project, 2006.  [6] We Can End Poverty 2015, UN.org.  [7] ‘The Obama-Biden Plan’, Change.gov, 2008.  [8] Wallis, William, ‘Obama calls for good governance in Africa’, Financial Times, 11 July 2009.

It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.  [1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.  [2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.

Aid does not benefit national security; there are two ways to increase national security. First is to increase spending on those agencies that maintain national security; the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies. Second is by expanding the economy which provides the necessary wealth to maintain national security. Foreign aid clearly does not benefit national security because the recipient will spend it how they want and often this will be in ways that are detrimental to U.S. security, whether this is though the aid being spent on products from China or being lost to corruption. Aid from the United States has often not been beneficial in the past the U.S. gave Egypt $1.5 billion per year in aid [1] yet is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan received $963 million and yet supports the Taliban fighting against the US in Afghanistan. [2]  [1] Holan, Angie Drobnic, ‘Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel, says New York Times Columnist Ross Douthat’, Tampa Bay Times, 4 February 2011.  [2] Bajoria, Jayshree, ‘The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 May 2011.

The foreign aid budget can be made more effective and transparent  While a second Obama administration is not going to cut back on foreign aid the Obama campaign however, does argue for pragmatic budgetary approaches to foreign aid, [1] creating transparency measures [2] to ensure that “assistance [is] more transparent, accountable and effective”. [3] The Obama administration has signed the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation [4] which makes transparency a key pillar of overseas development [5] and has succeeded in significantly increasing transparency; in 2010 the U.S. was ranked 24th [6] in Quality of Official Development Assistance rankings on transparency, by 2012 it had moved up to 9th. [7] It is also clear how beneficial transparency is for the recipients of aid; Uganda implemented Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys in 1996. Surveys had shown that only 13% of funds for schools was actually getting to the schools but the introduction of PETS increased this to between 80-90% simply because it was public that the school should have received money. [8]  [1] ‘U.S. Foreign Aid By Country’, Huffington Post, 30 August 2012.  [2] Foreignassistance.gov.  [3] Shah, Rajiv, ‘Improving the Quality and Effectiveness of International Development Aid’, The White House Blog, 1 December 2011.  [4] ‘Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation’, busanhlf4.org, 29 November – 1 December 2011.  [5] Atwood, Brian, ‘The Benefits of Transparency in Development’, OECD Insights, 3 April 2012.  [6] Baker, Gavin, ‘U.S. Scores Poorly on Transparency of Foreign Aid Spending’, OMB Watch, 7 October 2010.  [7] ‘Transparency and Learning’, Global Economy and Development at Brookings, 2012.  [8] ‘Empowerment Case Studies: Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys – Application in Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana and Honduras’, World Bank.

Aid benefits National Security  In Obama’s 2012 campaign, promoting good governance through foreign aid makes sense for a range of foreign policy and development objectives. Through contributions in healthcare, education, poverty alleviation and infrastructure, investing in foreign aid and increasing the foreign aid budget will help create a more peaceful and safe global environment. Robert Gates, former US Secretary of Defense, has stated that “cutting aid jeopardizes US national security. It also creates a greater vacuum in so-called fragile states, which can easily be filled by those who do not have US interests at heart. There is no doubt that foreign assistance helps ward off future military conflicts.” [1] In much the same way as encouraging people to eat healthily will likely reduce expenditures on healthcare in the future so some spending on aid with resulting development and better perceptions of the United States can reduce conflicts in the future so saving money in the long run by preventing the need for expensive armed interventions.  [1] Worthington, Samuel, ‘US foreign aid benefits recipients – and the donor’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2011.

The Obama administration accepts the need to maintain these global public goods. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has written “Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region's key players.” [1] However it is wrong to maintain that this should be considered as a part of foreign aid instead the U.S. maintains the global commons because it gains most out of them, the U.S. military is the biggest beneficiary of freedom of navigation and of the maintenance of space as a global commons as they allow the military’s global reach to be maintained. [2]  The United States may not be legally obligated to provide foreign aid and international development efforts but there are moral obligations as President Kennedy recognised when creating USAID: "There is no escaping our obligations: our moral obligations as a wise leader and good neighbor in the interdependent community of free nations – our economic obligations as the wealthiest people in a world of largely poor people, as a nation no longer dependent upon the loans from abroad that once helped us develop our own economy – and our political obligations as the single largest counter to the adversaries of freedom." [3] Today this is just as true as it was then; the United States is still one of the richest states on earth. Moreover there is an international target of 0.7% of GDP being spent overseas development assistance which the United States has signed up to and has been repeatedly re-endorsed since it was first adopted in 1970. [4]  [1] Clinton, Hillary, ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011.  [2] Denmark, Abraham M., ‘Managing the Global Commons’, Washington Quarterly, 30 June 2010.  [3] Kennedy, John F., ’90 – Special Message to the Congress on Foreign Aid.’, The American Presidency Project, 22 March 1961.  [4] ‘The 0.7% ODA/GNI target – a history’, OSCE.

Foreign aid is a minute part of the US budget as Obama has correctly argued “[it is wrong to] suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.” [1] So very little of the money the US is borrowing is being spent on foreign aid.  It is also wrong to assert that the US government debt is borrowing money from China as most government borrowing comes from the US private sector. [2] China owns a mere 9.3% of US government debt with the majority being owed either to US individuals and institutions (41.7%) or to the Social Security Trust Fund (17.1%). [3]  [1] Geiger, Jacob, ‘Barak Obama says foreign aid makes up 1 percent of U.S. budget’, Tampa Bay Times, 13 April 2011.  [2] Krugman, Paul, ‘Fear-of-China Syndrome’, The New York Times, 30 August 2012.  [3] ‘Who Owns U.S. Debt’, RealClearPolicy, 2 April 2012.

The focus should be on trade not on aid  Governor Romney does not prioritize encouraging good governance and stability abroad through foreign aid, and there have been no mentions of any plans to reduce global poverty, improve healthcare and engage in sustainable development. While foreign aid is not specifically mentioned in any campaign materials, “Mitt’s Plan” regarding Africa, for instance, declares, “a Romney administration will encourage and assist African nations to adopt policies that create business-friendly environments and combat governmental corruption.” Despite wanting to cut economic aid and contributions to the United Nations, World Bank and IMF, his campaign further argues, “greater market access across the continent for U.S. businesses will bolster job creation in Africa as well as in the United States.” [1] It is notable that the countries that have been most successful in reducing poverty have been those that have focused on trade to create economic growth rather than relying on aid; China has succeeded in bring its poverty down from 84% thirty years ago to 16% today through economic growth. [2] In spite of Romney’s calls for cutting foreign aid spending, his foreign policy is going to focus on international trade and job creation both domestically and abroad, which will benefit both the United States and international economies.  [1] ‘Africa’, Romney Ryan.  [2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.

US spending should focus on defence rather than aid  Romney believes that the United States should be focusing more on national security; however this in turn does benefit other nations so could be considered aid. Governor Romney was quoted as saying “foreign aid has several elements. One of those elements is defense, is to make sure that we are able to have the defense resources we want in certain places of the world. That probably ought to fall under the Department of Defense budget rather than a foreign aid budget.” [1] When it focuses on its own national security the United States is providing public goods for the rest of the world. These include reducing the incentives for others to engage in the use of force – ‘the global policeman’, maintaining open global markets, maintaining a virtual commons in cyberspace, preventing weapons proliferation [2] and maintaining freedom of navigation just as the United States is doing in the South China Sea. [3] All of these to a greater or lesser extent need US military forces to maintain them.  The Romney campaign rejects the notion that the United States has an obligation to rely on foreign aid in its international development efforts, wanting to “[cut] the ongoing foreign aid commitments” and “[you] start everything from zero”. Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, has proposed a budget that includes cutting international affairs and foreign assistance by 29 percent in 2012 and 44 percent by 2016, which would dramatically cut funds for USAID and their foreign aid programs. [4] The Republican party believes that cutting down all sorts of government spending, including international spending, would help bring the economy out of the deficit and back towards a balanced budget.  [1] Rosenkranz, Rolf, ‘At GOP debate, presidential candidates vow to cut foreign aid’, devex, 20 October 2011.  [2] Nye, Joseph S., ‘America and Global Public Goods’, Project Syndicate, 11 September 2007  [3] Cronin, Dr. Patrick M., ‘Averting Conflict in the South China Sea’, Center for a New American Security, 4 September 2012.  [4] Smith, Adam, et al., ‘U.S. foreign aid is not a luxury but a critical investment in global stability’, The Seattle Times, 17 April 2011.

We should not be borrowing to fund foreign aid  As a fiscal conservative, Governor Mitt Romney believes that Americans and the United States economy will be better off cutting foreign aid expenses. In an October 2011 Republican primary debate, Romney passionately defended the GOP stance of questioning humanitarian assistance and foreign aid. He said, “I happen to think it doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to borrow money from the Chinese to go give to another country for humanitarian aid . . . . We ought to get the Chinese to take care of the people that are taking that borrowed money.” [1] This was a reference to the size of the deficit; currently Obama’s projected deficit for 2012 is $1.33 trillion [2] and much of that is borrowed from other countries and China has most holding $1.164 trillion as of June. [3] Romney’s campaign often compares President Barack Obama’s policies to those of Europe. He criticizes the Obama administration’s foreign assistance efforts as largely squandered by a fragmented Washington bureaucracy.  [1] ‘Full Transcript CNN Western Republican Presidential Debate’, CNN, 18 October 2011.  [2] ‘ Budget Overview’, Office of Management and Budget, 2012.  [3] Capaccio, Tony, and Kruger, Daniel, ‘China’s U.S. Debt Holdings Aren’t Threat, Pentagon Says’, Bloomberg, 11 September 2012.

Yes trade can help lift people out of poverty. But in order to do so there needs to be the right conditions; there needs to be infrastructure, an educated and healthy population, and of course the country must be able to feed itself. No country is going to be able to trade its way to growth if its goods cannot reach international markets. Freer trade has not obviously been a driver of growth; poverty has fallen while the Doha round of trade liberalisation has got nowhere. [1] Instead the policies that have succeeded for China have been mercantilist policies, China may rely on trade to export its goods but it succeeded in creating its manufacturing capacity because of currency manipulation and government subsidies, things that anyone for free trade would be against. [2]  [1] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.  [2] Prestowitz, Clyde, ‘China’s not breaking the rules. It’s playing a different game.’, Foreign Policy, 17 February 2012.

Distinguishing between the different levels of elections is not a good thing. It would show that the European Union is different from national government so demonstrating how far away from the voter it is. Moreover European elections need to be held at the same time as, and therefore associated with, national elections if anyone is to actually vote in them.

It would help distinguish between levels of elections  The number of different elections can be confusing; almost everyone has three, European, National, and local, and some have others added in such as Mayoral, or regional elections. As such there is much to be gained from helping to differentiate elections by not being concerned about being allowed to vote for them all at the same age. Having elections for the European Parliament at the age of 16 would clearly distinguish the elections from all the other elections within the country (with the exception of Austria). For the European Union this would be an opportunity to show that it cares for the youth vote and has their issues at heart as it is a chance to get teenagers involved in Europe before they can be involved in their own national elections. For the teenagers it provides a chance to engage with one election, and one electoral system, before all the others helping to keep things simple.

This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?

Votes by 16-17 year olds would not be protest votes  Throughout the European Union in the Parliament elections there is a problem with protest voting. Indeed studies have found that almost 40% of votes in European Parliament elections are protest votes; [1] this is clearly bad for the European Parliament as these are not the parties that the electorate really want when it comes to creating policy. It reflects the fact that voters don’t believe that their vote for the European Parliament matters.  Yet because voting at 16 is two years earlier than voting in most national elections voting for the European Parliament will be 16 and 17 year olds first experience of voting; as they did not vote for the government they are much less likely to be using their vote simply as a protest against the national government. This is because it will be clear that they are not voting on the basis of national issues because they can’t vote at that level. This then represents a good chance for parties to get their European policies across to the youngest voters so that they know what their vote at the European level means.  [1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510,  , p.506

The voting age should be the same across the Union  It is ridiculous and clearly unfair that some sixteen year olds should get to vote in an election while most are barred from participating. This is the case in European Parliament elections at the moment; young people in Austria are able to vote in elections at 16 while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen. [1] This means that a tiny minority of the Youth in the European Union get to vote before the rest something which is clearly discrimination against the majority of the European Union’s 16 and 17 year olds; ‘universal suffrage’ should be universal for the European Parliament across the whole of the Union. The age should therefore be lowered to sixteen so that voting age is universally recognised with no one group receiving the right to vote before the others.  [1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu,  , accessed 3 May 2013

By this argument we really should make eighteen the voting age for all countries so as to bring Austria into line with the rest of the European Union. It is unclear why the majority of countries should have to move their voting age to fit with the Austrians rather than the other way around.

This would not stop teenagers from using their votes in the same way as a protest vote. Even people who are 16 and 17 will know the policy of their government and will be just as likely to vote on the basis of that policy regardless of whether they can influence it in national elections. Indeed teenagers tend to be rebellious against authority figures so it would seem much more likely that they would simply use their vote in protest, as a result they may well even be more likely to vote for parties that are extremist rather than simply going for the opposition to the government.

While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives.

Youth are not represented in politics  Young people are not well represented in European national parliaments either in terms of the membership of those parliaments or the policies they produce. The average age in the Bundestag is 50 [1] and it is similar in most parliaments. Youth unemployment in Europe for the fourth quarter of 2012 was 23.2%, almost twice the unemployment rate as a whole. [2] This is because many countries do not implement youth friendly policies; northern countries like Germany are determined to impose austerity which increases unemployment, while southern countries when implementing reforms are not implementing labour reforms that would loosen the security of permanent workers in return for reducing unemployment. [3] This may in part be a result of demographics in Europe. Europe is aging; in 1991 19.3% of the EU 27’s population was under 14 while 13.9% over 65, by 2011 this had changed to 15.6% under 14 and 17.5% over 65. [4] With an increasing contingent of elderly (who are anyway more likely to vote) the influence of young voters is declining. Reducing the voting age will help to redress this imbalance.  [1] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011,   [2] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment Statistics’, European Commission,  , accessed 3 May 2013  [3] Crook, ‘Why Europe Really Must Pursue ‘Structural Reform’’, Bloomberg, 1 February 2012,   [4] Eurostat, ‘Population structure and ageing’, European Commission, October 2012,

An opportunity for civic studies  There would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the European Union and the function of the European Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that voters don’t understand what it does. To take a couple of basics from a Eurobarometer poll in 2011, 42% of European citizens did not know MEPs were directly elected and 57% did not know that they sit in the Parliament according to ideology not nationality. [1] This shows how necessary education about the European Parliament is. Having elections at 16 provides an ideal opportunity as it means that most will participate in a European election while they are at school.  Teaching about why voting matters would also help to improve turnout. When Austria reduced its voting age to 16 it was found that turnout from 16-17 year olds was significantly higher than turnout for 18-19 year olds when both groups are first time voters. [2] This suggests that 18 may simply be the wrong time to introduce people to voting for the first time. Since voting or not voting tends to be habit forming lowering the voting age could slowly increase turnout across the board.  [1] EP/Eurobarometer - Public Opinion Surveys , ‘Media recall and knowledge of the EP’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom,   [2] Zeglovitis, Eva, ‘Votes at 16: Turnout of the Youngest Voters – Evidence from Austria’, ÖGPW Tagung “Tag der Politikwissenschaft”, Salzburg, 2 December 2011,  p.13

This at worst going to make a very marginal difference. In practice since the number of first time voters is the same because we all vote for the first time once the errors are simply going to be moved from one election to the election before. Indeed having 16 and 17 year olds have only one ballot on their first attempt at voting may help increase their experience making it easier when they have numerous ballots to fill in so overall reducing voting error.

Different levels of government carry out different roles and have different impacts on the electorate. It therefore makes sense that they should have different voting ages to reflect the differences in their roles. While the European Union may not seem to be the most obviously Youth orientated level of government it is particularly concerned with encouraging ‘Active citizenship’ for which it makes sense that the European Union actually enable youth to exercise one of the main rights that active citizenship involves; voting. [1]  [1] European Commission, ‘The Council adopts new EU youth policy framework’, ec.europa.eu,  , accessed 3 May 2013

A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes  The European Union should not be interfering with individual member’s electoral systems, it is clear that this is an area where it is up to the members to decide who can vote and when. Even when it comes to elections for the European Parliament it is up to each member to decide the form of the election within certain ground rules. [1] In this case the interference would not be direct; the European parliament would not be passing any legislation saying that national and regional parliaments must allow votes at sixteen because they don’t have the power to do that but by allowing voting at sixteen they would be making national elections look inconsistent. It would quickly be seen as illegitimate to allow sixteen and seventeen year olds the vote in some elections and not others without a good justification. As the level of election that is most distant from the individual if there were to be a discrepancy in voting ages it should logically be the other way around with the most abstract vote being granted last.  [1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu,  , accessed 3 May 2013

EU elections would put young people off voting  Let’s be honest; European Union elections are hardly exciting and certainly not the most obvious elections to start young people off with. The votes are on very broad issues that don’t have a direct impact on the individual such as trade agreements or broad brush environmental legislation such as the carbon trading market. These may be important issues but they are also abstract and removed from the lives of voters. As Professor Cees Van der Eijk argues "the media pays very little attention to European elections. EU actors are generally invisible, and the elections are labelled boring even before they take place". [1]  To make matters worse each individual vote is worth much less in European than national elections making it more difficult to explain why the individual should vote. In Germany there are more than six times more Bundestag members than there are Germany MEPs. [2] By starting young people out on ‘boring’ elections that are about people and institutions they will never have heard of and have little relevance to young people’s daily lives lowering the voting age would be damaging to turn out. This would be damage not just for European elections but also to other levels as young people will be scared off all levels of politics by their experience of the European elections.  [1] Miller, Vaughne, ‘2009 European Parliament Elections: parties, polls and recent developments’, House of Commons, 29 January 2009,  , ‎p.9  [2] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011,

Would complicate elections  Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting. [1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots.  [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland,  , p.3

There should not be different voting ages for different elections  There can be no legitimate moral reason for allowing someone to vote in one election and not another. Most of the arguments involved in when people can vote revolve around when they are mature enough, understand the issues, and are considered adult. All of these arguments make little sense if someone can vote in one election but not another on the basis of age. Why should someone be considered mature enough to understand the issues for a European election but not their own local elections? There are very few countries that have different voting ages for different elections – out of those Wikipedia lists only Germany, Israel, and Italy have differing ages for different elections. [1]  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Voting age’, en.wikipedia.org,  , accessed 3 May 2013

This may be a good opportunity to change this impression of the European Parliament being boring. Having young people voting will in itself make the election more interesting to the media who will then talk about the issues at the same time. Europe focusing on broad brush issues may actually be a good thing as young people tend to be idealistic they may be more rather than less interested in the big issues such as carbon trading. Moreover if this fails then there is little reason to think that apathy at the European elections will spill over onto other elections

While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.

Although religions supported the anti-gay law, it is not solely a religious issue; the majority of Ugandans believe that homosexuality is contrary to their traditional values and all the anti-gay protests were inclusive regardless of religious denominations. It is therefore wrong to assert that the law was passed as a religious initiative. A separation of church and state does not mean the government should never run policies that the religious want simply that the government should not be favouring a particular religion.

Policy should not be dictated by religion  Article 7 of the Ugandan constitution is clear in its separation of church and state “Uganda shall not have a State religion.” The government must serve all its people equally regardless religious and cultural orientation. But this bill has been created with a religious motive. In his interview defending the anti-gay bill, MP David Bahati lamented, that God doesn’t accept homosexuality quoting a bible verse that the wages of sin is death[1]; as if the Ugandan parliament is filled with righteous souls! The constitution allows freedom of religion and prohibits the creation of political parties based on religion[2]. Laws and policies should therefore not base on bible verses as not everyone will share the same belief to such scriptures.  [1] Jack Mirkinson, ‘Rachel Maddow Interviews David Bahati, Author Of Ugandan 'Kill The Gays' Bill’, huffingtonpost.com,   [2] U.S. Department of State, ’Uganda’, state.gov,

In the same chapter, the constitution states that nothing within the article shall prevent Parliament from enacting laws that are necessary for implementing policies and programmes aimed at redressing social, economic or educational or other imbalance in society; or providing for any matter acceptable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society[1]. It is on this clause that most officials have based their support for the anti-gay law. The majority of Ugandans deem homosexuality immoral and unacceptable. There is therefore a democratic reason to enact such a law. The law is justified by democracy.  [1] DREDF, ‘The Constitution Of Uganda; Chapter 4, human rights and freedoms’, dredf.org,

Marginalising the minority  Human rights are fundamental and universal. They do not only apply to a certain group of people and invalid to another such as homosexuals. Criminalising homosexuality in Uganda considers all in the LGBT minority to be worse than second class citizens. Making them almost automatically criminal renders homosexuals sub human depriving them of their identity as Ugandans. The government has a responsibility to protect every citizen but in this case the Ugandan government has taken the first step in rejecting and mistreating its own people.  The new law infringes on fundamental rights to privacy, non-discrimination, equality and freedom from cruelty and inhumane treatment[1]. Even before the bill was introduced the government prevented there being room for LGBT activists to explain their cause showing their lack of freedom of expression. This and rights such as equality are universal and fundamental rights that the government of Uganda has on numerous occasions signed up for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights among other documents.[2]  [1] Reuters, ‘Uganda's Anti-Gay Law Prompts Court Petition’, huffingtonpost.com, 11 March 2014,   [2] Organisation of Africa Unity, ‘African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights’, achpr.org,

Homosexuality has been illegal in Uganda since colonialism. It was signed into law and amended in Uganda’s constitution but did not change after independence. The blame should therefore go to the British not Ugandan government. If it is a violation of human rights then it is a violation that has been occurring for decades. The long term effect has been that Ugandans now are agreed that LGBT people are not a minority but criminals who deserve punishment.

The law is contrary to the constitution  Chapter 4 of the Ugandan constitution recognises fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual as inherent and not granted by the State. The constitution states; All persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law; Without prejudice, a person shall not be discriminated against on the ground of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, or social or economic standing, political opinion or disability[1]. It defines “discriminate" as giving different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective descriptions by sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, or social or economic standing, political opinion or disability.  The government has acted contrary to their own law, with President Museveni remarking that what homosexuals do is disgusting, un African and had no place in his country[2] and MP David Bahati, asserting that homosexuals do not deserve to be treated as humans. Breaching such a law while relying on such logical fallacies is a sign of how the government failed on human rights.  [1] DREDF, ‘The Constitution Of Uganda; Chapter 4, human rights and freedoms’, dredf.org,   [2] Mark Duell &amp; Leon Watson, 'Gay people are unnatural and disgusting', says Ugandan president as he signs bill punishing homosexual sex with life in jail’, dailymail.co.uk, 24 February 2014,

The fact that Ugandan government did not take measures to curb insecurities, harassment and threats towards the LGBT community, shows how reluctant it was in enforcing human rights. Unfortunately things have been even worse after the new law was passed with Uganda’s tabloid the Redpepper exposing homosexuals[1]. The new law has given a green light to mockery, attacks and harassment towards the gay community, many have lost their jobs, other have quit school and some have left the country due to such threats. This all could have been avoided by the government if it were to accept LGBT as a minority that has the same rights as other minorities. Such an acceptance would be a first step towards tolerance in Uganda.  [1] The guardian, ‘Ugandan tabloid prints list of 'top 200 homosexuals', thegurdian.com, 25 February 2014,

Democracy is not just about enabling a tyranny of the majority. It is about enabling everyone have a say in running the country and about protecting the rights of those minority viewpoints. Simply accepting that the majority is always right is the path to populist dictatorship; most people can be bought by promises of better times ahead and attempts to put the blame for any problems on minority groups. Human rights are intrinsic and cannot be determined on what the majority or civil society believes. The simple maxim ‘do unto others what you would have them do to you’ shows why minorities need to be protected. Everyone is a minority in something whether it is because they are a particular ethnic, sexual, language group or the views they hold we would not want to be discriminated on the basis of that aspect of ourselves. Where the majority wants to harm the minority the role of the government is to protect the minority. The bill was introduced to parliament individually by MP David Bahati[1] who spearheaded it through the end not the large Ugandan majority and the government should have stopped it.  [1] The Economist, ‘Uganda’s anti-gay law; Deadly intolerance’, economist.com, 1 March 2014,

Traditional and religious beliefs  More than 90% of Uganda’s population believe that homosexuality is not part of their culture and should never be accepted[1], its seen as indecency, criminality and a taboo in the community. This is something the government did not invent and not something it can simply wash out of society. Shelving the bill would not suddenly create tolerance from Ugandan society towards the gay community but instead would isolate and impose a threat to the LGBT community.  Others would have tried to create laws anti-gay laws. This ‘kill the Gays bill’ was originally intended to include the death penalty for some homosexual acts such as when one of the participants is a minor, HIV-positive, disabled or a "serial offender".[2] The bill is therefore considerably better than what the alternative could have been – the government has done its duty and moderated it. Any wider change to the culture of the country is not the duty of the government.  [1] Patience Akumu, ‘It pains me to live in a country, Uganda, that hates gay people and 'indecent' women’, thegurdian.com, 22 December 2013,   [2] BBC News, ‘Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill: MPs drop death penalty’, 23 November 2012,

Not passing the bill would bring a threat to the public peace  Homophobia in Uganda was not introduced by this law. Refusing to sign the bill into law would result in increased brutality and cruelty to the LGBT minority from the majority of citizens who were angry that president Museveni even considered vetoing the bill. Shortly after the president’s letter to parliament requesting the shelving of the bill was revealed, thousands of Ugandans took on to the streets protesting against the move complaining that homosexuality will never be allowed in their society. Known gay Ugandans were forced not to move while others were attacked in their homes. Long before the bill was passed by parliament, homosexuals and LGBT activists were beaten, harassed and killed by their fellow Ugandans. David Kato a leading figure in demanding equal rights for the gay minority was killed in January 2011[1]. The situation may have worsened had the bill been shelved as angry Ugandans would attack the gay community seeking revenge, something that they made clear would happen during the anti-gay protests. Most Ugandans had supported a death penalty for homosexuals and clearly have few qualms about launching attacks, sometimes murderous against homosexuals.  [1] BBC News, ‘Obituary: Uganda gay activist David Kato’, bbc.co.uk, 27 January 2011,

Rule of the majority  As a democratic country, Uganda favours and runs according to the will of the majority. This is also part of the constitution that recognises the opinion of the majority where all policies and rules that govern the country should base. With more than 90% of Ugandans against homosexuality and speaking in support of the anti-gay law[1], it was therefore inevitable for the government to pass such a bill despite president Museveni’s letter to parliament to ignore the law[2]. It is not the Ugandan government that has failed its LGBT citizens but the Ugandan people. A democratic government simply responds to what its people wants.  [1] Patience Akumu, ‘It pains me to live in a country, Uganda, that hates gay people and 'indecent' women’, thegurdian.com, 22 December 2013,   [2] Warren Throckmorton , ‘Full Text of Letter From Uganda’s President Museveni to Speaker of Parliament Kadaga Regarding the Anti-Homosexuality Bill’, patheos.com, 17 January 2014,

The government is an impartial and independent body which should not be led by tradition but lead tradition instead. Governments don’t just exist to let events flow but to lead, to create policy, and shape events. If government never takes a lead then it would cease to exist as another leader would take its place. Under Uganda’s constitution, religions should be registered and accredited by the government and should adhere to law and government policies. The constitution recognises equality for all so the government should be encouraging a belief and tradition of such equality[1]. It is therefore wrong to argue that on a particular policy, tradition had to lead.  [1] Parliament of Uganda, ‘CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995’, parliament.go.ug,

Not allowing any meetings with the President does not mean no negotiations can take place. Groundwork can be done by diplomats, negotiators, third parties, and even high-ranking administration officials from the state department, like the Secretary of State. Such tactics can also strengthen moderates. However, a meeting with the President is a powerful symbol, and it should only take place if either significant headway has been made, or if the leaders of these regimes are fully committed to negotiating, which they can prove by agreeing to preconditions.

Preconditions are like granting a veto to the extremists.  No government is monolithic. In every regime there will be moderate forces willing to use diplomacy and negotiations and extremist elements that do not. By demanding that preconditions be fulfilled before a meeting, all power is given to the extremists. Israel-Palestine is an example of this. By often demanding that violence cease before negotiations can take place, the US and Israel give a veto over negotiations to Hamas, who are the perpetrators of violence. They get to decide if and when negotiations take place. Instead, the president of the United States should always try to engage and strengthen moderates within these regimes.

That is true. But that is mostly the case with preconditions that are strategically flawed or an attempt at political gamesmanship, when a leader makes outrageous demands the other party cannot possibly meet in order to paint them as unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate. However, chosen carefully, preconditions can set talks and negotiations on the right course, and give a strong indication of the sincerity and commitment of both parties.

The more the US waits, the stronger its opponents become.  Preconditions delay engagement and negotiations. Sometimes it can take years before the parties even start talking to each other. In that time, Iran will continue to enrich uranium [1] and North Korea will continue to expand its nuclear arsenal [2] . If the US waits for preconditions to be agreed on and met, by the time president Obama gets to talk and negotiate directly with the leaders of these states, he will have a much bigger crisis to deal with. It may have even gotten to the point where diplomacy can no longer be used effectively.  [1] Borger, James. “Iran’s acceleration of its nuclear programme angers the west.” Guardian. 19 July 2011.   [2] Neuman, Doug. “North Korea expands nuclear relationships with outcast states.” Examiner. 11 May 2010.

Doing away with ‘US arrogance’.  From its early days, the Obama administration has strived to change the tide of US foreign policy, by moving away from America’s unilateralism and dismissiveness of other nations. [1] Its treatment of its foes is a product of that same attitude. The general policy not to meet or negotiate without preconditions is akin to dangling a spot at the table like some sort of prize that foreign leaders need to work for. In international law, all states are sovereign and equal with no one having a right to interfere with other’s internal affairs. This means that all leaders should treat each other with respect and deference.  [1] Harnden, Toby. “Barack Obama: ‘arrogant US has been dismissive’ to allies.” The Telegraph. 3 April 2009.

While legally all the world’s leaders are equal, morally they are not. For decades, the US has been the standard of what it means to be a liberal democracy and have respect your citizens’ rights and liberties. That is not arrogance; it’s moral leadership. This is a vision that the US should aggressively promote in its foreign policy. The President of the United states should not meet as equals with tyrants and dictators who oppress their own people, and endanger world peace and security. Not unless these people give any indication they are even vaguely committed to moving toward some common goals.

If talks don’t take place, that doesn’t mean no actions can be taken against rogue regimes. Diplomatic pressure, third party talks or even sanctions can be effective ways to deal with states like Iran, Syria, or North Korea. Neither of these requires the President himself to sit down with these leaders.

Meeting with the leader of the United States can equally bolster a leader’s support and strengthen his or her position. After all, the US will always prefer and support a leader that is seen as reasonable and willing to compromise rather than a hard liner. Hosni Mubarak is a prime example of a dictator whose position was strengthened by his good relationship and close ties to the US [1] . Therefore, many of these dictators may see it in their interest to agree to preconditions, if that will buy them American favours.  [1] Murphy, Dan. “Joe Biden says Mubarak no dictators, he shouldn’t step down.” Christian Science Monitor. 27 January 2011.

Preconditions can damage a country’s negotiating position.  No country is likely to agree to conditions that will significantly reduce its bargaining power once it gets to the table. It would be diplomatically foolish to agree to preconditions that would essentially be the subject of the negotiations and the reason why the negotiations were needed in the fist place [1] . If North Korea agreed to freeze development of its nuclear arsenal, or if Iran agreed to stop its nuclear enrichment programme, once the meeting between the two leaders took place, the position from which they started negotiating would be significantly weaker than the US’s.  [1] Klein, Rick. “Obama’s Evolving Take on Meeting with Iran.” ABC News. 20 May 2008.

Agreeing to preconditions can damage a leader’s position at home.  If, in order to meet with his counterpart, a ‘rogue leader’ needs to compromise on his and his country’s position even before he gets to the table, this would be a signal of weakness to his opponents at home and those vying for his job. For example, in North Korea, which is going through a dynastic transition [1] , the new leader Kim Jong Un is yet to become established and consolidate his status as dictator. Any concession to the sate’s designated mortal enemy, the US, might jeopardise the succession. Similarly, in Iran where Ahmadinejad has fallen from the graces of the supreme religious leader, the Ayatollah [2] , agreeing to preconditions in order to get a meeting with Obama would signal to the Iranian President’s rivals that it may be a good moment to attempt to force a change of guard.  [1] “Profile: Kim Jong un”. BBC. 31 December 2011.   [2] “Ahmadinejad v Ayatollah: Who will win Iran dustup?” BBC. 8 July 2011.

Sanctions will always be hanging in the background. It will also be obvious pretty soon whether the other party is really interested in negotiating or just stalling. However, diplomacy should always be tired before sanctions.

Agreeing to sit down and talk can equally be seen as a gesture of good faith. The further requirement to prove themselves and their intentions can put off leaders who are on the fence about engaging the US on their differences. It should be remembered that the mistrust is not only one way; ‘rogue’ regimes leaders also mistrust US intentions. As a result demanding preconditions frames the negotiations, from the onset, from a position of mistrust

Rogue leaders can exploit such meetings to bolster their legitimacy  If no proper groundwork is done before such a meeting, and no preconditions are laid out, such events can easily be used by these foreign regimes as propaganda at home to try to bolster their own legitimacy [1] . A meeting with the leader of the free world would give an opportunity to Ahmadinejad or Chavez to portray themselves as great statesmen and leaders, equals to the president of the United States. The same is true of North Korea, which is a regime that rules almost entirely through the strength of state propaganda [2] . If they don’t have to agree to any preconditions, there is no cost to these leaders exploiting a meeting with Obama to their own advantage, while having no intention to actually engage in genuine negotiations and diplomacy.  [1] “Clinton: Obama is ‘naïve’ on foreign policy.” Associated Press. 24 July 2007.   [2] Myers, B. R. “The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters”. Melville House. 2010.

Meeting with these leaders today might jeopardize America’s interests tomorrow.  The Arab Spring demonstrated just how unpredictable and unstable some of these regimes could truly be. And the new governments coming to power are unlikely to forget America’s role in supporting their former dictator. For example, Egypt’s transition from dictatorship has led to a rise in anti-American sentiment, as the US is perceived to have been a supporter of the Mubarak regime [1] . It may not be wise for President Obama to associate himself, and the US, so closely to leaders like Assad or Ahmadinejad who are susceptible to being deposed through the same type of massive demonstrations that swept through the Arab world in 2011. Doing so without preconditions would signal a trust and deference to these leaders that may be unforgivable to their successors, and to the people of Syria and Iran.  [1] Lee, Mathew. “US troubled by rising anti-Americanism in Egypt”. Associated Press. 10 August 2011.

Rogue regimes can use such meetings as a dilatory tactic to stall sanctions against them.  Nuclear countries like North Korea and Iran have been keen to use such a meeting as a stalling tactic against the onslaught of sanctions prompted by its nuclear programme [1] . Negotiations can be continually spun out with very little result in order to keep the United States from taking action simply by encouraging the United States to believe that there will be action after a meeting. Again, if there is no cost to them sitting down to negotiate, then negotiations are an easy way to deflect pressure, while they continue to pursue their nuclear and WMD programmes. As a result the preconditions need to be met before the negotiations to prevent such tactics from being possible.  [1] Yeranian, Edward. “Iranian President Offers to Meet President Obama.” Voice of America. 2 August 2010.

Preconditions are an essential gesture of good will.  Preconditions are not about posturing or scoring some easy, early points. They play an essential diplomatic role. By agreeing to make some concessions before negotiations start in earnest, a ‘rogue state’ would signal its good faith in the negotiating process and its willingness to compromise and work diligently toward a common goal and reaching an agreement. Without such proof of commitment, the US should have every reason to doubt the true intentions of leaders like Ahmadinejad.

No president can sit and wait until the dice fall before making a move on foreign policy. Presidents have to deal with the here and now. If the situation changes, the US will have to reassess. However, at any given time the President has to do what is in the US’s best national interest. And at times that may be meeting with unpopular dictators.

The President does not just sit down with a foreign leader without previous groundwork. No preconditions does not mean no preparation. Diplomats can be dispatched in advance to gage the level of interest and the intentions of the other party. Intelligence can be gathered to take the pulse of the regime and understand what is going on in the country, whether the moment is auspicious for change and diplomacy or whether the rogue leader is just looking for a popularity boost. The President should always have a very good idea of what to expect when he or she meets with a foreign leader. They don’t just find out once they get there.

While distasteful, sometimes cutting deals with perpetrators is necessary to bring a quick end to the human suffering that conflicts cause [1] .  In advocating prosecutions, justice can simply ignore victims. Atrocities are more than likely to have been committed by more than one side in a conflict. As those leaders do not want to be prosecuted, justice can act as a bar to peace. Moreover if people are responsible and accountable to society then that society should be able to agree to forgo justice in order to create peace if it is deemed necessary.  [1] Grono, Nick and O’Brien, Adam, “Justice in Conflict? The IOCC and Peace Processes”, Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa, 2008, available at  , chapter 2

Accountability  It is a fundamental principle of morality that individuals should be held responsible for their crimes – that is the reason why we, as societies, have criminal law.  Prosecuting people – holding them responsible for their crimes – is a moral imperative. We all wish to live in a society where everyone is equally accountable when they commit crime as one in which not everyone is held to account is fundamentally unjust; it creates one rule for the powerless and another for those who are ‘needed’ to help create peace. This would simply incentivise people to try to make themselves indispensable strongmen – not a sustainable basis for a peaceful society.

Holocaust denial does still exists today despite the Nuremburg trials and immense amounts of evidence. Also, Japanese denialism over forced prostitution in the Second World War is part of mainstream politics [1] .  Despite ICTY convictions, denial of atrocities in the Yugoslav wars continue.  [1] See Honda, Masakazu and Takada, Makoto, “LDP Pressure led to cuts in NHK show”, The Asahi Shimbun, 12 January 2005,

Justice is needed for a lasting peace  By prosecuting perpetrators, justice creates a deterrent. The deterrent effect, as accepted in criminal law generally, is likely to make the peace more long standing and stable in the future – it will make those minded to perform atrocities think again. If those who committed atrocities ‘get away with it’ they will be much more likely to plunge the country back into violence.  The career of Laurent Nkunda is a good example of this; he fought in the Tutsi group that took control of Rwanda in 1994 ending the genocide and then was a rebel commander in both Congolese civil wars in which he was accused of atrocities before launching his own rebellion, only now after 14 years as an army commander is he under arrest. [1] Clearly Nkunda being locked up at some stage would have been better than regularly negotiating with him to try and create peace.  [1] BBC News, “Profile: General Laurent Nkunda”, 23 January 2009,

This fails for two reasons. Firstly, prosecutions are not always a deterrent to future crimes. Secondly that justice is not necessary in all cases to prevent recidivism – justice has not been needed in many cases, such as in Haiti after the 2004 coup, Haiti’s subsequent problems being caused by natural disasters.

Justice is needed to help end denialism.  By creating a historical record through the investigations and trial proceedings [1] , International justice can create a narrative that helps fight denialism over events in the past. It creates an accepted version of events where both victim and accused have had their say.  Denialism can be dangerous because it is likely to create perceptions that are likely to make conflict more likely again. For example the post-First World War Dolchstoßlegende (stab in the back myth) was used by the political right in Germany after WWI implied that the German Army had not lost but Germany had only done so due to the civilian leadership. This not only encouraged a belief that Germany could win in another war but also as the accusation was levelled particularly at socialists and Jews helped pave the way for the holocaust. [2]  [1] Goldstone, p422  [2] Holocaust Encyclopedia, ‘Antisemitism in history: World War I’, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 10 June 2013,

Justice is not easy. However, it needs to be done – for its own ends, and for a lasting peace. In cases where there are a huge number of perpetrators then the obvious approach is to offer an amnesty to those who committed smaller crimes while prosecuting those who provoked or ordered the crimes.

Argentina did not prosecute for a long time after the collapse of the junta [1] , a 1986 law, commonly known as the Full Stop Law (also known by its number, Law 23492), prohibited prosecution of those involved in the dirty war which resulted in up to 30,000 deaths.  However, Argentina managed to build a lasting peace, and society without prosecutions.  [1] Kersten, Mark, “The Fallacy of Sequencing Peace and Justice”, Opinio Juris, 29 September 2011,

Justice can harm peace.  Former ICTR chief prosecutor, Richard Goldstone, argued that the indictments of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic prevented them from attending the Dayton peace talks. The Russian government tried to get those indictments suspended, but Goldstone informed them that he did not have the power to do so. Slobodan Milosevic, the representative of Serbia also represented Republika Srbska. [1]  In 2006 thyere was an agreement by the Lord’s Resistance Army to a ceasefire but before they would negotiate towards a final peace the LRA demanded the suspension of the ICC indictments. [2] Even six years on none of the LRA leadership have been caught – had peace been put first it might have occurred then rather than intermittent conflict continuing for years.  Peace is a valid goal. However, an overzealous pursuit of justice may impede negotiations.  [1] Goldstone, Richard, “Peace versus Justice”, Nevada Law Journal, 2006,  at p421-p322  [2] Otim, Michael, and Wierda, Marieke, ‘Justice at Juba: International Obligations and Local Demands in Northern Uganda’, in Waddell and Clarck eds., Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa, pp.21-28

Justice can be impossible  The Rwandan genocide one of the largest the world has ever seen since the Second World War. A large number of victims – at least half a million – means a large number of perpetrators. There are 100,000 alleged perpetrators in Uganda. While an informal Gacaca system has been criticized by human rights groups for not being able to provide fair trials, a full system of fair trials would be impractical [1] .  Rwanda is now relatively peaceful, with a functioning economy.  [1] Hannum, p492

Peace has occurred without justice  Argentina did not prosecute for a long time after the collapse of the junta [1] , a 1986 law, commonly known as the Full Stop Law (also known by its number, Law 23492), prohibited prosecution of those involved in the dirty war which resulted in up to 30,000 deaths.  However, Argentina managed to build a lasting peace, and society without prosecutions.  [1] Kersten, Mark, “The Fallacy of Sequencing Peace and Justice”, Opinio Juris, 29 September 2011,

Dayton worked despite not inviting Karadzic and Mladic. Both of those are currently on trial for the most serious crimes imaginable – Karadzic for, amongst other things, his alleged role in ordering the Srebrenica massacre, and Mladic for Srbrenica and the Siege of Sarajevo.  These prosecutions have not caused problems for peace in the Balkans and Croatia, one of the participants in the conflict, has joined the European Union.  Similarly, despite the ICC indictment, coupled with better results obtained by the Ugandan military, has lead towards the prospect of surrender by the LRA, despite their leaders such as Joseph Kony being indicted [1] .  [1] BBC News, “LRA leader Joseph Kony ‘in surrender talks’ with CAR”, BBC News,

Integration through globalisation is not necessarily, or purely, positive. Globalisation can have desirable and undesirable effects. For example greater airline links may encourage educated Kenyans to leave creating a brain drain; the country already exports nurses.(Lehmann, 2004)

Liberalisation enables national development  The aviation industry is vital for economic growth for bringing Africa into the positive side of globalisation. The state-owned Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise is one example of a success story for an African airline. Ethiopian Airlines has the greatest amount of traffic as a result of air traffic liberalisation. The returns gained from Ethiopian Airlines have been central to promoting Ethiopia’s national growth strategy. Governments can only gain from liberalisation in multiple sectors, including airlines. Liberalisation, and deregulation, of airlines acts creates cumulative causation, where one event causes multiple changes, for tourism, production networks, jobs, and infrastructure development. In Ethiopia, air networks are building industries and the pushing regions economic development [1] . In Kenya’s case, deregulation of airlines may improve the speed and availability of key global commodities, such as tourism, and flowers [2] - booming industries that require rapid transport.  In Africa 20% of tourism-related jobs are supported directly by the aviation industry (World Bank, 2014).  [1] See further readings: Anna Aero, 2013.  [2] See further readings: Lawrence, 2011.

We need to be critical of what foreign business and multinational corporations can do for Africa. Earnings from foreign airlines will likely leave the continent rather than being used for African development. There will be some benefit with some local workers, particularly in airports, but the degree of power inequality between foreign airline owners and local people implies benefits will be unequally spread.  On another hand, what will incentivise foreign airlines to stay? Markets are volatile; therefore a long-term vision is required. What will ensure foreign investors buying airlines are encouraged to stay and actually build a stable, functioning airline market rather than simply taking advantage of the few routes where they can make a quick profit?

A competitive airline industry  The introduction of a Pan-African Open Sky agreement will ensure competition. A competitive airline industry will have a cumulative effect on prices and safety standards. First, prices will be reduced as the market is no longer monopolised by a few airlines. Currently national governments are able to place strict regulations, high fuel and passenger taxes on airlines. Liberalising the industry would mean that airlines are increasingly controlled by the hand of the market, not the state. Competitive airline prices will ensure air travel is no longer exclusively an elite luxury.  Secondly, introducing new competition will force airlines to implement higher standards - of service and safety. Power is redistributed to the consumer and traveller, who are able to pick and choose the best service. Therefore the companies need to be on the top of their game.  Evidence in Europe has shown the competitiveness of liberalisation, resulting in the rise of cheap air travel. Such low-cost carriers now account for a third of intra-EU travel (ECMT, 2010).

To what extent will a competitive industry emerge if direct problems are not resolved? The issue is not simply a need to introduce more airlines. Airline prices cannot be reduced unless fuel prices are lowered. The cost of buying fuel for airlines remains higher in Africa; suggesting that it is not just the airline market but also the market in fuel supplies that requires change. There will be no opportunity for European style budget airlines so long as fuel is expensive.  Additionally, can a competitive airline industry emerge without transparency and good governance first? The fact good governance remains debatable in many African states raises a question of how the market will work. As new business opportunities arise who will be setting up new airlines? It is likely to be government cronies or those with support from the government rather than those with the most innovative models.

Incorporating foreign airlines  Introducing a treaty whereby flights are liberalised across Africa, and foreign airlines incorporated, will provide benefits for Africa. For example, foreign companies will be able to tackle gaps in the market. Currently there is a lack of direct flights between key destinations. Direct flights mean direct interconnections to desired; and new, places. For example, with new business opportunities emerging in Nigeria a direct flight connecting Cape Town and Lagos requires investment.  Air traffic in the EU is a positive example. As a result of deregulation budget airlines have expanded throughout the continent EU air traffic and new flight routes introduced. There has been a 120% increase of intra-EU routes and 320% increase in the number of routes provided by at least two companies (ECMT, 2010).

Alliances create an oligopolistic market. The promotion of alliances creates two key market results – controlling supply and demand. Firstly, choice is restricted. Customers are restricted in what prices and services are available. Secondly, the market competitiveness is restricted. Different airlines are not able to compete with each other, but merely cooperate as the leading company takes the largest proportion of profits. Alliances fail to stimulate a competitive market or place companies on an equal platform to compete for profits.  Open skies are also seen as a means to ensure safety and reduce the rising accident rates. The World Bank (2014) note accident rates would fall if African states use bilateral sanctions to ensure airlines meet safety standards; currently Africa’s aircraft hull-loss accident rate is more than 6 times higher than Asia and Latin America and 12 times Europe. Open-skies ensure bilateral collaboration and intervention.

Sustainable development does not mean stopping development. The SDGs emphasise how a new perspective is required for future development. There is no evidence to suggest an open-sky agreement would increase environmental degradation, nor is there to say that if an open-sky agreement is not implemented we will develop in a more sustainable way. The introduction of open-skies will mean an introduction of better planes – more fuel-efficient and eco-friendly designs as a result of competition on quality and safety. Advancements have been made over time to improve the environmental performance of aeroplanes. Today’s planes are 75% quieter, with carbon-monoxide levels declining by 50%, and increasingly more fuel-efficient [1] . An open-skies agreement enables new ideas and designs to be integrated, encouraging the implementation of sustainable models.  Sustainable development is about how we understand, appreciate, and implement future objectives. An open sky agreement is not necessarily unsustainable.  [1] See further readings: IATA, 2014.

Terrorism  Terror remains a key concern both in and about Africa. A key issue with a potential open sky agreement is who will regulate it and how. Effective control to prevent terrorism is required; passengers and nations need to be ensured security. Liberalising airlines and markets potentially lays the foundation for a new risk of terror and insecurity. West African airports have been particularly criticised for their lax security which creates an insider threat (Brandt, 2011). More planes, more staff, and more passengers mean a higher probability of risk. Is liberalisation best when we consider the war on terror, and emerging security risks?

Focusing on national development first  An open sky agreement will only act to reinforce the brain drain occurring in Africa. The level of development across Africa remains uneven, with disparities found across the continent based on GDP, PPP, FDI, and social development. An open sky agreement may act as cumulative causation for out-migration of trained professionals and white-collar jobs to more developed countries. One very obvious brain drain as a result of air travel is that there have been eight hijackings of Ethiopian Airlines by pilots attempting to get asylum in the last 25 years (Nadeau, 2014). The reality would bring detrimental effects for some countries, and prosperity for others. The unequal geography of development in Africa will persist.

Alliances not open skies  The success of airlines such as Kenya Airways has emerged through alliances; not an ‘open sky’ agreement. The airline has created alliances with small airline carriers such as Precision Air to ensure more frequent coverage, competitive prices and provision of services to new destinations. Increased connectivity across Africa requires more alliances between individual airlines, not necessarily an open sky agreement. The alliances made ensure universal boundaries, rules, and regulations, are set through corporate ethics and responsibility. Alliances mean the corporate brand is at stake.  Alliances are a safer option when we consider who will set the rules with an ‘open sky’ agreement in Africa. Alliances can ensure safety measures remain central for airlines, and the private actors are held responsible. However, the definitions of, and decisions on, rules become blurred with an ‘open sky’. Who will have the last say? Whose decision will hold power? A regulatory board is required, which can be granted through alliances.

Environmental Impact  Development is shifting from just GDP growth towards promoting a sustainable approach to growth. The UN has created the Sustainable Development Goals for development post-2015, which emphasise developmental policy and practice today has to meet the needs of the present without jeopardising future populations. Therefore how can a new Open Skies agreement be justified on environmental or sustainability grounds? Encouraging more air traffic will act to increase the human burden on the environment. Key concerns are noise and atmospheric pollution, deforestation, and the use of space. Flights produce around 628,000,000 tonnes of CO2 annually adding to climate change (Clean Sky, 2014). With numbers rising the pressures will too.

Several points require countering. Firstly, the focus on the brain drain suggests air travel will continue to be dominated by an elite class, however, open-skies acts to enable a broader customer base. Secondly, migration brings a range of benefits – we cannot promote keeping people in their place as a developmental solution. Even if national development comes first people may still want to move. Finally, people will not be discouraged from moving if there is no open-skies agreement. Migration is historic in Africa, with multiple transport modes used. Migration will continue to operate with or without an open-skies agreement.  Therefore it is important to recognise the role open-skies can play for Pan-Africanism. An open sky will assist in dispersing access and availability to development opportunities. It will create new network hubs within Africa; and create new market opportunities by introducing frequent airlines to places previously inaccessible. The agreement would ensure capital is spread across Africa. Africa will begin to operate cohesively. The open-sky agreement sets the future agenda for Africa’s development – a step towards Pan-African cooperation.

We need to be cautious in falling into the ‘terror discourse’. Since 9/11 the cases of hijacking have not risen substantially. The discourse is a key concern among Western states. Terror is a risk, however Western states have implemented open-sky agreements – such as between the US-EU despite such threats. So why should the risk of terror stop Africa implementing open-skies when the Global North has done so? It returns to the relations of power in the global-political economy.  The global-political system is key in constructing a discourse of fear and using this to influence how we act, invest, and work. We need to deconstruct the terror discourse first, to understand what really are the risks and whether liberalising air networks will really make a difference either way. Once the specific risks have been analysed those that are concerns can be addressed including any concerns about terrorism.

Poverty may have something to do with countries becoming dictatorships but little. That it is about the efficiency of government is much more credible, this is partially why India, with a large native civil service at independence is one of the exceptions. In practice the reason here is that these nations were subject to being downtrodden through colonialism. There was little opportunity provided to create native institutions so any cobbled together rapidly at independence collapsed.  Many of the countries that were poor at independence are still poor now, yet the story of Africa is no longer one of constant violent dictatorship but increasingly one of stable democracies with reasonably fair elections. The number of democracies in Africa has increased from three in 1989 to 24 in 2008.(1) This transition then benefits the economy. An analysis by The Economist finds that over the ten years to 2010, six of the world's ten fastest-growing economies were in sub-Saharan Africa.(2)  The Arab Spring meanwhile demonstrates that the population in poor countries can be organised enough to oust authoritarian leaders through large scale protest. Since they are the ones who suffer from corruption there is no inherent reason why poorer peoples should be more likely to submit to a dictatorship.  (1) Freedom House, ‘Electoral Democracies in Sub-Saharan Africa’, African Election Database, accessed 22 November 2013,   (2) Graphic detail, ‘Africa's impressive growth’, The Economist, 6 January 2011,

Poverty creates a vicious circle  Unfortunately, there is a vicious circle, caused by poverty that many poor countries find themselves in. A poor country also means a poor, ill-funded government. Such an institution is either unhelpful in preventing poverty or a road block to poverty alleviation. A poor population is also unfortunately more likely to lead to an autocratic government. This phenomenon can be shown by looking at decolonisation. Poor countries when decolonised, even if they initially had democratic aspirations quickly fell to dictatorship. There are very few exceptions such as India that have managed to continually maintain a democratic government while poor. Wealthy countries when decolonised are much more likely to become democracies and once poor autocracies become rich the pressure for democratisation usually becomes unstoppable so countries like South Korea democratised as they became wealthy. There might be considered to be a wealth threshold about which states will become democracies.(1)  The reason why poverty is likely to lead to dictatorship is simple; a lack of an educated, effective civil service. When the government is very small it can’t effectively control the whole country or ensure accountability. The result, especially when civil servants are poorly paid is corruption and an opening for the army, or any populist who appears to offer a solution to take power. Once dictatorship occurs it can usually be maintained by force until the population is educated and connected enough to engage in a democratic revolution.  There is then a free pass for those in power to exploit their position through corruption. Many dictators, including in Africa have become very rich indeed. Mohammed Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos and Mobutu Sese Seko( the former dictators of Indonesia, the Philippines, and DR Congo) extorted up to $50bn (£28bn) from their impoverished people (2).  A vicious cycle is created whereby the government needs money, so corruption and extortion are rampant. Those in power are more concerned with their own wealth than the people which makes the government poorer and less efficient so providing more incentive to resort to illicit means of funding.  (1) Cois, Carles; and Stokes, Susan C., ‘Endogenous Democratization’, The University of Chicago, 3 June 2003,   (2) Denny, Charlotte, ‘Suharto, Marcos and Mobutu head corruption table with $50bn scams’, The Guardian, 26 March 2004

Armed forces do not require large amounts of funding to be well disciplined forces that are subordinate to civilian governance. This was shown by many communist nations; Vietnam’s army was immense, beat both the French and Americans and was firmly under party control. The importance of armed forces for security is universally recognised so foreign powers will help train armed forces to ensure these qualities. Thus for example as part of efforts to bring peace to Sierra Leone Britain provided training for the Sierra Leone Armed Forces helping bring stability to the country and allowing the Sierra Leonean army to engage in peace keeping missions elsewhere in Africa.(1)  (1) Clapson, Joe, ‘Sierra Leonean army comes of age under British direction’, Ministry of Defence, 6 April 2011,

Poverty means more crime  Despite many problems that Africa has to face, one of the biggest is its extreme poverty. Currently more than 48.5% of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa lives on less than 1.25 dollars a day (1). As a result of this poverty people’s security is being threatened on two main levels.  On the first level of analysis, poverty can lead to crime. Poverty can create desperation to provide for family or yourself. As poverty is widespread in Africa, there are many people who are willing to steal, threaten, abduct or kill someone, in order to have something to eat. At 17.4 per 100,000 citizens, more than double the world average, Africa has the highest homicide rate among all regions of the world.(2) The other side of this is that a poor state can’t provide the level of policing that richer states can, a people in poverty usually results in a poor government. This in turn means that the police force is small, badly trained and underfunded so not fit for preventing crime.  On the second level of analysis, desperate people are much easier to manipulate. This makes them easy targets for military groups in Africa who are searching for members to fight for their causes. It is not coincidental that we have so many militias and juntas in Africa, such as Somali Pirates, AQAP, AQIM, Al-Shabab, Touareg( Mali), Boko Haram(Nigeria), M23 and dozens of others. The militias offer those in poverty what they need most, food, shelter, and protection in return for their “services”. Poverty provides an additional benefit for these groups due to the stark difference between potential reward, such as from piracy or winning control of mines, and a normal income. As with the drugs trade the lure of the fast buck can be used to encourage risk-taking.  In conclusion, poverty both enables crime and encourages militia groups.  (1) The World Bank, ‘Poverty’, data.worldbank.org, 2013,   (2) Me, Angela, et al., ‘2011 Global Study on Homicide trends, contexts, data’, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes, 2011,

Does poverty cause crime, or does crime cause poverty? Poverty does not in all cases create crime. Bhutan is a poor country but the state department reports “There is relatively little crime” (1). When there is crime skilled people are more likely to emigrate and trust relationships are destroyed making businesses risk averse. At the same time outside businesses won’t invest in the country and neither will individuals because they fear they won’t get their money back. Finally crime almost invariably means corruption which undermines state institutions, trust in the state and ultimately democracy (2). Crime therefore leads to poverty more than the other way around.  Neither does poverty have much to do with armed anti-government movements, terrorists or militia. Terrorism is an inherently a political struggle. Almost every major terrorist organization that exists has emerged from a conflict revolving around the subject of sovereignty and defending of their culture. Al Qaeda was created after the soviet invasion of Afghanistan and ETA fights for the independence of the Basque county so groups in Africa are ethically or religiously based. The needs and desires of the poorest are much more short-sighted, such as having enough to eat and somewhere to sleep. They would much rather stability. A 2007 study by economist Alan B. Krueger found that terrorists were less likely to come from an impoverished background (28% vs. 33%) and more likely to have at least a high-school education (47% vs. 38%). Another analysis found only 16% of Palestinian terrorists came from impoverished families, vs. 30% of male Palestinians, and over 60% had gone beyond high school, vs. 15% of the populace.(3)  Moreover a rebellion, even if it involves potential financial gain, is not a good long term prospect. In the long term the government tends to win. For example with FARC in Columbia a security build-up over the past decade has reduced the rebels from 18,000 fighters at their peak to about 10,000 today (4) The idea of fighting a war against an army which is bigger, better funded and better equipped isn’t exactly thrilling.  (1) U.S. Department of State, ‘Bhutan’, travel.state.gov, 2013,   (2) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Crime and Development in Africa’, gsdrc, 2005,   (3) Levitt, Steven D.; Dubner, Stephen J. , Superfreakonomics: global cooling, patriotic prostitutes, and why suicide bombers should buy life insurance, (William Morrow 2009)  (4) “To the edge and back”, The Economist, 31 August 2013,

Poor states have trouble providing security  Poor nations find it difficult to sustain efficient and well-disciplined armies. Good training and regular pay is vital for this, something that is unlikely to be forthcoming with a cash strapped government. Yet such a disciplined army is one of the vital prerequisites for security and a stable country.  Discipline is needed to prevent the army turning on those it is supposed to protect, and it is need to secure the country from other groups both internal and external. Poverty therefore enables rebellions, civil wars, and local warlords by helping ensure that the poor states involved don’t have the resources to control their territories. It should come as no surprise that of 12 major ongoing conflicts five are on the African Continent (and another one if the conflict in DR Congo were to be included despite it potentially being at an end).(1)  In addition to this, a poorly funded army is a threat in itself, as the lack of training of the soldiers may translate into unprofessional behaviour, such as engaging in crimes and rapes, or even worse launching a full scale coup in the hope that they will grip the power.  (1) list of ongoing armed conflicts’, Wikipedia, accessed 21 November 2011,

Ethnicity does not always cause tension, and it is not always difficult to solve. If Africa has thousands of ethnic groups and multiple religions the most noticeable thing has to be that the vast majority of these groups do coexist peacefully. There are at most a couple of dozen different conflicts in Africa compared to these thousands of divisions. Identity might therefore be considered to be an overblown cause of conflict here.  Moreover is an ethnic divide always difficult to solve? No. If it is not a particularly deep divide then it can be sorted out through education and creating a sense of community. There also needs to be a look at the underlying problems; in most cases ethnic conflicts are not simply about attacking the other group because they are the ‘other’ instead there is something that group wants. At base then the conflict is likely to be over land, economic resources, discrimination etc. not the simple fact that they have a neighbour that is not exactly the same as them. The solution then is the same as with poverty; encouraging economic growth and ensuring good redistribution.  Finally if there is no other choice and two groups within a state are irreconcilable then there is a relatively quick, if not particularly easy, solution; partition. Simply create separate homelands for both ethnic groups.(1)  (1) Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘Africa Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010,

At first glance western countries might seem to be the opposite of Africa with regards to ethnicity. Countries like France are ideal type nation states with ‘national’ borders based upon ethnicity. However in practice western states have large numbers of minorities whether this is through regions with local identities such as the Welsh or immigration. However despite such intermixing there is not the security threat as in Africa.  The most obvious reasons here is wealth. It is the state of the economy that is the main root of violence in Africa and that is the preserver of peace in Western liberal democracies. Rich countries can afford to use their wealth to paper over any cracks created by different identities. They can afford impartial civil services which have little incentive to favour one group over another. And when it come to religion there is a link between education and how religious someone is; one study has estimated an extra year of schooling leads to a 4 percentage-point increase in the likelihood that an individual reports having no religious affiliation at all.(1)  (1) Dubner, Stephen J., ‘Does More Education Lead to Less Religion?’, Freakonomics, 25 April 2011,

Society cant function when the population is divided  Successful nations are those with a strong unified sense of purpose. They are states where it is allegiance to the state which is put first. Having different identities which are put first undermines the state. This is exactly what strong religious and ethnic identities do. If these sub state identities are put before the national identity then ethnic groups are likely to “other” anyone who is not a part of their group. If they do not consider themselves as being a part of the same polity there is little reason to cooperate, to pay taxes,  It is the failure to build a unifying framework and these conflicts of identity that split nations apart not poverty. The Rwandan genocide did not happen because Rwanda is poor but because it is split between two groups who, at least for that horrific period, looked at themselves as Hutus or Tutsi’s first and Rwandans second. The rebels in Syria show how strong such divisions can be as rebels fight each other as well as Assad’s regime.(1) In Ivory Coast a country that had previously been considered stable burst into civil war in 2011 after elections that went along ethnic lines.(2)  (1) Dettmer, Jamie, “Syrian Rebel Groups Fight Among Themselves”, Voice of America, 19 September 2013   (2) “African viewpoint: Blood and borders” BBC News, 1 February 2011,

Identity issues are very difficult to solve  Issues of identity are much more difficult to solve than issues of poverty. Poverty is primarily an issue of economics and can be solved in numerous ways; through aid, development projects, greater exploitation of natural resources, and through policies to encourage economic development. However none of this is likely to happen if there is ethnic conflict.  Where the problem is one of identity there is no fast solution. Ethnicity remains the same throughout someone’s life. Religion is only rarely changed. Customs and traditions only slowly evolve. No matter how hard government tries, these artificial barriers cannot be changed or erased easily. The only solution then is to attempt to work around the problem by not eliminating identities but showing commonalities, itself a slow process.  Spain is an example of how a country can escape poverty but not identity. From the 1980’s Spain enjoyed an economic miracle pulling the country up to being a developed nation. And again after the economic crash changes in policies have managed to halt decline and even move Spain towards recovery.(1) Yet despite a state that has constantly encouraged integration the regions of Spain are more determined than ever to get a chance to decide their own future. Cataluña and the Basque Country in particular want independence.(2)  (1) Benoit, Angeline, “Spain Exits Two-Year Recession as Rajoy Seeks Recovery”, Bloomberg, 30 October 2013,   (2) “Nothing to lose but their chains”, The Economist, 14 September 2013,

Ethno-religious divides are a bigger security threat  Poverty is clearly an immense problem for Africa but it is not primarily a security problem. There are parts of the globe such as South Asia and parts of South East Asia that have comparable poverty but little conflict and violence. Moreover not every African country is plagued with conflict. We therefore must look elsewhere for why Africa has high levels of conflict. Religious and Ethnic divisions are a much more direct security threat and cause for conflicts.  To start with, it is extremely easy to blame people of other ethnicity or religion of your own problems. This occurs throughout the world, no matter if we are talking about immigrants coming into the EU and US, about the Kurdish population in Turkey or about Israel and Palestine. Africa has 3315 ethnic groups, a huge number (1). Unlike Europe these have not been formed into cohesive nations with colonial borders often arbitrarily cutting through ethnic groups. A conflict is 25 percent longer and has a has a higher casualty rate when an ethnicity is divided by a national border. Examples of divided (and conflicted) groups are the Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania, and the Anyi of Ghana and the Ivory Coast. (2)  Division also occurs between religions. Samuel P Huntington wrote a famous book ‘The Clash of Civilisations’ that highlights that conflict is often created between religions. In Africa this means conflict in a swathe of northern Africa where Islam and Christianity meet. For example, the Muslim terrorist organization called Boko Haram, which has a lot of support in Nigeria, is engaged in a massive against Christians which has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of non-Muslims.(2)  (1) Wentzel, Dr. John, ‘Who are the developing world’, johnwentzel.com, 28 February 2013,   (2) Gilman, Azure, ‘The Violent Legacy of Africa’s Arbitrary Borders’, Freakonomics, 12 January 2011,   (3) Stark, William, “Boko Haram's Anti-Christian Violence Continues in Northern Nigeria”, Religion Today, 13 September 2013,

Fortunately the solution to this particular problem is exactly the same as the solution to poverty; fixing the dysfunctional state. There have been many multi-ethnic countries that have successfully created a sense of ‘nationhood’ and shared identity among people of different ethnicities and faiths. India, Indonesia, Brazil and the United States are all good examples. This needs to be done through education, government having an impartial presence in the population’s lives, infrastructure, and through ensuring that different ethnicities see that working together provides benefits for all.  State building is necessary to prevent this internal ethnic conflict but having a strong state is also a foundation for creating a dynamic economy that reduces, and eventually eliminates poverty. Brazil is both a good example of integration of large numbers of ethnicities; the ‘rainbow nation’ and an example of state intervention reducing poverty through the bolsa familia, payments for sending children to school which coincidently helps educating so encouraging a sense of nation.(1)  (1) Nobrega, Camila, ‘Bolsa-Família: template for poverty reduction or recipe for dependency?’ Guardian Professional, 5 November 2013,

The EAC is not yet ready to fully support its missions. The East African Community military command have not helped in prevention of terrorist attacks in Kenya nor has it been able to stop the prolonged insecurities and conflicts in Burundi, besides it still needs improvement. The unity between Kenya and Uganda did not stop conflicts arising over ownership of Migingo islands on lake Victoria; membership would not mean that South Sudan and Sudan suddenly have similar interests or ameliorate their conflict.  Rwanda and Uganda have been recently accused of supporting insecurity in Eastern Congo (1), and the peace keeping missions in Somalia and Darfur are both AU and UN initiatives not the EAC. In practice the bloc is not yet ready to embark on such wider missions.  (1) Louis, Charbonneau, and Michelle, Nicholls ‘Rwanda, Uganda arming Congo rebels- UN panel’, reuters.com, 17/10/2012

Conflicts and insecurity in the region will be resolved.  Widening the East African Community will help provide a strong force and voice against insecurities, conflicts and insurgencies that have torn apart much of the region.  The current EAC member states have been at the fore front of maintaining peace and security in the region, with Burundi, Kenya and Uganda sending troops to Somalia and Rwanda sending troops to Darfur and CAR.  In March 2012, the USAID assessment on East Africa regional conflict and instability highlighted that the revival and expansion of the EAC would favour a vision of promoting peace in the region (1) pointing out the Lamu project aimed at creating a transport corridor linking South Sudan to northern Kenya and the coast. Widening the bloc will make it easy for member states to support their peacekeeping missions through the East Africa community military command and also help reduce interstate invasions like Sudan and South Sudan or Rwanda and DRC as they will now be united with more closely aligned interests.  (1) USAID, ‘East Africa Regional conflict and instability Assessment, usaid.gov, March 2012,

Widening the EAC will affect the emerging education systems. Most of the countries with interest to join the EAC are characterised by poor education systems. Bringing Somalia, South Sudan and DRC, into the community would bring a huge challenge to the existing systems. The inter university council of education is a new established body, policies like harmonising the education curricula are still in process of implementation and this cannot be rated a success at the moment let alone be expanded to millions more children and youths. Additionally, there are still current member states like Burundi with crippled education systems (1), why not first focus internally and deepen these institutions before expanding?  (1) Concern worldwide, Burundi, ‘education’, concernusa.org

Economic Development will be boosted in the entire region.  Widening the East African Community, will help enlarge the common market, increase production and improve regional trade as people will be able to freely do business across more than five countries.  Prior to Rwanda and Burundi’s membership to the bloc in 2004, Kenya’s exports and imports to the EAC were Kshs 64 billion and Kshs 3 billion respectively this however increased after the two countries joined creating a single market of 133.5 million people. In 2009 Kenya’s exports had risen to Kshs 90.5 billion and imports to Kshs 12.5 billion [1].  Ethiopia, DRC and South Sudan are all mineral rich countries and are big potential markets for East Africa. Welcoming them to the community is predicted to double the production, imports and exports among member states [2] due to policies policies like the EAC trade facilitation, customs union and competition policy and law [2].  [1] Mary, Odongo,’Institute of Economic Affairs; Towards an East African Community common market’, ieakenya.or.ke, 30 Jan 2011,   [2] Ernest &amp; Young, ‘The East Africa boom’, ey.com,   [3] East African Community Customs, ‘market size, access and trade policy’, eu.int,

Widening the bloc will also widen the burden of satisfying all member states which will affect economic development. The discovery of oil in Uganda has prompted concerns about how it will be extracted as a result of a green light to foreign companies to do the job [1], and Rwanda’s natural gas remain untouched due to a lack of skilled labour despite the EAC freedom of movement policies. Why then bring a bigger burden of un-extracted mineral resources that cannot be handled by EAC? And the fact that Kenya has been able to profit from such integration has not done much to lift Burundi from extreme poverty Or prevent Tanzania’s slow growth [2]. When all members are looking to export natural resources there are few benefits to the bloc, the members find themselves competing in export markets.  [1] Oil review, ‘Uganda to sign oil drilling agreement with international oil firms’, oilreviewafrica.com, 15 April 2013,   [2] IMF, ‘Truly integrated market would bring benefits to East Africa’, imf.org, 15 March 2012,

Pan-Africanism is more a dream than a reality. Widening the East African Community would actually alter and destroy the meaning of Pan-Africanism because of the many challenges that come with such integration (1). Currently there are disputes within the EAC itself with Tanzania and Burundi claiming to be sidelined from the other three states. People will never at any moment feel more East Africans than citizens of a particular country; recently Rwandans who had lived in Tanzania for years were forcibly deported by the government (2) despite the fact that both countries are member states of the EAC and signed free movement into law. This is enough to explain how things would be a mess if rival countries like DRC, Sudan and Somalia were to join the bloc.  (1) United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, ‘Assessing regional integration in Africa’, uneca.org, Vol.V,   (2) Catherine, Byaruhanga, ‘Thousands deported from Tanzania to Rwanda’, bbc.co.uk, 2 Sept 2013

Education standards will be improved across the region  improvement of education among member states. It has policies such as the introduction of the inter University council of education to ensure the quality of University education, and an ongoing process of harmonising education curricula in all member countries (1). However, Africa still remains the continent with poorest quality of education and has the lowest skilled/educated labour. A large number of children fail to access basic education (2). Enlarging and deepening the EAC will therefore enhance education standards on a large part of the African continent; such policies will lift weak academic institutions in DRC, South Sudan and Somalia which are typical of their poor education systems.  (1) East African Community Education, ‘Harmonisation of education and training curricula in East Africa’ eac.int,   (2) Kevin Watkins, ‘Narrowing Africa’s Education deficit’, brookings.com, January 2013,

It will serve an example of Pan-Africanism and encourage many to join the movement.  Nkwame Nkurumah, one of the famous African heroes said “Africa must unite or perish”. This has been taken up by the African Union which is calling for integration across the continent (1). Widening and deepening the EAC will therefore shine a light to the ideology of Pan Africanism. Bringing more African states together under one bloc with the same vision and institutions will help people to work together regardless of ethnic or cultural differences. Citizens will feel more East Africans rather than citizens of a particular country as every citizen of the EAC member state is allowed to freely travel in the region with no difficulties or discrimination as a result of the East African Community’s freedom of movement(2). This will therefore encourage other blocs like the ECOWAS and SADC to actively perform and widen hence creating a more united Africa.  (1) African Union, ‘Celebrating Pan –Africanism and African renaissance’, au.int, 10 May 2013,   (2) East African Community, Towards a common market, ‘Annex on the free movement of persons’, eac.int,

The EAC does not have a general rule that membership is only reserved for countries in the Eastern region of Africa, and the presence of the African Union does not deem other regional blocs useless. To achieve growth and integration on the continent, there is great need to unite regionally[1]. Having members that are also members of other regional organisations simply helps bring those organisations together to the benefit of all.  [1] Michael, Rettig, Anne W. Kamau and Augustus, Sammy, Muluv,’ The African Union can do more to support regional integration’, brookings.edu, 17 May 2013,

Initially the EAC comprised of only three countries but after only 7 years, Rwanda and Burundi joined the bloc [1]. The new members however did not hamper the progress of the EAC but instead increased the rate of performance and improvement. If anything the two new countries added momentum in the operations of the bloc despite the fact that they were both economically weak. It is therefore not valid to assume that enlargement would hinder progress.  [1] East African Community, ‘About EAC’, eac.int,

The potential entrants are still weak and pose a threat to the growing EAC  Most of the countries showing interest in joining the EAC are still economically weak, politically unstable, and socially divided. Somalia is the poorest state in the world; it is unstable with a high rate of terrorism [1]. DRC has yet to fully end its civil war, and has large social divides [2]. And South Sudan is a newly independent country that has not yet finished forming its governing institutions but already faces conflicts both internal and external. Accepting all these countries to the East African community now would create instability; it would clear the way for more Al shabab attacks in both Kenya and Uganda due as the borders would be open, it would clear a path for the FDLR (a rebel group that includes some of those responsible for Rwanda’s genocide) from Congo to Rwanda, a threat that the EAC is not ready to manage.  [1] Ludger, Schadomsky, ‘No stability in sight for Somalia’, dw.de, 20 June 2013   [2] Jason, Stearns, ‘The Congo; a revolution deferred’, sscr.org, 8 March 2012,

The EAC is not different from the AU which aims at integrating all African states.  All countries that have shown interest in joining the EAC are member states of the AU which oversees integration in African countries; there is no reason then for them to join another bloc that has the same aim as the African Union unless it is no longer functioning.  Countries like DRC and Sudan are geographically located in different regions than East Africa and this would breach the meaning of the bloc. Additionally, these individual countries are members of other regional organisations like COMESA and SADC which puts a challenge of flexibility in adopting different policies from separate blocs. [1] For example how could a customs union operate if DRC were to be a member of two separate customs unions? any external barriers between the two could be bypassed by going through the DRC.  [1] Dinka,T,Kennes,W, ‘Africa’s regional integration arrangements; history and challenges’, ecdpm.org, 2007,

The EAC is not yet a strong bloc to be widened  The EAC, though a progressing bloc, is premature for widening. 48% of its budget is derived from the EU and 22% from other donor agencies and governments. Membership subscriptions barely suffice to cover staff remuneration and other administrative costs leaving no funds to support development oriented programmes [1]. 71.3% of Congolese [2] and 50.6% of South Sudanese [3] live below the poverty line; how would the EAC support such regions with a crippled budget? Creating a common market would mean bringing together poor countries that have nothing to offer or learn from each other unlike the EU which has strong economies to support weaker ones and provide role models and expertise for development.  There is a greater need to deepen the bloc by ensuring that member states are able to meet the pledged costs towards the budget. The EAC needs to make sure planned initiatives like the monetary union, customs union, and unifying education systems are well coordinated and successful before widening.  [1] Dr. Khoti, Kamanga, ‘EAC Integration; progress achieved, challenges and opportunities’, ippmedia.com, 3 Nov 2013,   [2] The World Bank, ‘Data; Congo,Dem Rep, world development indicators, worldbank.org,   [3] The World Bank, ‘Data;South Sudan,word development indicators,worldbank.org,

Al shabaab attacks have continued to be a huge threat to both the Ugandan and Kenyan governments with the recent attack on Westgate shopping center in Nairobi [1] and the Lugogo cricket ground in Kampala [2] despite the tight immigration policies towards Somalis. FDLR has also continued to carry out attacks in Rwanda regardless Rwanda’s efforts to prevent them [3]. Tighter immigration controls therefore has been shown not to provide solution to these threats. Instead uniting all these countries would give ground for the East African Military Command to handle such threats.  [1] AFP, ‘Westgate mall, Alshabaab gunmen were suicide commandos’, telegraph.co.uk,12 Nov 2013,   [2] BBC world news, ‘Somali militants behind Kampala world cup bombings’, bbc.co.uk, 12 July 2010,   [3] Reuters, ‘Rwanda says FDLR cross from Congo attack wardens’, reuters.com, 2 Dec 2012,

We may agree that an active civil society may be good for the economy. However, there is no need for African governments to ensure CSOs have a wider participation in the political life of the country to do this. As long as the government respects and protects the existence of such organizations, their positive economic by-products are preserved. Societal actors can work autonomously and independently of the political system.

Civil society is good for economic development  There is increasing evidence that a more active and involved Civil Society is good for economic development [1] . Specifically, CSOs are believed to have a crucial role for African development prospects. The Local Economic Development Network of Africa argues that ‘In particular, they often know what are the employment and income generation needs of different groups within the population and what could stimulate better outcomes for them. It is very important, therefore, that they are involved and consulted’ ( LEDNA, 2013). In addition CSOs autonomously implement development programmes. Only to give an example, in Nepal CSOs in the Education for Income Generation program have played a crucial role in building up workers skills resulting in 80% being in employment many striking out entrepreneurially on their own5. It is therefore necessary for African governments to guarantee such organizations and grant them a wider participation.  [1] Panth, Sabina, (25 February 2011) ‘What Role Does Civil Society Play in Economic Development?’, blogs.worldbank.org

The idea that CSO’s involvement in political life equals good governance is essentially an oversimplification. In extremely corrupt semi-democracies, there is no guarantee that societal actors will not be co-opted within the system and become corrupted themselves [1] . This would result in a legitimation of the non-democratic powers in the public eye, rather than a promotion of better practices and good governance. We could say that a wider role for civil society is desirable only for those countries that are well ahead in the path of democratisation. The risk is, otherwise, to trigger a counterproductive reaction.  [1] Mogalakwe and Sebudubudu (2006) ‘Trends in state-civil society relations in Botswana’, Journal of African Elections, 5:2, pp. 207-224

Civil society’s involvement in political life is necessary to strengthen democratic accountability  The involvement of civil society in political life is all the more crucial in Africa, where newborn democracies need to be strengthened and consolidated. Active CSOs function as a watchdog for political power and as alternative channels for citizens’ political participation, thus strengthening democratic accountability. Indeed, several scholars highlight that a ‘prostrate civil society’ is to be identified as a fundamental factor in determining the region’s democratic instability (Scott, 1998, as quoted in Lewis, 2002: 576). ‘Civil society is a hitherto (missing key) to sustained political reform, legitimate states and governments, improved governance, viable state-society and state-economy relations, and prevention of the kind of political decay that undermined new African governments a generation ago’(Harberson, 1994: 1-2). The sustainability of African democracies thus depends on the promotion of a more active and participative civil society.

There is no consensus on the assumption that CSOs may function as alternative channels of accountability. This, in fact, would require CSOs to be democratically accountable themselves. Yet, this is not the case. There is no form of direct accountability between Civil Society Organizations and the communities they claim to represent. In other words, no one ‘elects Oxfam’ [1] . Moreover, CSOs are not even representative of the people they are supposed to give voice to. In fact, wealthy and highly educated men are overrepresented in CSOs [2] . It is therefore hard to understand how civil society can guarantee or increase democratic accountability in African countries.  [1] The Economist, 23rd September 2000, p. 129  [2] Talberg and Uhlin (2011) ‘Civil society and global democracy. An assessment’, in Archibugi, Koenig Archibugi and Marchetti, Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

The involvement of CSOs promotes good governance practices  Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that ‘good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development’ [1] . It is therefore impossible to ignore the claim that CSOs involvement in political life is crucial to promote good governance practices. Civil Society is able to create additional pressure on the government to ensure good governance, as well as to contribute ideas about what good governance practices should entail in the specific local context, and to ‘bridge the gap between the law and its actual implementation’( Zivanovic, 2007). “Good governance in Africa is ultimately going to come from civil society in the countries themselves”, declared Jendayi Frazer, former U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs [2] . An article in The Guardian shows how CSO’s can help: ‘In the Ileje district of southern Tanzania, expectant mothers about to give birth had to cross a crocodile-infested river into Malawi because a local medical centre did not have enough money to pay for a midwife.  It took a campaign by civil society organisations and citizens to uncover that there was money available, but that it had somehow been diverted’ [3] . CSOs involvement ultimately permitted the solution of the issue.  [1] Kofi Annan, Partnerships for Global Community: Annual Report on the Work of the Organisation (UN, 1998)  [2] Cannon, H. Brevy, (4 May 2009), ‘Diplomat: Civil Society Is Key To Good Governance in Africa’, UVA Today  [3] Kilonzo, Semkae, (30 September 2013) ‘Tanzania has shown how civil society can contribute to economic justice’, theguardian.com

Two crucial counterpoints can be opposed to the above argument. First of all, we may agree that western NGOs organize, support or fund African CSOs. However, this does not mean that African civil society is not independent in its action and able to defend its own interests and values. Secondly, even if we accept that western actors may interfere with the activity of African CSOs, we must consider if this is the worst of evils. Someone may argue, and we certainly do, that it is still worth ensuring civil society has a voice in African politics, even if this brings the risk of western interference.

Despite the arguments underlining the differences between Western and African contexts, there is evidence that civil society may play in Africa the same crucial and positive role it had in Western political history. Indeed, the EU commissioner for development, Andris Piebalgs, has issued a press release specifically analysing the role civil society may play in African politics [1] . The conclusions highlight that a wider involvement of civil society in Africa’s political life is crucial for the prospects of democratization and development in the continent.  [1] Piebalgs, Andris, (24 October 2013), ‘Civil Society Organisations, a key role to play in Africa-EU relations’, Europa.eu

An excessively active civil society would increase political instability and paralyse African states  CSOs involvement in the political life does have positive and relevant consequences, but only if the state is strong and the political power is stable. In the African context, several scholars argue, an excessively active civil society may instead increase political instability and paralyze an already weak state. Blair (1997), for example, affirms that CSOs may advance so many different claims and interests that the result is a political paralysis. A weaker state, rather than a deeper democracy, results. Similarly, Foley and Edwards (1996), analysing the ‘paradox of civil society’, point out that conflicts may arise among groups in civil society. ‘These conflicts, in the absence of specifically political settlements, may spill over into civil disruption and violence’ (1996: 40). The example of India reported above is extremely relevant in this regard. In addition, several scholars argue that Trade Unions and CSOs in general have represented an obstacle for both economic development and political stability in Latin America. African states must stabilize and consolidate before integrating civil society in their political life

The promotion of civil society is yet another form of the Western imperialism  CSOs in Africa are constituted by western NGOs or funded by western actors. It has even been argued that the involvement of western actors in African civil society cannot be avoided, since western NGOs need to function as intermediaries between funders and local groups [1] . In addition, western NGOs are easily co-opted by western governments, and tend to promote western interests and values rather than local ones [2] . In short, CSOs’ wider involvement in African political life would result in an increased western influence on African affairs. Sseremba, A journalist from Uganda, even claims that western NGOs are ‘indoctrinating young African politicians to serve western interests’ [3] . It is therefore necessary to find another way to ensure African citizens are actively involved in the policy making process.  [1] INTRAC, (2012), ‘Supporting civil society in Africa’, baringfoundation.org.uk  [2] Talberg and Uhlin (2011) ‘Civil society and global democracy. An assessment’, in Archibugi, Koenig Archibugi and Marchetti, Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.  [3] Sseremba, Yahya, (10 May 2012), ‘THE NEXT PUPPETS: How NGOs are indoctrinating young African politicians to serve western interests’, The Campus Journal

Western European experiences do not demonstrate that civil society’s involvement in politics would be positive in the African context  The idea that CSOs involvement in political life would have positive consequences has been generated by a western-centric literature. However, there is no evidence that the same results would materialize in a completely different context such as the African one. Maina (1998), for example, claims that relations of class and ethnicity are so important in Africa that it is hard to imagine civil society would work in the same way it has in the west. CSOs could form along ethnic or religious lines, thus damaging the fabric of society and jeopardising the stability of divided countries. Ashutosh Varshney (2001), for example, analysed how CSOs formed exclusively along ethnic lines in certain areas in India, thus causing an increase in ethnic violence and political instability. We must therefore be very careful in applying western paradigms to non-western countries, the risk being otherwise to do more harm than good.

The opposite may actually be the case. Several authors in fact claim that an active civil society can improve political stability. A weak state consolidates its power by democratising and acquiring legitimacy. Civil society is crucial in this regard. ‘Civil society contributes directly to stability by encouraging citizens to address their concerns through democratic political processes, including elections. It also challenges abuses of power that fuel instability ’, Freedom House reports [1] . Indeed, the Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation in Africa (CSSDCA) (2000) [2] identified an increased participation of Civil Society in African states as essential to promote stability in the continent. A wider involvement of CSOs in the political life must therefore be pursued all the most in the African context, where the political power needs both consolidation and democratization.  [1] Calingaert, Daniel, (11 July 2013), ‘Resisting the Global Crackdown on Civil Society’, Freedom House  [2] OHCHR, ‘Compilation of documents…’, ohchr.org

The G8 countries are the world’s most powerful countries. As such most of the powers involved in the G8 have at some point been involved in aggressive foreign interventions. The Iraq invasion did not lead to calls to throw the US and UK out, neither did the bombing of Libya lead to France’s expulsion. Using Russian actions in Ukraine as an excuse would be simple hypocrisy.

Aggressive acts violate the meaning of the G8  The focus of the G8 is on economic, monetary, financial and globilisation issues. Aggressive actions scare the markets – as shown by the rouble reaching new lows against the dollar and Euro – so run counter to the focus of the G8. [1] Russia has in the past also used its gas supplies as an economic weapon, this and acts of aggression such as in Crimea are repudiating the idea of globilisation. The G8 is important because there is “a good understanding among G8 members” clearly when one of those members is engaging in conflictual acts that understanding is damaged. [2] The G7 members on 2nd March 2014 in a statement responding to Russia’s aggression in the Crimea stated “Russia’s actions in Ukraine also contravene the principles and values on which the G-7 and the G-8 operate”. [3] Any member that does not follow the principles of an organisation should be suspended as a member.  [1] BBC News, ‘Russian rouble hits new low against the dollar and euro’, 3 March 2014  [2] Government of France, ‘The G8’, g8.fr, 2003  [3] Office of the Press Secretary, ‘G-7 Leaders Statement’, whitehouse.gov, 2 March 2014

It is wrong to say that Russia is not an industrialised country, it is considered by the World Bank to be a high income country. [1] It is also a democracy that holds regular elections. President Putin is held in high regard by Russians 67.8% of Russians approve of Putin’s job performance [2] – far higher than any other member of the G8.  [1] The World Bank, ‘Russian Federation’, data.worldbank.org, accessed 7 March 2014  [2] Luhn, Alec, ‘Ukraine crisis and Olympics boost Vladimir Putin’s popularity in Russia’, The Guardian, 6 March 2014 , note however the pollster is state run!

There needs to be a response to bad behaviour internationally  The intention of international institutions is to bind countries together, to ensure they speak to each other and resolve differences, and to ensure they feel they cannot engage in aggressive actions. However when a state breaks these norms there needs to be a reaction. Russia has been willing to engage in aggressive acts time and time again. The recent occupation of Crimea is very similar to Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008; in both conflicts Russia used the excuse of Russians being in danger, in both cases Russia was there as a ‘peacekeeper’, and in both cases the action was in another sovereign country whose government did not wish Russian troops there. The result is an expansion of Russian influence and some form of annexation. [1] There was no action after the Russian conflict with Georgia except a mediated peace. [2] There now needs to be a response to actions in Crimea; throwing Russia out of the G8 is the least response.  [1] Friedman, Uri, ‘Putin’s Playbook: The Strategy Behind Russia’s Takeover of Crimea’, The Atlantic, 2 March 2014  [2] King, Charles, ‘The Five-Day War’, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2008  Traynor, Ian, Luke Harding and Helen Womack, ‘Georgia and Russia declare ceasefire’, theguardian.com, 16 August 2008

If there needs to be a response to Russian actions it does not need to be this response. Much more useful would be economic sanctions against Russia; either targeted freezing of state assets and the assets of leaders, or more comprehensive sanctions that would damage Russia’s economy. Such actions would provide a real cost to aggressive action, not simply a symbolic cost. [1]  [1] Verhofstadt, Guy, ‘Russia will bow to economic pressure over Ukraine, so the EU must impose it’, theguardian.com, 6 March 2014

Sanctions by necessity harm both sides. However Russia is a much smaller economy than either the EU or US (both of which are seven-eight times bigger). Any economic retaliation and escalation will therefore harm Russia more. The threat to cut off gas supplies is a major threat but Russia can’t simply sell the gas elsewhere because its pipelines mostly go to Europe. In the 2009 ‘gas war’ which involved supplies to Europe being restricted (though not completely cut off) for 20 days Russia’s state gas company Gazprom lost $1.1billion in revenues. [1] A more complete cut off would have higher losses.  [1] Pugliaresi, Lucian et al., ‘Is it time for Gazprom to hit the reset button?’, Oil&amp;Gas Journal, 3 September 2009

Russia should never have been a member  The G8 has been meant to be a group of industrialised democracies. Russia is neither particularly industrialised, nor particularly democratic. Russia remains reliant on natural resources for much of its wealth; 30% of its GDP and 70% of exports. [1] Its most recent presidential election – that voted in Putin for a third term – was not exactly free and fair. The OSCE election observers concluded “There was no real competition and abuse of government resources ensured that the ultimate winner of the election was never in doubt”. [2] Its qualifications for membership have been questioned from the very beginning, when Russia joined the G7 were able to argue inclusion would bring it closer to the west. Yet Russia remains essentially an outsider in the group, it does not share western values and goes its own way. [3]  [1] Aron, Leon, ‘The political economy of Russian oil and gas’, American Enterprise Institute, 11 April 2013  [2] Eschenbaecher, Jens-Hagen, ‘Russia’s presidential election marked by unequal campaign conditions, active citizens’ engagement, international observers say’, OSCE, 4 March 2012  [3] Dempsey, Judy, ‘Judy Asks: Is Russia Relevant in the G8?’, Carnegie Europe, 19 June 2013

The biggest action the west can take without sanctions  European states, which make up half of the members of the G8, have been reluctant to take stronger economic steps against aggressive Russian actions. Russia has warned the US “We will encourage everybody to dump US Treasury bonds, get rid of dollars as an unreliable currency and leave the US market.” [1] The European countries have more reason to be concerned because they rely on Russia for their gas supplies; 39% of German gas and 9% of total energy consumption is reliant on Russia. [2] If Russia were to retaliate to sanctions it could seriously damage the European economy. This means that throwing Russia out of the G8 or other institutions is the biggest sanction that does not have any risk of economic retaliation and escalation that damage everyone.  [1] RIA Novosti, ‘Putin Adviser Urges Dumping US Bonds In Reaction to Sanctions’, 4 March 2013  [2] Ratner, Michael et al., ‘Europe’s Energy Security: Options and Challenges to Natural Gas Supply Diversification’, Congressional Research Service, 20 August 2013, p.10

But Russia, as with any country – particularly any powerful country – is interested in symbolism and international prestige. Many analysts suggest that Putin’s takeover of Crimea may be about revenge for having ‘lost’ Ukraine, or out of a desire to set up a new greater Russia. [1] In each of these cases it is about prestige as the practical gains to Russia are small. Russia wants to be seen as a great power, kicking it out of one of the globe’s top clubs damages that ambition.  [1] Speck, Ulrich, ‘Opinion Putin planning ‘Soviet Union lite’’, CNN, 4 March 2014

The address by Putin was before Russia’s illegal intervention into Crimea and as such ‘settling regional conflicts’ almost certainly refers to Syria, not Crimea. Russia’s role in Syria has hardly been constructive, it has until recently stopped any resolutions on Syria [1] , but not so onerous as to require throwing the country out of the G8. With Putin in charge of the summit and so setting the agenda we can be sure that discussion of Crimea will be kept off the agenda so ensuring that any discussion is purely informal. Putin is hardly likely to make concessions at his own summit.  [1] BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: UN Security Council agrees aid resolution’, 23 February 2014

Allows strength in numbers  Russia was originally allowed in to the G8 to encourage it to reform, or rather to provide a place where Russia’s leader can be backed into reforming. The G8 is a western institution, a forum in which an aggressive Russia has no natural allies. This means that it is the perfect place for the western democracies to voice their concerns; Russia will find itself isolated at the table and on the back foot. While at its own summit it will be even more likely to give concessions in the interests of making its own summit a success. At the last G8 summit Putin hosted in 2006 Russia made some concessions to the US in order to try and obtain WTO membership. [1]  [1] Rutland, Peter, ‘Russia and the WTO: deal, or no deal?’, National Bureau of Asian Research, Special Report no.12, March 2007. Pp31-36, p.32

Simply narrows the G8 making it irrelevant  The G8 has been losing its relevance with the rise of other countries economically. It can no longer claim to be the top eight economies as Canada is the world’s eleventh largest economy with India, Brazil and China all bigger. It is even lower (14th) if done by Purchasing Power Parity. [1] Newer more inclusive institutions such as the G20 that include other vital economies like China have been taking over its primacy on the economy. The G8 is no longer the best grouping to steer the global economy as was recognised during the 2008 financial crisis where the G20 took the lead. [2] Throwing out Russia would simply be making the G8 narrower and less important globally so reducing the institution’s influence.  [1] The World Bank, ‘GDP (current US$)’, data.worldbank.org, 2012 figures  [2] Cooper, Andrew F., ‘The G20 as an improvised crisis committee and/or a contested ‘steering committee’ for the world’, International Affairs, Vol.86, No.3, 2010 pp.741-757

Will make no difference to Russia  Throwing Russia out of the G8 to punish the country – whether for aggressive acts in its near abroad, for human rights violations, or simply for corruption and economic crimes – is unlikely to make any difference to Russia. [1] Being in the G8 provides very little tangible benefit; it is all about the symbolism of it being the top club. Russia however has created its own top club in the BRICS conferences that are very similar to the G8 as a series of informal gatherings of major world leaders. Russia could rightly argue that despite having fewer members it is broader and more inclusive as it includes members from the Americas (Brazil), from Africa (South Africa), and the important players from of Eurasia (Russia, China, India). Since these powers are the rising countries why would Russia want to be associated with the declining west?  [1] Judah, Ben, ‘Why Russia No Longer Fears the West’, Politico, 2 March 2014

There needs to be a place to talk  German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier argues that "The format of the G8 is actually the only one in which we in the West can speak directly with Russia". [1] Russia’s proposed priorities for the G8 summit included “fighting the drug menace, combating terrorism and extremism, settling regional conflicts, safeguarding people's health, and establishing a global management system to address risks associated with natural and man-made disasters” [2] since Russia is clearly willing to discuss regional conflicts then it makes sense to use the summit to discuss Ukraine. Since Russia has not turned up to other suggested talks, such as a meeting of the Budapest agreement group [3] (UK, US, Ukraine, Russia – the agreement guarantees Ukraine’s territorial integrity [4] ), it makes sense to go to Russia’s summit which Russia can’t avoid.  [1] kms/ccp, ‘Putin agrees to Ukraine 'fact-finding' mission after talk with Merkel’, Deutsche Welle, 2 March 2013  [2] Putin, Vladimir, ‘Address by President Vladimir Putin on Russia assuming the G8 Presidency’, en.g8russia.ru, 1 January 2014  [3] G uardian Staff, ‘Only talks between Russia and Ukraine can solve crisis, say US and UK’, theguardian.com, 5 March 2014  [4] Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994’, cfr.org, 5 December 1994

Getting rid of Russia would not make the G8 irrelevant; it would simply return it to its core. The remaining members would me much more likely to agree and actually come up with meaningful outcomes to the summits. It might be a less effective steering committee for the global economy but at the same time it could ensure greater unity between the western powers.

While strength in numbers may seem to be useful when there are conflicts between Russia and the other G8 members this is not what the G8 should be about. Using the G8 in such a way will simply encourage Russia to dig its heels in and encourage the growth of other rival institutions. An example would be the BRIC summits between Brazil, Russia, India and China; would these have happened at all if the G8 has been more inclusive and recognised that these nations need to be involved in the G8? It is notable that the very first summit included discussion of the desire by India and Brazil to play a greater role in world affairs. [1]  [1] Presidents of Russia, Brazil, China and Prime Minister of India, ‘Joint Statement of the BRIC Countries’ Leaders’, kremlin.ru, 16 June 2009

This is claiming exactly the opposite of the previous point on U.S. demand for drugs; is not Mexican demand for guns as much to blame for guns in Mexico as U.S. supply? The US has put considerable effort into making sure that the Mexicans are able to counter cartels armed with guns with U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers training Mexican army commandoes. Similarly the Marine Corps also is working on an exchange program with the Mexican Marine Corps that will include sharing experiences on urban warfare. The US also arms the Mexican armed forces to prevent them being outgunned by the gangs. [1]  [1] Bowman, Tom, 'CIA And Pentagon Wonder: Could Mexico Implode?' NPR.

U.S. supplies the guns used by drugs cartels  While the US complains about the Mexico’s inability to stop drugs flowing north the USA seems equally unable to stop guns and weapons flowing south into Mexico. As Clinton says “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.” Clinton argues that one problem is that the bad guys outgun the law enforcement officers and so is supplying Mexico with better equipment such as night vision goggles, [1] however at least in the short term the only result can be an arms race and more violence as shown by the increasing violence in 2010 and 2011. [2] So long as the cartels are able to easily buy guns then the problem will not be solved. Here again the United States is to blame. The United States has 54,000 licenced gun dealers while Mexico only has one heavily guarded compound so the cartels smuggle their weapons in from the U.S. [3]  [1] BBC News, ‘Clinton admits US blame on Drugs’, 26 March 2009.  [2] AFP, ‘Mexico drug death toll rising again in 2011’, Fracne24, 11 January 2011.  [3] Beaubien, Jason ‘At Mexico’s Lond Gun Shop, Army Oversees Sales’, NPR, 24 June 2009.

There will always be two ways to solve the problem of illegal drugs, focusing on demand and focusing on supply. Focusing on supply is a valid strategy, as the US pushes the price of drugs on US streets up so it pushes the drugs beyond the ability of most people to afford the drugs and will as a result mean less drug addicts in the United States. This in turn could result in a drop in supply.

U.S. demand for drugs  It is the rich US that creates the demand for drugs in the first place. Without this demand the price of drugs would be low and the profits of drugs trafficking through Mexico to the USA would disappear. In 2010 an estimated 22.6 million Americans aged 12 or over were illicit drug users. [1] And this immense drugs market was estimated to provide Mexican cartels with earnings between $13.6 and $48.4 billion. [2] Drugs are therefore a problem that is best dealt with from the perspective of reducing demand. Hillary Clinton accepted this when she said “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade”. However the US' answer to the drugs problem has so far been the 'war on drugs' concentrating massive investment on trying to reduce supply and this includes funding the Mexican government in its war as well and at the same time as making this admission Clinton was giving $80 million to provide Mexico with Blackhawk helicopters. [3]  [1] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, ‘Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings’, NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011.  [2] Cook, Colleen W., ‘Mexico’s Drug Cartels’, CRS Report for Congress, 16 October 2007, p.4  [3] BBC News, ‘Clinton admits US blame on Drugs’, 26 March 2009.

Mexico has its own problems with drugs consumption so the demand problem can’t all be blamed on the US. Mexico City's former chief of police, Gertz Manero has said there are now 4.5 million crimes a year committed in Mexico. "90% of those are stealing or are related to stealing. And 90% of those are for less than 8,000 pesos (about US$727). Mostly this is for drugs." Unemployment due to liberalisation of the economy has led to mass drug consumption so drugs would continue to flow into Mexico and enrich the cartels even if the U.S. drugs market dried up. [1]  [1] Evans, Leslie, 'Electoral Democracy Has Yet to Shake Mexico's Corrupt Bureaucracy', UCLA International Institute, 16 March 2005.

These were alien criminals who should never have been in the United States in the first place. The blame for these people being able to create drugs cartels in Central America should not lie with the United States for deporting these people but with the Central American states for not then monitoring and controlling these returnees.

U.S. anti-drugs policy focuses on the supply of drugs not the root problem of demand  For the last two decades the USA has been focused on the supply side of reducing the drugs trade. Making it a 'war on drugs' forces a fight back from the drugs cartels leading to gunfights and instability in the countries en route. This happened in Columbia, in Peru and now in Mexico. The focus on supply, or else the containment of drugs in Mexico, is shown by the Obama's US-Mexico border policy press release that devotes a lot more space to extra boarder security to catching the drugs as they reach the US compared with one small paragraph on demand. [1] The U.S. war on drugs focusing on supply and transit routes has clearly failed and has been failing for decades. Back in 1992 Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori declared the war a failure while claiming that between 1980 and 1990, when the U.S. was engaging in military efforts to stop production and transportation, coca production increased tenfold. [2]  [1] Napolitano, Janet et al. ‘Administration Officials announce U.S.-Mexico Border Security Policy: A comprehensive response &amp; commitment’, The White House, 24 March 2009.  [2] Williams, Ray B., ‘Why “The War on Drugs” Has Failed’, Psychology Today, 6 June 2011.

U.S. policies have helped create the cartels  A change in US immigration law in 1996 meant that non-citizens and foreign born citizens sentenced to more than a year in jail are deported. This moved the problem from the USA’s cities to cities in Central America creating new gangs that were already bound by ties created in the US. Effectively gangs created in the US thrived in central America where they were able to overwhelm the local government and spread north to Mexico and back into the USA helping create the network of gangs and drugs traffickers that plague Mexico today. [1] Similarly the problems in Mexico represent the success of the US in cutting of the routes through the Caribbean used previously by drugs traffickers. Colombian criminals as a result simply switched routes and began smuggling cocaine and heroin through the Central American isthmus and Pacific routes. Both smuggling routes led through Mexico. The successes of the war on drugs in Columbia has reduced the size of the drugs groups in Columbia reducing their ability to control the whole route to the USA making room for the Mexicans to take the role of middleman through Central America. [2]  [1] Wolfe, Adam, 'Central America's Street Gangs Are Drawn into the World of Geopolitics', Power and Interest News Report, 25th Aug. 2005.  [2] Logan, Samuel, ''Mexico's Internal Drug War'', Power and Interest News Report, 14th August 2006.

As Mexico’s biggest trading partner the United States always has a major role in the state of the Mexican economy. The United States is also partially to blame for the Peso crisis. Wall St in particular played up a ‘Mexican miracle’ helping to create a bubble, and idea that was also boosted by the US government which was making the case for the North American Free Trade Agreement at the time. [1]  We should also not be too quick to blame the economy as there is always some uncertainty in the figures; using different statistical methods you get different results. A study implies a growth rate of household income for Mexico of 4½-5½ percent per year in 1984-2006, which is substantially higher than the 2 percent implied by standard methods. [2] If this was the case then a poor economy could not be seen as much of a factor in the increase in violence and drugs trafficking.  [1] Edwards, Sebastian, ‘The Mexican Peso Crisis: How much did we know? When did we know it?’ NBER working paper series, Working paper 6334, p.4  [2] Carvalho Filho, Irineu de, and Chamon, Marcos, ‘The Myth of Post-Reform Income Stagnation: Evidence from Brazil and Mexico’, IMF working paper, (Aug. 2008), p.27.

Mexico’s government is no weaker than any other government. The country in Central America which has the lowest homicide rate is Costa Rica, [1] a country which has no standing army. [2] Yet it suffers from many of the same disadvantages that Mexico has, for example, like Mexico it is on the drugs route to the United States. This implies that at the very least having a weak government is not the whole cause of Mexico’s conflict.  Yes there is a weak government in Mexico, particularly at the local level, but we need to ask ourselves how the government becomes so subverted. The answer is money. There have been allegations that President Vicente Fox allowed the most powerful drug lord to escape prison in 2001 in return for $20 million. [3] If the very top of the governmental hierarchy can be subverted for money then the rest is as well.  [1] Schwarz, Isabella Cota, ‘Homicide rate drops to lowest in region’ The Tico Times, 8 June 2012.  [2] ‘Costa Rica’, The World Factbook, 24 May 2012.  [3] Rohr, Mathieu von, ‘A Nation Descends into Violence’, Spiegel Online, 23 December 2010.

Violence creates a downward spiral of violence  Just as the United States cannot be blamed for weak governance in Mexico it cannot be blamed for the spiral of decline that occurs as a result of that weak government. Once the police and local government are infiltrated it becomes very difficult to stop the violence. The gangs gain enough control and power that they can no longer be stopped without a massive investment by the central government. Any who do stand up to the traffickers are killed as, for example, was Alejandro Domínguez when appointed to serve as the city police chief of Nuevo Laredo. Domínguez made it clear that he would not negotiate with the cartels. As he was leaving his office on June 8 2005, his first day on the job, he was ambushed and killed by gunmen. [1]  A culture of fear exists in Mexico, as in other countries where the government fails to suppress gang warfare. Fear within the government and police force paralyses both into inaction Municipal and state officials insist that the problem is not theirs to solve, since drug trafficking is a federal crime, or they engage in denial, claiming that the situation is improving and that the violence will soon end. While journalists report the death and violence they fear to report on who caused them, the background or the causes of the violence; the media self-censors itself. [2]  [1] Althaus, Dudley, and Buch, Jason, ‘Nuevo Laredo police chief killed on street’, Houston Chronicle, 3 February 2011.  [2] Laurie Freeman, ‘State of Siege: Drug-Related Violence and Corruption in Mexico Unintended Consequences of the War on Drugs, WOLA Summer report (2006), pp.5-7.

Mexico is poor; it is the economic conditions that drive conflict not the U.S.  Declining real income drives social unrest and instability. Real incomes for workers in Mexico's manufacturing sector declined by a cumulative 2.6 percent between 1995 and 2005. It is likely that the decline in the informal economy is larger. The Government keeps a tight control over the minimum wage preventing it from rising. Although this does not affect many Mexicans directly a lot more have their wages set at a multiple of the minimum wage. At the same time there has been high unemployment and lower benefits. [1] In 1994-5 Mexico was hit hard by a financial crisis known as the ‘peso’ or ‘Tequila’ crisis. The peso depreciated by 47%, inflation went up to 52% and GDP fell by 6% not reaching its 1993 level until 1997. Unsurprisingly household income fell substantially; by 31% between 1994 and 1996, those in poverty rose from 10.4% of the population to 17% [2] Since 1996 although Mexico has experienced growth not only has it been slower than most developing countries this has been significantly cut into in real per capita terms by population growth. Mexico has large disparities in income between urban and rural areas and the gap between rich and poor has been widening. [3] The inequality leads people to be more willing to engage in the potentially lucrative drugs trafficking and the informal economy. Unemployment meanwhile makes them more likely to take drugs themselves as an escape.  [1] Gundzik, Jephraim P. , ‘As Elections Approach, Mexico Faces Internal Instability', Power and Interest News report.  [2] Baldacci, Emanuele, Luiz de Mello and Gabriela Inchauste, Financial crises, Poverty and Income distribution, IMF Working paper, pp.20-21.  [3] Economy Watch, ‘Mexico Economy’, 24 March 2010.

Weak Mexican government is to blame not the U.S.  When there is an internal conflict such as this it is almost always a weak government that is to blame for not preventing an escalation of violence. The government is to blame as it is meant to have a monopoly on the use of force, conflicts such as this drugs war occur when that monopoly on violence is broken. In Mexico the election of Vicente Fox as president may have been a democratic triumph for ending the 70 year one party rule by the P.R.I. but in terms of the effectiveness of the central government it was not a success. The National Action Party has been weak in the lower house and senate so unable to advance a legislative agenda. [1] An inability to legislate significantly reduces the ability of the federal government to respond to the drugs crisis. This reduces the ability of the Federal government to step in and sort out local problems. There has been an upsurge of social unrest of all types, not just drugs violence but protests, riots and strikes as well. [2]  Drugs traffickers have taken over many local areas, the local government, police and even some of the army has been penetrated by the drugs traffickers. This leaves the local government unable to do anything against the traffickers. It was not the drugs traffickers who created the institutional problems that allowed the government to become penetrated in the first place; corruption, inefficient police forces and a weak judiciary were already a problem. [3]  [1] The Economist, ‘The siesta congress’, 21 January 2012.  [2] Gundzik, Jephraim P. , ‘As Elections Approach, Mexico Faces Internal Instability', Power and Interest News report.  [3] Freeman, Laurie, ‘State of Siege: Drug-Related Violence and Corruption in Mexico Unintended Consequences of the War on Drugs, WOLA Summer report (2006), p.2.

The United States can be blamed for the downward spiral. There would not be a downward spiral of fear and violence if the United States was not a source of arms for the cartels.

Language politics exist, and this is a consideration for any politician, not to be ignored. States may find it politically wise to encourage multilingualism. For example, Nicolas Sarkozy wants France to be a bilingual country. This is indeed a tall order, but we must not dismiss and avoid challenges simply because of the effort they entail. Sarkozy’s desire to make such efforts is commendable and other EU Member States should follow suit by becoming multilingual.

The status quo is impractical, because we expect MEPs to be multilingual in order to be effective.  It is highly demanding to request all MEPs to be multilingual and translation and interpreting time takes time out of the meetings when vital issues could and should be discussed and addressed and in which problems should be solved. They have been elected on the strength of their political abilities, not their language skills. If we require all MEPs to be multilingual, we are actually excluding many politicians who could be very skilled, but don’t speak enough languages for the EU.

Working through many languages in the European Union costs money that could be spent on EU’s projects rather than unnecessary conversation.  It is very expensive to employ translators and interpreters, and to publish all documents in French as well as English. Ireland Business News reported that the EU’s translation (excluding interpreting) costs were 800 million Euros in 2006. This money is better spent on the EU’s actual practices.

There are often no direct translations for indispensible EU-specific vocabulary, so Member States should refer to it in their native language. The European Union uses in its debates and practices lots of technical jargon. For such vocabulary, there is often not a direct translation. The Member States must be able to speak about such important issues effectively and, while there exists no direct translations for much EU jargon, the best way to do this is through their native languages.

There already exists a pan-European identity across all EU Member States, and a single working language would help to strengthen that identity.  There is no need for any prefixed or specified Europeans anymore. Given that the continent of Europe is merging into one single identity, there is no need to have more than one working EU language in operation; this could create divisions and even tensions within the overall identity of ‘European’. The Euro coins are no longer specific to each nation, goods are bought and sold between EU nations without restrictions. The seams between the European nations are fast disappearing as they merge ever closer together. Therefore, one singe language for managing all the EU Member States’ communal affairs makes perfect sense.

The EU ought to make English its working language in order to be a more transparent democracy for the rest of the world.  If the EU uses the global language of English as its working language, other governments, parliaments and Unions will be able to understand its activities and methods of operation. 27% of the world’s population speak English. In the EU Member States alone, there are 61, 850,000 native English speakers and 168,000,000 non- native speakers of English. [1] It is a medium that could reach so many people and through which the EU can influence other governments to take similar positive action. So many of the world’s large problems stem from a lack of communication. War is often the result of two sides being unable to communicate and mediate, and so violence is resorted to. It is often described as ‘the only language the enemy understands’ because of a failure to work out differences in a non-violent way. When fighting breaks out, it brings with it all manner of other issues such as famine and trauma. English is a global language and the EU should use this to its advantage. The EU brings democracy and should serve as a great example thereof for the rest of the world. Populations of all other countries need to be able to understand the EU’s activity and the way to operate a democracy as demonstrated by the EU, and the way to achieve this is for the EU to use the global language of English so as to render transparent the running of a democracy, so that it can spread. If the EU can communicate its good ideas successfully, it can influence other organisations, providing them with the antidotes to their own problems.  [1] Wikipedia, List of countries by English-speaking population, en.wikipedia.org

So many of the world’s problems stem from a lack of communication. War is often a result of two sides unable to mediate, and one side often refers to resorting violence as ‘the only language the opponent understands’. This is what prompted Sir Winston Churchill to say ‘To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war’. [1] He meant that communication and compromise are always better than resorting to conflict, not least of all because it brings with it new problems of poverty, mentally scarred people and famine.  However, communication works both ways: what is said and how well it is heard. The EU cannot simply assume its activities will be well listened to. Its own issues and actions have little in common with the governments in the developing world who truly need help and improved strategies. For example, the EU deals with those problems facing a developed world; health, education, governmental services. By contrast, those governments in the developing world are faced with a whole array of problems that bear no resemblance to these, and far more serious ones; child soldiers, the setting up of schools, as opposed to making improvements therein. Therefore, listening to the EU will not inspire, advise or help the governments of those countries who really need it, regardless of how easily accessible and understandable the information is.  [1] Platt, Suzy ed., Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, 1989.

Europe is only an umbrella identity; the diverse elements that form it must not be ignored. European identity is comprised of many elements, these being the many different countries within the continent. These different countries assert their individual identities through culture, people, traditions and languages. These must be acknowledged so that the EU is aware of the identities of the very Member States that comprise it. Keeping languages alive in the face of language death is a very emotive issue. Such response to one’s own language is what makes us human. To deny people affection for their own language is to dehumanise them. In the whole, if the EU tried to strengthen its identity by choosing one language, it would harm its true identity, as a group of diverse states, joined together.

It is favourable that the EU employs people and one large way it does so is by hiring linguists and translators. Unemployment needs to be kept down and is an issue the EU claims to take seriously.  The EU has the largest translation unit in the world. It employs some 1, 650 permanent onsite linguists and 550 support staff, as well as freelance translators all over the world. [1] A Connect Euranet debate took place in France in which the EU representatives and ministers spoke of the urgent need to address the pressing issues of employment and unemployment. It is unjustifiable for the EU to fight unemployment and also render a large proportion of its staff- the linguists- out of work.  [1] Nitobe Centre for language democracy, ‘FAQ – Translation/interpretation’.

Politics touches on emotional issues. Emotional issues specific to a country are best expressed by that country in their native language. If the EU Member States must communicate through a foreign language, this means there is a barrier between a) what is said and the emotion contained therein and b) the act of actually communicating it. When forced to express one’s true opinions through a foreign tongue, its true meaning or the level of its importance may become diluted, misinterpreted or otherwise compromised. It is better for EU Member States to communicate using their native languages, for this way there is a much closer emotional proximity between a) what is said and b) the emotion contained in saying it. Thus, the emotions and desires of the people are more faithfully expressed.

It is more practical to work through one language that all Member States understand in order to ensure the effectiveness of communication.  Multilingualism could lead to several breakdowns in communication, which only give rise to further problems. This is especially likely between French and English where there are many ‘false friends’. For example ‘actuellement’ in French translates into English as ‘currently’, not ‘actually’. Using only one working language will eradicate confusion and reduce the number of errors. This is especially important in the realm of international politics, where small errors can breed long-term consequences.

One working language understood by all Member States is a more practical way of communicating often untranslatable yet vital EU-specific vocabulary.  The EU does use technical jargon for which there is often not a direct translation. Therefore, it makes more sense to only have one name for each concept, by which that concept shall be known, in order to economize effort and to not waste time creating translations for EU-specific jargon. It is not chauvinistic, or even a matter of preference, to use English as a working language over other languages; it just so happens to be a language that is understood throughout the EU Member States. It is better and more effective to spend the time addressing the issues rather than deciding by which names to call these entities that give rise to issues within the EU.

Prioritising translation may well have negative results. A mistranslation can lead to severe confusion and when such sensitive information is being handled, this is not at all desirable. Further, confusion can result if one entity becomes known by two different names. The practice of translation may only create tensions and divisions between bodies within the EU. Some may be angered that their literature is not being translated, when another organisation’s literature is, and is thusly getting a higher profile and receiving more attention. Therefore, one single WORKING language makes sense.

Press freedom is a separate issue from EU language politics. The press must have reasonable freedoms, and so they are perfectly within their rights to express anti-Europe opinions; provoking debate and discussion on political issues is essential to a well-informed readership. The anti-EU arguments get more coverage than pro-EU ones, but there are many arguments in favor of the EU within the British press. Freedom of the British press to express anti-EU opinion is their right and should not affect the use of English as the single working language within the EU at all. It should not impinge upon improving the strength and effectiveness of communication within the EU at all.

Translation is an intercultural activity that the EU must embrace if it continues to hold “United in diversity” as its motto.  Ernst-August Gutt observes the use of translation “across boundaries”. [1] As a body dedicated to being “United in diversity”, the EU should practice translation in order to affect this intercultural activity. The linguist Laurence Venuti observes this: “Translation is the ‘trial of the foreign’. But in a double sense. In the first place, it establishes a relationship between the Self-Same (propre) and the foreign by aiming to open up the foreign work to us in its utter foreignness …And this trial, often an exile, can also exhibit the most singular power of the translating act: to reveal the foreign work’s most original kernel, its most deeply-buried, most self-same…most distant”. [2]  Governmental bodies such as the EU have to mediate and compromise when discussing issues and debating. Translation is simply another type of mediation. The linguist Laurence Venuti describes it as “a bilingual mediated process of communication”. [3] Translation in a political setting is therefore simply an extension of this political mediation strongly present in the European Union.  [1] Venuti, L. (ed) The Translation Studies Reader, 2000, p.378  [2] Ibid p.284  [3] Ibid p.161

If the EU ‘elects’ a single working language, it will be deliberately contributing to the narrow-minded, anglicising of the entire world, despite being a union of diverse cultures with the power to fight it.  A “single working language” implies English, a global language, and already one of the two key EU languages, the other being the lesser understood French. That English could be the default language worries the French where they fear the rise of what the French call anglosnoberrie ; the anglicising of the world at the expense of other languages including French.  The EU would become one more example of English dominating the world at the expense of the many cultures and languages of Europe. This is indeed an extremely hypocritical stance to take, when the EU is a body that seeks to strengthen intercultural activity and give all the cultures within it a voice. This cannot be done when the overwhelming majority- twenty-six- of the languages, ‘voices’, of the Member States are silenced and only one is given a platform on which to speak.

There is no need to translate absolutely everything, but prioritising translation is favourable.  EU citizens do not have to translate everything; to keep the costs of interpreters and translators down, we can just interpret and translate the most important information. This policy of ‘prioritising translation’ has been adopted by the Welsh Assembly. The Assembly translates into Welsh only the information and literature that is most relevant and will actually be read. Translation IS a realistic solution and should be considered over the EU working through one single language.

Britain is the country of Euroscepticism, and its official language is English. For English to be the medium, the mouthpiece for the EU communications is wholly wrong.  English, the language which would likely be selected as the single European language, is also the language of Euroscepticism, as perfectly demonstrated by the British press. Anderson and Weymouth explain in Insulting the public?: The British Press and the European Union, ”Even those aspects of Euroscepticism which are perceived to be founded on less mythical stuff, such as the economic arguments against the single currency, get a better coverage than any arguments in favour.” [1] Right-wing tabloids publish very anti-Europe articles, scapegoating the German Parliament, the Bundestag, for what they see as the depletion of Britain’s say in her own politics, and using vocabulary with WW2 undertones. Even The Times, the UK paper of record, has voiced highly anti-Europe sentiments. It is through such articles and press coverage as this that the derogatory term Europrat has been coined.  For English, the language of Euroscepticism, to be the official and single working language of the EU is unthinkable; it is ironic at best and ridiculous at worst.  [1] Anderson, P.J, and Antony Weymouth. Insulting the Public? The British Press and the European Union. London: Longman, 1999.

To work through one single global language that is understood by all cultures makes perfect sense; it is a medium through which they can all communicate within the context of EU operations. The EU is not asking the MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) to address their own people nor their parliament at home through the medium of English. The use of a single working language is just to ensure effectiveness when discussing and debating EU matters between Member States.

The use of English does not mean Anglo-snobbery; that is a prejudice against Anglophones. The two EU official languages are English and French. If the EU were to adopt a single WORKING language, in all likelihood it would be English, but this is not to be seen as Westminster snobbery. English is not directly synonymous with Britain. It is also the official language of the former British colonies such as America, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and is, to a large extent, a global language. Britain itself is a very Eurosceptic nation, and so the use of its official language cannot logically be taken as British rule over the EU. However, all the more Europhile countries should not feel unfairly treated in using this language to communicate; if all these pro-EU countries communicate through English i.e. a global language that is not their own, they are less likely to show any extreme bias toward their own country and culture. Embracing English, a foreign method of communication, means that in the EU debating chamber, a Member State’s arguments will not be contaminated by the connotations held within their mother tongue, and the ideas cemented within that culture. As explained by Laurence Venuti in The Translation Studies Reader, “deficiency of the receiving code has to do with…such things as individuality…and geographical origin of the speakers”. [1] Eradicating individuality reduces bias and deficiency of expression.  [1] Venuti, L. (ed) The Translation Studies Reader, 2000, p.344

Vernet sought the permission of the British consulate before establishing his colony – clearly even he thought there was ambiguity over the status of the islands.  Moreover the British and Spanish settlements ended not because of commercial failure but because of indirect pressure caused by war. If Argentinian sovereignty survives expulsion through war then presumably British sovereignty could survive temporary abandonment due to war.  It is also difficult to describe a settlement as permanent when it was on the point of collapse when the British took it over.

Argentina created a permanent settlement  Argentina formally took posession of the islands in 1820 and established permanent settlements in that decade. Previous settlements by Spain and Britain had been military in nature (garrisons). Britain did not protest to these acts of sovereignty. The Argentinean settlements were only ended by illegal military force, the first strike by an American warship, acting on its own initiative and encouraged by the British charge de affairs in Buenos Aires, and the second and last blow by a British taskforce.

If military costs are excluded, the islands are self-supporting. They are of great value because they bring rights to fishing and oil exploration. If the oil that has been detected in the islands’ territory can be extracted economically, the islands will be an even greater asset to Britain. [1] Strategically, they provide NATO with an airbase in the south Atlantic. Port Stanley was used as a supply base for the Royal Navy in WW1, resulting in the Battle of the Falkland Islands. [2]  Moreover ‘value’ means more than products and services – the value of the inhabitant’s right to self-determination is priceless  [1] Swint, Brian, ‘Oil Grab in Falkland Island Seen Tripling U.K. Reserves: Energy’, Bloomberg, 25 January 2012,   [2]

International relations  Returning the islands would vastly improve Britain’s relationship with Argentina and Latin America as a whole. This would help Britain’s diplomatic and economic ties with the region. It would also be consistent with Britain’s post-war policy of decolonisation, which has seen it withdraw from almost every other colonial possession since 1945. Not only has Britain withdrawn from India, Africa, Malaysia and much of the Caribbean, it has also handed back Hong Kong to China – surely a similar case to that of the Falkland islands and Argentina.

Argentina inherited Spain’s claim to sovereignty  Both Argentina and the islands were under Spainish sovereignty. Spain ruled the islands from Argentina – they were therefore part of the same territory – doing so free of British intervention (or complaints) from 1770 until 1811, i.e. 41 years.  Upon independence from Spain, Argentina rightfully asserted sovereignty over the former Spanish territory, a principle that would latter be known under international law as uti possidetis juris. Britain did not claim sovereignty over the islands when Spain left them in 1811. Nor did Britain immediately challenge Argentina’s assertion of sovereignty in 1820, when David Jewett claimed the islands for Argentina, or in 1825, when the first treaty between the new country and Britain was signed.

The fact that Spain never formally renounced sovereignty is irrelevant – when Britain asserted its territorial claim Spain acquiesced.  Additionally if Spain’s claim did not lapse when it evacuated its colony then surely neither did Britain’s. Nor is it obvious that Argentina should have inherited the Spanish claim to the Falklands – they lie 250 miles off the coast of mainland South America.  Britain was of course not going to immediately contest the 1816 claim as she did not yet recognise Argentina so far as Britain was concern the Argentines were not sovereign and did not have sovereignty over any of their territory – at the time the UK recognised Spanish sovereignty over the mainland that Argentina claimed.

Britain already has a working relationship with Argentina. In 2001, Tony Blair became the first British prime minister to visit Argentina since the 1982 conflict. [1] The agreements made with the Menem government show the potential for peaceful cooperation without returning the islands.  In any case, direct relations with Argentina are of little strategic or economic importance to Britain, except where they affect the Falkland Islands. Trade policy is handled on both sides at a supra-national level, through the EU and Mercosur respectively.  The Falkland Islands are simply not like other examples of decolonisation. Elsewhere Britain has given independence to the indigenous peoples of its former colonial possessions, responding to their desire for self-determination. The Falklands have no indigenous population – their inhabitants regard themselves as British in identity and have no desire to be ruled by Argentina, indeed Britain’s Prime Minister has gone so far as to say the Argentines are the ones who are sounding colonial. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Blair’s historic Argentina visit’, 2 August 2001,   [2] BBC News ‘Argentina outraged at Cameron’s ‘colonialism’ remarks’, 19 January 2012,

Proximity is a poor reason to make a claim to sovereignty as the Falklands lie outside the 200 mile limit that Argentina claims in the southern Atlantic. [1] The Falkland Islands today have effective self-government. They have their own elected legislature and an independent judiciary. The islands are also economically self-sufficient but for the cost of the Military Garrison – which is only necessary because of the Argentinian claim. Moreover with advances in communication the location of the settlement being thousands of miles away from Britain no longer makes much difference when it comes to governing the islands.  [1] R. Reginald &amp; J.M. Elliot, 'Tempest in a Teapot : The Falkland Islands War', The Borgo Press, 1983,

Value  The islands are of minimal value to Britain. In an era of satellites and long-range ships and aircraft, the islands no longer have strategic value. Maintaining a garrison there is an unnecessary expense. Jorge Luis Borges (an Argentinean writer) likened the 1982 conflict to ‘two bald men fighting over a comb’. [1]  [1] ‘Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986)’,

Distance  The Falkland Islands are 8000 miles from the UK – in the modern age it is absurd that one country can claim sovereignty over land halfway across the globe from it.  The needs and wishes of the Falkland islanders would be much better served if the government responsible for them was local.

Britain sent its soldiers to fight an unjust war. Their sacrifices do not make British occupation of the islands legal.

The British colony was established only though the expulsion of the Argentinian colony. It does not matter how long ago this happened - as the legal maxim goes ‘title does not pass with theft’.  Colonists do not have a right to self-determination. It would be absurd if a group of people could invade some land, drive off the people living there; and then state that they have acquired the right to decide for themselves to stay there. The natural consequence of that principle would be that anyone could gain property through ethnic cleansing and long enough adverse possession.

Moral Hazard  Returning the islands would imply that violence and threats are legitimate ways to conduct diplomacy. Britain would be giving in to the invasion of 1982 and Kirchner’s more recent rhetoric. This would set a dangerous precedent that Britain will abandon its interests if threatened.R

The islanders are the only ones who can decide.  It is the Falkland Islanders themselves who have to decide whose sovereignty they should fall under; British, Argentine or even potentially their own. The Falkland Islands are a democracy with a democratically elected Legislative Assembly and Executive Council (made from members of the Legislative Assembly). Similarly it has its own courts. The self-determination of the islanders is prominent in their constitution. [1] The Falklands have therefore been recognised by the British government as a nation just like the Scots, Welsh and Irish. This means that the decision on any change of sovereignty in the future will be up to the islanders alone to make. [2]  It is no longer up to Britain to simply cede the islands even if they wanted to.  [1] The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008, Statutory Instruments, 2008 no. 0000,   [2] Ivanov, Lyubomir, ‘The Future Of The Falkland Islands And Its People’, February 2003,

Length of occupation  The primary means of acquiring title to territory is through the effective exercise of the functions of a state within that territory. This means that Britain has a right to the territory under either ‘occupation’ (if Argentina is not considered to have occupied previously) or ‘prescription’ if it has. [1] The ICJ has stated that the claim must be  I, the possession must be exercised in the character of a sovereign  II, the possession must be peaceful and uninterrupted  III, the possession must be public  IV, the possession must endure for a certain length of time. [2]  Britain would not have difficulty arguing that it has continuously exercised sovereignty for over 170 years. It has also been peaceful (no attacking native tribes, no unrest etc). It would seem silly to transfer sovereignty to Argentina on the basis of Argentina having only occupied the islands for at most five years compared to the long period of British occupation both after and before the Argentine colony.  [1] Dixon, Martin, Textbook on International Law, 6th ed., Oxford, 2007, p.155,   [2] International Court of Justice, ‘Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia)’, 23 December 1999,  p.62/1103

Blood has been spilt  If Britain returned the islands, it would be a profound insult to the soldiers who fought and died to liberate them in 1982. The campaign was honourably fought in defence of the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to determine their own future. It was fought against a military dictatorship which used the campaign in a cynical attempt to divert domestic attention away from its oppressive, corrupt and incompetent rule. One of the positive consequences of British victory was that the military junta fell from power and Argentina became democratic. So Britain, Argentina and the Falkland islanders all have cause to celebrate the outcome of the 1982-83 war.

If Britain did not have legitimate sovereignty over the Falklands to begin with then it is illegitimate for Britain to hand that sovereignty over to the islanders.

Popular sovereignty  The people of the Falklands are an established community with a right to self-determination. They are not a transitory population – many of them can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early 19th Century. They are the only successful colonists of the Falklands.  The Argentinian claim of sovereignty through inheritance of the Spanish title (uti possedetis [1] ) is not accepted as a general article of international law, and even if it was it would have to be subordinate to the Islander’s right of self-determination.  It is absurd that Argentina claims that the Islanders do not have a right to self-determination because they replaced an indigenous Argentinian population 200 years ago when Argentina consists largely of Spanish colonists who replaced the indigenous Native American population in roughly the same time period.  [1] That newly independent nations inherit the claims of the old colonial states along the colonial boundaries. Dixon, Martin, Textbook on International Law, 6th ed., Oxford, 2007, p.163,

It would not be possible for the UK to argue that it has a claim through prescription and the length of occupation because the original taking over the Argentine colony was not legitimate, as the islands were not res nullis.  In the Chamizal Case (Mexico vs United States), the ICJ rejected the right to title by prescription invoked by the United States because "the physical possession taken by citizens of the United States and the political control exercised by the local and Federal Governments, have been constantly challenged and questioned by the Republic of Mexico, through its accredited diplomatic agents." [1]  [1] The Chamizal Case (Mexico, United States), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 15 June 1911, Vol.XI, pp.309-347

Returning the islands would not be a sign that violence and threats are legitimate. It would be recognition of the justice of Argentina’s claim and the illegality of Britain’s occupation of the islands. In fact, it would show that illegal acts of violence, like that of 1833, will eventually be overturned.

Fundamentally, the topics raised by Nollywood are commercialising accepted views. The industry is building a business founded on distributing images of witchcraft, abuse, and domestic violence.  First, a majority of the films are politically incorrect and provide negative portrayals of women and sexuality. Gender roles are reinforced as women become sexualised objects, male possession, and the source of trouble - required to be put in their ‘place’. In the case of LGBT representations, homosexuality has been represented as Satanic in films such as 2010’s ‘Men in Love’ [1] . Second, in the case of witchcraft, dramas have made society more accepting of, and open to, sorcery. The films show how it remains prevalent in society and can provide a tool to access riches. With the audience interested in watching stories on witchcraft the industry is feeding such demands. Witchcraft sells; and continues to remain a prominent theme justifying why people make their decisions and action.  This is not the kind of perception change Africa needs.  [1] In Nigeria homosexuality is illegal and continues to be criminalised.

A new perspective, raising topical issues  The first film created in Nollywood - ‘Living in Bondage’ - raised fundamental issues concerning marriage, wealth and spirituality. The film indicates the need to be aware of cults and what they can drive individuals to do. Furthermore films such ‘Street Girls’ and ‘Mama’s Girls’ provide insight into the lives of prostitutes and the sex industry. ‘Street Girls’ is enabling awareness of why girls are forced into prostitution and why they may be forced to commit criminal offences. Poverty is identified as a key driving factor.  The range of topics covered - from immigration, women, witchcraft, corruption, terrorism, and infrastructure deficits - counteract historic silences in the public sphere. The films are raising awareness to viewers by presenting the stories in a new light - understandable, humorous, and relatable; and will encourage citizens to demand change.  Nollywood is showing the limits of believing in a single perspective, the Western perspective, to stories on Africa.

Although the industry has encouraged entrepreneurialism we need to recognise it is also promoting risky businesses. Firstly, the individuals working in the industry are required to produce a quick turnover. The fact that no security and support is provided by the government or state means the risk of failed entrepreneurial strategies falls on the individual. The producers and directors may be forced to borrow money from loan sharks and at high interest-rates to get capital quickly; and need to be able to ensure profits are generated rapidly. Such a tenuous industry is clearly not in a position to change opinions of Africa and may instead be creating a negative perception of risk-taking and cutthroat capitalism.

Development from within  Nollywood is showcasing Nigeria’s capability to sustain, build, and finance its own economy. Recent estimates suggest around 50 films are produced weekly, selling between 20,000 to 200,000 units, and creating jobs for around one million individuals (Moudio, 2013). The industry is initiating vital development, enabling Nigeria to have capital to change perceptions.  Nollywood is following previous cultural industry paths. Hollywood developed from low-budget films, and in 2013 the entertainment industry generated around $522bn in revenue, and is continuing to be one of America’s biggest sources of tourism (Statista, 2013). In Nollywood’s case, the industry is already proving to be of vital importance for regional and domestic tourism.

Opportunities for development are limited as the industry continues to function informally. The informal structure means there is no legal institution controlling transactions, there is no governing body ensuring taxation is paid and revenues collected, and finally, there is little security to the workers within the industry. Financial records are limited in the industry, which makes it hard to predict the developmental scope of Nollywood and the real revenues produced.  Informality prevents legitimacy; capability to assist national development; and fundamental capital losses. It also prevents it becoming a force for changing perceptions of those outside Africa. Formalisation is required for the industry to assist developmental potential [1] .  [1] See further readings: McCall, 2012.

First, the narrative of whether Africa is 'rising' has been debated, and requires reflection. Second, if Africa were rising will Nollywood push Nigeria to rise in the wrong direction? Nollywood is a private-sector organisation, with concentrated profits. Inequality in Nigeria has continued to rise since 1985 as shown by the GINI coefficient (Aigbokhan, 2008); and with lavish lifestyles being created for famous actresses and directors who hit ‘big money’ will Nollywood only act to benefit elites and create a new elite class? Economic growth and revenue production cannot solve the issue of poverty without tackling inequality.

Encouraging film entrepreneurs  The Nollywood industry is providing solutions to pressing issues - including high rates of unemployment. The dynamic industry provides an opportunity for youths to explore interests and invest in their talents and creativity. The recognition gained for Nollywood has shown how Nigeria's youths can initiate, and develop, a sustainable industry. Rather than seeing the rising young population as a potential threat [1] , the rise of Nollywood showcases the talent of the young population and helps overthrow perceptions of Africa just being about natural resources.  Additionally, the growth of Nollywood is continuing to encourage individuals to enter the creative industry – whether to work in production, acting or distribution, the rise of Nollywood is creating an entrepreneurial spirit, drive, and motivation to create change. Individuals are no longer relying on the government or international community to provide funds, support and infrastructure, but moulding their own futures.  [1] See further readings: Urdal, 2006.

Epitomising rising Africa  Nollywood epitomises Africa, and life in African spaces. The fast-pace nature of production shows how quickly things changes and everything is on the move. The structure of production shows the dynamic nature of everyday life, action, and flow of ideas. As Rem Koolhaas’ (2002) film documentary - Lagos - showed the congestion, informality, and buzz of the city needs to be viewed positively and a sign of entrepreneurialism. The documentary suggested African cities were setting a new trend to be followed by the West, and developing a rising economy. Africa is not simply in need of assistance, but rather a fast-pace environment that needs greater understanding.  Africa is rising [1] and Nollywood acts to reinforce this reality. With more films being produced, bigger revenues made, and new investors emerging, Nollywood shows Africa's economies are changing, growing, and emerging. Interest and collaborative investments being made by the World Bank shows the industry will continue to rise. Nollywood’s growth provides an alternative to the dominant Afro-pessimism.  [1] See further readings: The Economist, 2013.

New funding sources are emerging. The diasporic community for example are playing a central role in funding the long-term growth of the industry. Recognising potential, and being a major consumer base for the films produced, the African diaspora is investing in Nollywood.

The issue of piracy is being tackled. Recognising the potential benefits Nollywood can bring to Nigeria and the scale of the piracy problem, investments are being made to stop piracy in the growing industry.  Investments have been proposed by the World Bank to tackle piracy, and ensure profits are not lost. Further, Nollywood UP, the Nollywood Upgrade Project, is providing funding to control piracy. Nollywood UP is improving the capacity of the innovative industry - by providing solutions for distribution and vital training in high-quality film making.

Small audience viewings  In reality, Nollywood’s audience is constrained - questioning the extent to which stereotypes can be changed. First, language acts as a barrier. 56% of Nollywood films are produced in local languages - such as Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa (UNESCO, 2009). Although English accounts for 44% of films produced, the linguistic diversity may limit who sees which film and what issues are therefore discussed. Second, a majority of the films are sold in hardcopy - whether on cassette or pirate DVDs.  Finally, the industry is characterised by fast and cheap production. Quantity over quality limits popularity and audience viewings. Further, the limited attention to quality means Nollywood remains at the bottom of the global value chain for film production. It is difficult to change perceptions with poor quality films.

Short term hype  Despite the boom in Nollywood’s industry it remains hard to get investment. With funding issues prevalent the hype surrounding Nollywood is temporary.  The difficulties in getting funding, mean films produced are often safe and politically popular - aware that funds can be gained for backing. For example, the controversial film – Boko Haram – aimed to provide an alternative perspective into the Islamist extremist group. The core subject matter was to explore terrorism; however, following the controversial story and topic, marketers dropped out, fearing a political backlash. Titles had to be changed and the film adapted to be more sensitive. The ideas behind the films, and the stories told, are being altered due to funding constraints [1] . Perspectives, on and in Africa, cannot be changed if the topics raised are altered to meet sensitivity regulations. Hegemony will persist.  [1] See further readings: Hirsch, 2013.

The problem of piracy  Pirated copies of Nollywood films are a key issue. Piracy emerges as an issue for two key reasons. First, the lack of the lack of legal structure - the lack of formal regulation. Legal systems and strict copyright controls are needed to ensure piracy is stopped. Second, the production system is slow - therefore alternative means of production are used to meet the growing demand for films released. New methods for distribution are required.  Calls have been made for the government to take action against piracy. However, with corruption prevalent little action has been made. Half of the film profits are lost through piracy (CNN, 2009), and piracy acts to reinforce the image of bad governance, and inadequate structures, within African states. The industry is being undermined and undervalued, through the piracy market, with high costs to the entrepreneurs.

Nollywood films are viewed globally. Channels are dedicated to the films - such as South Africa’s MultiChoice and BSkyB’s Nollywood Movies. BSkyB distributes programmes and films directly to airlines, instantly broadening the audience. Furthermore, YouTube subscribers have sought to enhance the global viewing popularity; and recently developed iROKO Partners is ensuring internet users can access Nollywood films. iROKO Partners shows the biggest markets are based in the US, UK, Canada, Italy and Germany (Kermeliotis, 2012).  New partnerships are being formed with Hollywood and global film festivals [1] , which show the future shift of broadcasting Nollywood films in cinemas. A recent film produced by Pat Nebo - ‘Dead broke’ - is set to be premiered in Lagos, Accra, and London.  [1] Cannes (2013) recently showcased ‘La Pirogue’; and in the summer of 2013 France hosted its first Nollywood Week in Paris, showcasing seven of the best Nollywood films.

This sounds rather like an ultimatum to the UN – if you don’t like what we give you and complain we won’t give you anything. The question here is that the UN really does need more money in order to give the necessary assistance to countries, which strive for basic things like food, water, protection - “We are here today on behalf of people the world has all too often forgotten: the weak, the disadvantaged, those suffering the effects of climate change, violence, disaster and disease,” Mr. Ban told those gathered in Geneva for the “programme kick-off” for the Appeal.“ [1] The whole concept of the organization is to provide help; however, of course, this help cannot come for free it has a certain cost. The UN general secretary should not constantly ask and appeal for funding, this is not his job, although it happens all too frequently.  The UN protects the whole world and the fact that the US gives the most money for this protection should not be considered harmful to the American people.  [1] “Ban Ki-moon urges early funding for $3.8 billion UN humanitarian appeal”

The United Nations needs the United States.  The United Nations is a voluntary body and reflects global realities, including the role of the USA as the dominant superpower. Without the consent of the USA, the UN can achieve nothing, and active US opposition to the UN could destroy the organisation along with all its potential for good. It is better for the UN to accept US demands for budgetary restraint and reform than to provoke the USA by unrealistic demands into withdrawing from its councils.This means that the UN should reflect the views of the United States as a result "Policy of the United Nations should be based on three fundamental questions: Are we advancing the American interests? Are we upholding American values? Are we being responsible towards for the American taxpayer dollars?" According to Josh Rogin "Unfortunately, right now, the answer to all three questions is no." [1]  [1] Rogin, Josh. ” House Republicans' next target: the United Nations” 26/01/2011

UN money is spent responsiblyOf course the American taxpayers' money should not be spent promiscuously, but that's not the case. The United Nations spends the money it gets on solving global problems and helping the needy, both of which are useful to the United States as it is a role the US would otherwise have to perform.Furthermore international organizations such as the UN are highly advantageous to the US and its population. Sarah Margon and John Norris argue "Withholding funds from the United Nations would fail to reap significant savings, make it more difficult for our nation to lead, and seriously undermine our highest foreign policy and national security priorities …restricting U.S. support for the United Nations ultimately has a much higher price tag than it does savings as doing so substantially decreases our political legitimacy while costing America money and jobs.” [1]  [1] Margon, Sarah; Norris, John. “Withdrawing from the United Nations: A Misguided Assault” 2/05/2011

There has been a serious inequality in the funding of the UN budget.  The phrase “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” is appropriate here. It is noteworthy that Russia has a Security Council veto, but does not even appear in the top 15 nations contributing to the budget. The UN has become dependent on the USA and other industrialized nations to foot an enormous amount of the bill for UN operations. While the proportions of other states’ economies are markedly smaller, other nations sometimes reap far more of the rewards of UN existence than they contribute - “The United States is far and away the biggest single contributor to the U.N. system. In 2006, the total U.S. contributions came to at least $2.7 billion — and that excludes the private sector, which by most independent estimates, draws most of its $1.5 billion in U.N. contributions from U.S. sources.” [1]  Should the US remain a consistent donor and allow itself to be asked for more and more as the UN budget becomes more bloated, or should it assert itself and say that, in real dollars, a line must be drawn?  [1] Russel, George. “The U.N.: Even More Expensive Than It Looks” 06/11/2008

While it is true that the United States pays a substantial portion of the UN’s budget, it does so for historical and pragmatic reasons. Its economy and budget are significantly larger than other member states. It holds a veto over actions taken in the UN Security Council. It benefits from its size and position. As much as the UN is an influential player, this influence is transferred to the US automatically.  ”There is nothing that restrains the United States from using the U.N. to defend and promote American interests abroad… As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council , the U.S. holds veto power over 70% of the U.N. budget. As a country with citizens in senior U.N. leadership positions, we work to shape and influence U.N. activities.” [1]. Therefore the US has only to gain from its rather big contributions to the UN budget.  Furthermore this allows the US to insist on some UN decisions, which it feels are important such as the Palestinian issue – “… The United States has the leverage to prevent this diplomatic disaster if the Obama Administration wants to use it: we are by far the largest donor to the U.N., financing roughly a quarter of its entire budget.” [2].  [1] Danfor, John. Why the U.S. should keep the U.N. in business” 27/05/2011   [2] Kleefeld, Eric. “Gingrich: Cut Off U.N. Funding If They Recognize Palestinian State”  palestinian-state.php

No-growth budgets actually undermine fiscal accountability and discipline. While the USA has held the line on growth, it and other nations have simultaneously asked for the UN to do more in areas such as peacekeeping and nation-building. As the demands on the UN grow, and the budget does not grow with it, UN administrators are forced to move money around the budget to pay for basic overhead (even electric bills) and cover shortfalls in one program or another. Thus the basic goal-setting and accountability the US strives for is undermined. For example there have been complaints about taking money from the peacekeeping fund. The United Kingdom has objected "Resolution 50/218 on the Working Capital Fund did not give the Secretary-General a "blank cheque to fund the deficits of major contributors through enforced borrowing from peace-keeping accounts". Borrowing from peace-keeping funds to finance the regular budget is unacceptable,and if a memberstate goes so far as to refuse to pay the accumulation of more arrears could only increase the financial risk to the Organization. Cuba also felt that "the spirit that guided the founders" of the UN had not been reflected in the new budget. Instead, it had responded to the "hegemonic" and political interests of the major contributor and could be "the first in a series of measures leading, in essence, not to the reform but to the destruction" of the UN."1  1 "Tough, no-growth budget for 1996-1997" 1996

The US has a right to expect that its taxpayers' money is spent responsibly.  The United States has made a significant investment in the institution. Not only was it a founder, but it plays host to the body in New York and makes the largest contribution of any nation each year. "The debate over whether the United Nations will continue to overcharge American taxpayers is over — and the U.S. wound up on the losing end. In a dramatic turnaround from steady declines since 2001, the percentage that the U.S. will be charged for U.N. peacekeeping has been sharply increased for the next three years, and U.S. taxpayers will end up paying roughly $100 million more each year than they would have if the 2009 assessment rate had been maintained.” [1] This is not acting responsibly in a time where Americans are feeling the pinch from the economic downturn. American taxpayers recognize that their society faces a great many problems that could be addressed with the dollars that are annually spent on the UN. While Americans are generally supportive of the institution, they have a right to know that their investment is used appropriately and pays dividends in good policy.  [1] Schaefer, Brent. “U.N. Dues: Obama Lets American Taxpayers Down” 6/01/2010  .

No-growth funding policy results in better operation of the finances and will improve financial discipline.  UN reform has been a major objective of the United States, and government leaders assert that six years of no-growth budgets and pressure from the United States have resulted in reforms of the General Assembly, budget preparation procedures, the creation of sunset provisions for UN programs and improvements in staff security. It is argued that these reforms could not have been accomplished without the carrot and stick approach of the no-growth policy. The UN has a budget in the billions of dollars which it can spend more efficiently if it sets goals and priorities, evaluates outcomes and eliminates waste and corruption. This has already been proven in 1996-1997 –"…Although this budget is not as lean as my Government originally proposed, it is perhaps the most austere ever adopted by the General Assembly", the United States representative said. The budget included a number of significant reform measures and marked "another in a series of significant steps towards a more effective, efficient and accountable United Nations", he declared, calling the Organization "unique and indispensable".” [1]  The fact that the US has succeeded in keeping the UN to a no-growth budget for the past six fiscal years is indicative of the workability of the approach.  [1] “Tough, no-growth budget for 1996-1997” 1996

It is not clear who is a debtor to whom. First of all "The United Nations' Tax Equalization Fund (TEF) owes the United States nearly $180 million" [1] Furthermore Cliff Kincaid, a journalist who writes frequently on UN affairs states: "Claims that the United States owes the United Nations more than $1 billion are false. No legal debt exists or can exist. The UN Charter does not empower the organization to compel payment from any member state. Even the notion that the United States owes money in the sense of a moral obligation is fallacious. It ignores the military and other assistance that the Clinton administration has provided the UN and for which the United States has not been properly credited or reimbursed. Over the past five years, that assistance has amounted to at least $11 billion, and perhaps as much as $15 billion. The administration has been diverting funds from federal agencies, especially the Department of Defence, to the United Nations. " [2] We cannot claim the US does not pay enough to do the UN and therefore it "threatens" it.  1 Shaeffer, Brett. "The U.S., the U.N., and a $180 Million Debt" 9/02/2011 2 Kincaide, Cliff. "THE UNITED NATIONS DEBT Who Owes Whom?" 23/04/1998

In times of big environmental crises or military conflicts it is true that more funding is necessary. However this funding must come on a voluntary ad hoc basis, rather than from the regular budget of the UN. Because otherwise this would mean even a bigger financial burden on developed countries and especially on the US. The UN determines how much more money it needs in a certain operation in extreme unexpected situations. As the general secretary Ban Ki-moon appealed for more financing to tackle Haiti's cholera epidemic – “Mr. Ban told a conference at the UN headquarters in New York that Haiti was in desperate need of more medical supplies and personnel…He appealed for he international community to dig deep to help stem the cholera epidemic in Haiti" 1.  Inflation is an economic matter and in most of the cases it is taken into consideration when determining the UN budget. However in hard financial times – as they are since the financial crises (2008) and the complicated problems the US has with its public debt (2011) increasing the budget is simply unrealistic.  1. “UN appeals for more money to aid Haiti’s cholera epidemic” 3/12/2010

The current global problems constantly require more funding.  The UN is in a fiscal (budget) crisis that can only be alleviated by regular contributions from the US. Growth in funding has not met the demand for growth in programs—including demands placed on the UN by the US and its allies. During the Cold War, the UN was a largely impotent institution. With the Cold War over, and faith in multilateralism growing, the need to recruit and organize vast organisations to run many new programs has proven to be far more costly than the UN budget is able to handle.  Today major problems occur in a global level, which cannot be solved without extra funding - Somalia famine, reproductive health in Africa, Pakistan floods, Myanmar cyclone and many others. Global issues are constantly expanding and they demand more attention. Expanded commitments also require expanded funding so the UN needs “robust financial support from the United States” to carry on its global-security, development, education, and health work, Mr. Ban told reporters on a day of meetings with congressional leaders.  In order for the UN to continue fulfilling its duty and primary role it needs the relevant support and financial assistance.

US inflexibility diminishes its leadership role in the world body.  The potential exists for the United States to appear as a bully to the other UN member states by demanding the institution bend to its will or lose support. An appropriate analogy can be found in a country's taxation policy. Individuals cannot simply withhold their taxes because they disagree with a government's policies. That usually lands them in jail. The US faces no such threat for non-compliance and thus makes a show of its leverage over the UN. Such an attitude potentially undermines the desire of other nations to be receptive to serious US needs, resolutions and reforms.  The US therefore needs to be very careful when exercising its power in the UN and deciding how much money to set apart; otherwise countries may start to question the role and importance of such a big international organization.

Non-payment of dues is an infringement of international law.  Members of the UN are obligated by treaty to contribute. In fact, ten nations (all in Africa, Central Asia or the Caribbean) are being threatened with the loss of their General Assembly votes for arrears this year. These states are required to make far smaller contributions in total than the gaps often left unfilled by the USA. As of 2009 the US debt to the UN exceeds $ 1.5 billion [1]. Therefore the UN is more or less dependent on US payments. While the US does eventually contribute its dues, and the UN voluntarily complies with its demand to keep a level budget, the threat they hold over the UN is essentially a breach of treaty and should be treated as such.  [1]

A no-growth budget for the UN lacks flexibility  Circumstances can change rapidly. In one year there might be a significant need for peacekeeping or humanitarian needs, while in another, these needs might be less pronounced. This is the case in 2011 with conflicts in Africa “The United Nations refugee agency warned today that a lack of funding could undermine its ongoing efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to tens of thousands of people displaced by the unrest in Libya, saying it has so far received slightly over half of the funding it requested for the operation.” [1] In times of serious political unrest the UN assistance is of essential importance. Therefore it needs sufficient funding, which cannot be unalterable since the situation and conditions alter.  Furthermore pressures like inflation affect the UN as much as they impact the consumer in the streets of New York. Especially when inflation rates are rising. The current US inflation (as of 2011) is nearly 4% [2]. Inflation has meant a real-terms decrease in the UN budget—not a level budget. It is not realistic to assume that the same level of funding as six or more years ago is truly adequate for today or tomorrow.  [1]) “Libya: UN warns funding shortfall could slow aid effort for victims of conflict” 15/04/2011   [2] “Current Inflation Rates: 2001-2011”

US leadership is enhanced when it asserts itself in the UN. America has the potential to shape developments in the world for good through its involvement in the UN. However, the UN is a representative body, and at times in its history smaller non-aligned states (with notably minimal contributions to the UN budgetary pie) have been able to trample on policies the United States feels are in its and the world's best interests. Inflexibility by the US shows these states that they need to toe the line with the US so enhancing the US leadership role. While Smaller states play an important role in the United Nations, as they represent a large majority of the membership. In recent years, they have emerged as important players in the international community. Their influence is not determined merely by the size of their territory, economy or military power, but also by their ability to achieve their goals. If these rising states wish to achieve their goals having the United States and the UN helping towards these goals, or at least not thwarting their attempts, is necessary. A passive approach by the United States to issues of reform would not serve the interests of either party.

Again - in order to meet the financial demands of the UN, a growth budget doesn't need to be set. Even if there are problems, whose solving costs a lot today, this doesn't mean that it will continue to be so in the future. Every year problems of the status quo are different. A UN budget is determined to an extent that it can be met by the state parties. There is not an unlimited amount of money, which can be allocated to international organizations. Of course in times of deep global challenges, the more advanced and developed part of the world will try and do the best they can to help the ones in need. But a continuous increase of the UN budget is not the way to cope with the problems. It just creates a fund-consuming machine, which is becoming more and more expensive. Furthermore the US already donates too much money to the UN - "The U. S. State Department yesterday announced that the Obama Administration has agreed to contribute $4 billion to the United Nations Global Fund to fight AIDs, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from 2011 to 2013. The $4 billion represents a 38% increase over the previous U.S. commitment to the fund."1  1 Williams, Paul. "President Donates $100 Billion to the United Nations" 6/10/2010

Landmines are an excellent way of defending a wide area for very little money. They permit the defence of an area without requiring large numbers of personnel. This is a legitimate aim both in warfare, when military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all civilians and in poor countries during peacetime, who would rather invest in their infrastructure than funding the military capacity that would otherwise be required to defend the same ground.  They can be easily removed, but not quickly, which is what provides their military utility.  The fact that landmines can be easily removed (if someone actually goes about that process) highlights the real root of the suffering caused by landmines – it is the on-going military conflicts which prevent removal and cause more mines to be planted which are the true cause of civilian suffering. If those conflicts ended then the harm to civilians would dissipate anyway.

The difficulty of removing Landmines far outweighs their usefulness  The usefulness of landmines is significantly over-represented. They are easily removed by quite low-technology military equipment – which means that they are not very dangerous to armed forces whose mobility is not significantly restricted, this is after-all the purpose of the mines, but are incredibly harmful to civilians. [1]  A significant problem is that many minefields have been left unmarked and that they can remain active for more than 50 years. Removing a landmine can be fairly easy, but detecting them is not.  [1] ICRC, ‘Anti-personnel mines: not an indispensable weapon of high military value’, 28 March 1996,

Banning landmines disproportionately punishes small, underdeveloped countries unable to develop the higher-technology military capacity that has made mines less useful to richer nations. Because of this, banning landmines harms precisely the kind of nation most likely to need them for defensive purposes.

Banning Landmines is a step towards reducing the horror of war  Landmines are a terrible and immoral tool of war. America should neither practise nor condone this kind of warfare. Unlike other weaponry, landmines remain hidden in the ground long after conflicts have ended, killing and maiming civilians in some of the world’s poorest countries years, even decades later. [1] In Afghanistan 17% of victims are children. [2] Even if other weaponry has similar effects, it doesn’t mean landmines are acceptable – it means they are bad, too. But we must start somewhere – we can make a difference by capitalising on the global movement against landmines, and we should.  [1] United Nations cyberschoolbus,   [2] Mine Clearance Planning Agency, Landmine Impact Survey Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, August 2005,

Landmines do great harm to people that trigger them – but so do all weapons of war. They are not uniquely unpleasant and the debate about them has distorted the public perception of landmines – in truth, they are little different to a hundred other types of weaponry that remain legal under the Ottawa ban.  In particular, landmines are an entirely defensive weapon. They can render large areas un-enterable until cleared but in this they are analogous to the long term harm of a chemical spill – the harm can largely be mitigated by simply avoiding the area until it can be cleared.

These mines, used in peacekeeping initiatives, protect US troops and present little danger to civilians. Stopping their use would endanger the lives of peacekeepers and make the USA less likely to enter into such operations – part of the reason the USA refused to sign the Ottawa treaty in 1997, and has declined to do so since.

Landmines provide a false sense of security  Landmines provide a false sense of security. They are often purchased and placed by nations that are fearful of their surrounding neighbours, rather than entering into diplomatic arena to improve relations. They are the symbol of exactly the wrong approach to international affairs. Small, underdeveloped countries should channel their efforts into improving their economies – they should not be encouraged (or frightened by scaremongering) by the USA into buying the USA’s military equipment.

The US army does not need landmines  It is absurd to suggest that landmines are the prime protector of US forces, or even an important one. It is well known that the principal benefit the USA’s troops (as opposed to those of other nations) have in peacekeeping is the threat of the deployment of overwhelming force if they are defied. Landmines are nothing to do with it. US troops have not been pinned down in the way the opposition suggests since World War Two, except in Iraq: and there, as elsewhere, the damage done to relations with the civilian community would far outweigh any narrow military benefit garnered from landmine deployment. Indeed the use of landmines by the US has slowly been changing, since 2004 the US has only allowed the use of landmines with deactivation mechanisms however it has not actually used landmines in more than 20 years. [1]  [1] Good, Rachel, ‘Yes We Should: Why the U.S. Should Change Its Policy Toward the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty’, Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights, Vol. 9, Issue 2, (Spring 2011),

Faith in these so called ‘smart’ mines is hugely misplaced. Conditions under testing will always vary from those in the field, where all is confusion and areas of deployment are often not properly recorded or marked. Even if they work as claimed, there is no guarantee that regimes that use them will wish to deactivate them upon ceasefire, if left in the territory of a neighbour or enemy with whom a dispute still smoulders. The equipment required for deactivation may be lost or destroyed. The best way to ensure that these weapons aren’t left in the soil is never to put them there in the first place.  That some users might be responsible is not good enough, since if anyone has landmines everyone will. Even that assumes that it is possible to be a ‘responsible’ user of landmines – once they are in the ground the user has lost all practical control over them. The only way to take back control is to disarm them.

Chemical weapons are also cheap and highly effective. The use of chemical agents was widespread in the First World War and domestic terrorists groups have been able to manufacture and use Sarin gas in attacks. [1]  These weapons are banned despite being cheap and effective because of the unnecessary suffering they cause and because of their indiscriminate nature. Mines and gas are both ‘area denial’ weapons whose effects can linger long after the conflict in which they were employed has faded into history.  [1] Wikipedia, Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway,

Landmines are easy to use illegally anyway  Landmines are merely a convenient way of providing what can be rigged in many ways – an explosion triggered when movement occurs in a particular area. Without landmines being legally available, troops will improvise landmines – they will wire up pressure plates and hand grenades and trip wires and high explosive charges, with much the same result. These will then be much more difficult to disarm as they will not have a standard design and they may also have much more explosive power. [1] This behaviour was widespread in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The only differences are that these weapons are less efficient, and more dangerous to the user that prepares them.  [1] Maresca, Louis, Maslen, Stuart, The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, International Committee of the Red Cross, 2004, p.316,

Landmines are necessary to protect South Korea  The defence of South Korea from Communist aggression depends upon the thick belt of landmines that lines the demilitarized zone. Without it, North Korea’s million man army could easily cross into South Korea and take Seoul before defences could be organised. [1] South Korea is a key ally of the USA and to join in the ban on landmines would be to betray that ally. The failure of the Ottawa Convention to grant an exception for the Korean peninsula was the key reason for USA non-participation.  With regards to the tunnel network: North Korea would never be able to perform an invasion through a dozen half-finished tunnels just big enough for a man to pass though. Troops passing under the DMZ without any heavy equipment or armour would have to assemble in the open with no protection from RoK and US firepower and air support. The main force of any invasion would have to travel over ground.  [1] Marin, ‘Peacemakers Along the DMZ’, 2002

The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines  The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines. The Americans have mines that can deactivate themselves and can self-destruct. America only manufactures smart mines, and since 1976 the USA has tested 32,000 mines with a successful self-destruction rate of 99.996 per cent. [1] The ban also fails to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible users. Under American deployment, only smart mines are used, and they are used responsibly, being set and removed in a methodical manner.  [1] Hillen, John and Spring, Baker, ‘Why A Global Ban On Land Mines Won’t Work’, Heritage.org, 17 January 1997,

Landmines are a useful military tool  In the future, landmines may not be needed. However, whilst armies still depend on conventional weapons and movement – moving tanks and large infantry groups – and borders are weak, the defensive tactic of landmines is highly appropriate: it is cheap, affordable, and maintains borders. Their existence can slow or stop an advance by breaking up an attack and forcing attackers to go certain routes, [1] delaying or even halting conflict; they can deter invasion in the first place. [2] By guarding wide areas from swift armed advance  [1] ICRC, Anti-personnel Landmines. Friend of foe? A study of the military use and effectiveness of anti-personnel mines, 1996, pp.14-15   [2] Marin, Albert and Litzelman, Michael, ‘Peacemakers Along the DMZ: Non-Self Destruct Landmines in the Republic of Korea’, Journal of Mine Action, Issue 6.1, April 2002,

North Korea has an extensive tunnel network under the DMZ that will facilitate the circumvention of the largest minefield on Earth, if the North Koreans were ever stupid enough to attempt invasion (and there is nothing to suggest that they are going to). This fact demonstrates the uselessness of landmines – the world’s biggest minefield is militarily redundant, a danger only to those that will live in this area in future years. The USA knows this – the defence of South Korea is a hollow, false excuse offered in defence of landmines – the real reason is the unwillingness on the part of the military machine to relinquish the capability of any weapon, no matter how horrible. Of course, there is a healthy profit to be made in their distribution, too.

That is true if we are discussing a single tripwire or booby trap. But the argument avoids the real point of landmines – blanket deployment over very wide areas, making them impassable for military units in the short term, and deadly for the indigenous population in the long term. Nobody rigs up a few thousand pressure plates at a time. Removing landmines from the available military options would mean that this kind of deployment would become impossible – it would mean the end of the mine field.

France and the UK might have declined in relative power since 1945, but even today only Japan and Germany among non-P5 states rank ahead of them economically. In any case, France and the UK are still amongst the world’s foremost military powers, with the world’s largest nuclear arsenals after the USA and Russia, [1] and the world’s highest military expenditure after the USA and China with France spending $61 billion and the UK $57 billion in 2010. [2] By contrast, the EU has no significant military to speak of, and is thus unable to project power across the globe. The EU launched a Rapid Reaction Force meant to be 60,000 troops in 2001, but it is still a paper tiger without even this many men and with many capability shortfalls. [3] Given the mission of the UNSC to maintain international peace and security, eligibility for a permanent seat should be based on military power, not just economic or demographic power.  [1] Federation of American Scientists, 2011,   [2] SIPRI, 2011,   [3] Defence Dateline, 2011,

The world has moved on since 1945.  The permanent seats for France and the UK are based on the fact that they were among the great powers and victors of World War II. However, the global balance of powers has shifted significantly since then: France and the UK have declined; Britain’s manufacturing exports dropped from 25% of world manufacturing exports in 1945 to 5% in 2000. [1] And the UK was 6.52% of the world economy in 1950 [2] but down to 3.56 in 2010. [3] Moreover both had large empires which were lost in the decades after 1945. At the same time the EU has emerged as a major player in the international arena. The EU is one of the world’s largest trade blocs, has the world’s largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people. A permanent seat for the EU would reflect those new power dimensions.  [1] Schenk, 472,   [2] Maddison,   [3] World Bank,

The European Union might be an economic powerhouse and might want to coordinate foreign relations in regards to external economic policy, but at heart it is intended to be an economic union, not a political union. Most of its founding treaties and the daily workings of its institutions focus on creating and maintaining a single market, not on creating a shared foreign and military policy. Giving the EU representation at what is an institution for foreign and military policy is misreading what the EU was intended to be.

France and Britain should be willing to give up their seats for the European Union.  The most practical way to reform the United Nations is for France and Britain to give way to a European Union seat. Although there would inevitably be some loss of influence for both nations the pain would be minimised by retaining one seat between them. The European Union often decides what countries get what jobs based upon internal politics, so for example Catherine Ashton became High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy because Tony Blair did not get the presidency. [1] It would therefore be possible through an internal agreement in the European Union to make sure that France and the United Kingdom retain control of the UNSC seat through having control of the foreign minister post and the post of Ambassador to the United Nations.  [1] Meade, 2009,

Only a more representative United Nations Security Council is legitimate.  The United Nations is a global body that must represent the whole world. Just as democratic governments need to remain representative to be legitimate so the same is true of intergovernmental organisations. If the UK and France hang on to their permanent seats forever, the UNSC will lose its legitimacy, as the United Nations will no longer be seen to be representative. The result will be an increased risk of war and conflict because the world’s major powers have no legitimate shared arena for discussing their interests. This is exactly what happened to the League of Nations after World War I. As many of the most powerful nations, USA, USSR and Germany were unwilling to join or barred from joining the League never had much legitimacy. As a result the League was unable to prevent conflicts in Manchuria and Abyssinia (Ethiopia) eventually leading to World War II. [1] Since their interest in a stable world through the legitimacy of the UNSC outweighs their interest in a formal veto-power, France and the UK should be willing to give up their veto power.  [1] Kissinger, Diplomacy

There is a good reason why previous attempts at reforming the United Nations Security Council have not succeeded. Reform has been attempted several times since 1992 when Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali called for a renewal of the United Nations by 1995. [1] The ‘G4’ made up of Germany, Japan, Brazil and India has been lobbying to become permanent members but are opposed by others who want more non-permanent seats. [2] Kofi Annan in 2005 suggested two options either 6 new permanent members with no veto or eight four year renewable terms, [3] but this too has gotten nowhere. No matter who is on the council some countries will feel aggrieved. If Brazil becomes a member Argentina and Mexico will object, China might object to India becoming a permanent member and Pakistan certainly would. [4] In Africa it is not even certain who should represent the continent as there is no single leader, whoever is chosen some countries would not like the result. It is therefore better to leave things how they are. The current UNSC has been recognised as legitimate for more than sixty years this is not about to change.  [1] Boutros-Ghali, ‘An Agenda for Peace’, 1992,   [2] Ariyoruk, ‘Players and Proposals in the Security Council Debate’, 2005,   [3] United Nations Secretary General, ‘In larger freedom’, 2005, V,   [4] Muns, 2006,

Even if UNSC reform is perfectly logical in theory, in practice they would never work. The UK and France have a veto in the UNSC, which means they can halt any kind of reform of the UNSC which is not in their interest. Losing a permanent seat without getting a clear benefit in return is definitely against their interest. Even if they were to retain control over foreign policy no nation would want to move from having sole control of a seat to having to negotiate with its partners which way it will vote. As such the UK and France would veto any such proposal.

Europe may now have a president but as he has few independent powers the Lisbon Treaty has not answered Kissinger’s apocryphal question ‘who do I call if I want to dial Europe’. [1] The US president or Secretary of state would still need to call round the major capitals of Europe as Van Rompuy would need to get the agreement of the Prime Ministers and Presidents of the continent before he could do anything.  [1] Rachman, 2009,

The European Union is meant to prevent war being on the UNSC would allow it to actively promote peace.  The EU might function as an economic union, but its original goal was to prevent war from ever happening again on the European continent. The political resolution of the Congress of Europe in 1948 said “it is the urgent duty of the nations of Europe to create an economic and political union in order to assure security and social progress… the creation of a United Europe is an essential element in the creation of a united world.” [1] The Economic integration is a means to this goal, by making member states economically too dependent on each other for them to want to declare war on each other. Given this history, the EU can contribute a lot of knowledge and experience on how to use ‘soft power’ in a foreign policy context. Europe has been successful in creating peace on a previously warlike continent. It has also had successes in encouraging reform in the countries of Eastern Europe and is continuing to do so in the Balkans through enlargement. [2] Croatia was at war with its neighbors fifteen years ago and part of Yugoslavia twenty years ago but will become the 28thmember of the EU in 2013. [3]  Being a member of the UNSC would deepen Europe’s commitment to international peace-keeping and peace-making missions, something which currently varies very widely between member states, and push them to spend sufficient on equipping their militaries for such missions. The UNSC could turn the EU’s soft power outwards to help the world. As a result it should have a seat at the world’s foremost foreign policy institution.  [1] Congress of Europe at the Hague, 1948,   [2] Bildt, 2005,   [3] BBC News, 2011,

The EU now has the necessary foreign policy organs.  In the past the European Union has not had the necessary foreign policy bureaucracy and decision making capabilities to be able to control a UNSC seat. Since the Lisbon treaty this has changed. The Treaty created a President of the European Council, currently Herman Van Rompuy. [1] And a European External Action Service (EEAS) which will eventually have a staff of 5,400. The EEAS is a functionally autonomous EU body with a large number of embassies around the world. [2] This will give the EU representation in most countries, 54 with ambassadors out of a total of 136, [3] and the ability to coordinate a foreign policy. A seat at the United Nations Security Council would be a natural extension of this.  [1] European Council,   [2] BBC News, 2010,   [3] Waterfield, 2010,

Until now, the member states of the European Union have never been able to coordinate their foreign policies effectively. This has led to divided positions amongst member states, for example towards Russia, China and other global players, allowing them to play a ‘divide-and-rule’-strategy against European interests. Giving the EU a single seat would give the Member States a clear incentive to harmonize their policies: a coordinated policy can then be expected to actually take effect, instead of it being a supplement to domestic foreign policy. Interests are guided by who decides what the interests are. With a unified voice from a unified external action service and President Europe will be able to define what the interests of the Union as a whole are.

The European Union has already been gaining power at the United Nations. The European Union gained what could be considered super-observer status in May 2011. Van Rompuy will be able to address the United Nations as the heads of other states can and the EU also has the right to speak, the right to make proposals and submit amendments, the right of reply, the right to raise points of order and the right to circulate documents. Europe will be represented by the High Representative and the EEAS. [1]  [1] Phillips, 2011,

The only way the United Nations Security Council can be reformed is through expansion.  Current UN Security Council members will never give up their seats. As well as Britain and France Russia could equally be considered to be no longer worthy of being a member of the UNSC. Russia’s economy is significantly smaller than either of the other European members. However no one seriously thinks Russia will give up its seat. Instead the United Nations Security Council will have to be expanded to make it more representative. This will mean bringing in Brazil, India and an African representative. There is precedence for expanding the council as Article 23 of the charter was amended in 1963 to enlarge the security council membership from eleven to fifteen. [1]  [1] United Nations, 1945, Introductory Note,

More is more.  While the in number of EU members in the Security Council is obviously beneficial to the EU and its members the influence of the European Union is also beneficial to the UN system as a whole. European powers that are enthusiastic internationalists and proponents of international organisations act as a counterweight to other powers that still act like great nationalist powers from the 19thCentury such as Russia and China. [1] They are therefore enthusiastic about working through the UN rather than acting unilaterally. The European Union’s international goals also dovetail well with the United Nations on a whole range of issues; development, peacekeeping, human rights, the environment, humanitarian aid and culture are all areas where there is a lot of cooperation; this means that the European Union is often acting in the interest of the United Nations. [2] This interest can obviously be best served by the European Union having more seats rather than only one.  [1] Ojanen, 2006, p5,   [2] Ibid, p.10, 36

There are disputes about enlargement of the Security Council.  Reforming the UN Security Council is very difficult as no one can agree which new powers deserve representation, whether they should have a veto, and even whether permanent membership should continue to exist in any form. Japan and India seem obvious candidates for permanent status, but their candidacies are fiercely opposed by a variety of other Asian countries, while Nigeria and Egypt both feel they have a good claim to an “African” seat. Africa with no obvious leader could be the most difficult to resolve, already there are six countries which say they would want to be Africa’s permanent member; Senegal, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt and Libya. [1] These disputes may in the end lead to a much enlarged permanent membership, so if the EU did taken over the UK and France’s seats, there would be a much greater likelihood that European interests will be outvoted on the Security Council.  [1] Okumu, 2005,

Even if other countries such as Russia are unwilling to give up their own seats Britain and France have an alternative in the form of joint European Union membership. Both countries are therefore much more likely to agree to lose their seats than Russia w  The member states of the European Union haven’t harmonized their foreign policies so far simply because they have vastly divergent interests in the arena of global power politics. The interests of Germany vis-a-vis Russia are a world apart from France and the UK’s interests, let alone Poland’s. For example in the brief war between Georgia and Russia in 2008 France, Germany and Italy tried to avoid confrontation with Russia while Eastern Europe and Britain demanded a much tougher stance with sanctions. [1] And France and the UK famously took very different positions over the Iraq War, while their different experiences of empire and decolonisation give them a wider international perspective than most other EU states. Handing the EU a single seat does nothing to change those interests, and thus would actually harm every member state’s individual foreign policy interest, instead of furthering it.  [1] Waterfield, 2008,

The European States are obviously going to benefit from having large numbers of their members on the UN Security Council, and the United Nations itself is not harmed by it this overrepresentation comes at the expense of other regions. No other regions are so closely integrated – so countries in them don’t have allies who they can rely on in the Council, and some of which don’t have any members who have veto power. When compared to Europe that is not only integrated enough that the European States will most of the time take a common line and protect each other but who also have two states that can wield a veto the situation is grossly unfair.

The United Nations is meant to be a body of nation states.  The United Nations is an international organisation whose members are nation states, not other supranational organisations such as the European Union. “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states” [1] The European Union is however not a state and is unlikely to become one in the near future.  Recognising the European Union as a member would pose other problems as it would clash with article 9 of the UN charter “Each Member shall have not more than five representatives in the General Assembly.” And Article 18 “Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.” [2] As the European Union member would have 27 votes, and potentially well over 100 representatives in the General Assembly. The European Union is at present an observer [3] and that is how it should remain.  [1] United Nations, 1945, Article 4,   [2] United Nations, 1945, Article 9, 18,   [3] The Telegraph, 2011,

It is widely recognised that the current Security Council set-up lacks legitimacy and requires reform. Major states such as Japan, and rising powers such as Brazil, South Africa and India deserve recognition and giving them permanent status would provide representation for a much broader cross-section of humanity. In such a reformed UN it is much harder to justify permanent places for the UK and France alone, two essentially similar western European countries. They should instead agree to be represented through an EU seat as part of an overhaul of the whole international system.

Even if other countries such as Russia are unwilling to give up their own seats Britain and France have an alternative in the form of joint European Union membership. Both countries are therefore much more likely to agree to lose their seats than Russia would be.

The prize is too narrowly defined. At what scale should the change be defined? For example civil-society and community leaders can make significant changes to governance at a smaller-scale; promoting democratic governance from a bottom-up initiative can work as well as top down. On another hand, should we only be focusing on the very top? What about the government officials who are not heads of state but make a change to people’s lives? The narrow focus on the head of a party or state neglects the body - such as finance ministers - that maintains that system of governance and work hard to ensure a democratic transition. The focus on heads of state may deter the state body from ensuring effective governance due to the fact their hard work is not rewarded or recognised.  Due to the relatively young nature of democracy and multi-party rule across Africa, the criteria of potential prize candidates needs to be expanded. The number of former heads of states having left in the past three years is small. Therefore the criteria for nomination needs to change.

Focusing on the leaders of good governance  Previous winners - such as Nelson Mandela and Pedro Pires - made significant changes to their nation-states, ending apartheid and promoting social development. The former leaders provided equality and a functioning democracy to their people. Such needs to be the aim of leaders today.  Providing a prize to the highest achievers provides an example. It highlights leaders from even small countries – such as Cape Verde’s Pires – that can serve as role models for Africa’s leaders. Without the prize the most likely role models would simply be those of the biggest states who are highest profile. Mo Ibrahim (2013) has stated the prize is for “excellence, it’s not a pension”. This is why it is not always awarded. The prize is only be awarded when high-standards of good governance are replicated, and maintained, by leaders. Focusing on the top of government encourages a top down implementation of good government. When the leader acts others will follow; a comparatively small amount of money can therefore make a big difference.

Although the prize has gained recognition in the Western world or ‘Global North’ to what extent is the prize, its reward, and meaning, known and understood by African citizens? If the prize is recognising African leadership citizens need to be aware of the prize in the first place - whether their country is up for nomination or not. Awareness is the only way the apparent transparency can hold power and become a reality. Citizens cannot demand change or hold the state to account when they are not aware of the index, the prize, and the so-called changes being made.

Recognition when credit is due  The past few years have seen African governments, and heads of state, reluctant to leave office; driving political coups; and leading violent crimes against humanity. Mugabe, Kabila, and Kenyatta are but a few articulating the years of sustained bad governance. The prize is only awarded when credit is due - if leaders have made a significant positive impact this will be recognised and rewarded. The prize is therefore for absolute gains in governance, not relative to other countries.  As the prize is not always awarded it avoids the pitfall that distributing a financial prize where no change has been made to political institutions would reinforce a system. The state would continue to function on undemocratic governance, and the reward would become a new example of dead money [1] . Instead it encourages improved control over aid and money transferred to African states, it shows that rewards are given based on merit. The Mo Ibrahim prize therefore encourages the good institutions that are necessary for prosperity (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2013).  [1] See further readings: Moyo, 2009.

The prize by focusing on leaders ignores the areas where money is needed; not lining already rich people’s pockets but providing money and advice to actually set up these institutions. This means for example ensuring the police and civil servants are well enough paid they don’t resort to corruption etc. Acemoglu and Robinson (2013) highlight that there is also a ‘vicious cycle’ whereby the presence of bad institutions - authoritarian, unaccountable, with limited economic innovations - reinforce poverty and bad governance. Although offering rewards where significant change has happened is a positive model, in reality, many African states require funds to be able to enforce change in the first place and break this vicious cycle.  For good governance to be promoted rewards should not only go to the best, but also the good in a continent where bad governance dominates. For any progress to be made in governance the prize needs to lower standards of expectation, recognise where improvements are made, and use the reward to change the vicious cycle. Some change is better than none; focusing on picking the best with high standards limits any change.

Transparency  The prize is helping citizens to be aware of good governance, and bad, occurring within their state. By granting the prize citizens are shown what leaders have done right; and the publication of the index - the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) - shows where improvement may be required. The prize is forcing transparency between governments and society. Information on how states are doing means citizens can take action, and demand change where change is needed. The prize is calling for African citizens to get the leadership they deserved, desired, and have a right to.  By maintaining strict standards on when, and to whom, the reward is provided gives a realistic picture of governance in Africa. It showcases the continued need for good governance; and also doesn’t give citizens and the international community a false illusion that governance is good in Africa when it is not.

The committee nominating, and choosing, the final candidates remains un-bias and their expertise within multiple aspects of governance means the high standards can be maintained. Having votes would open the prize up to corruption and attempts to influence the outcome by those who are eligible. A technocratic standard is needed for good governance.

One of the criteria for awarding the prize is ‘demonstrated exceptional leadership’. This clearly allows the IIAG to be fed into the process as it is the IIAG that can show if the leader being considered has demonstrated this leadership. The IIAG provides a useful tool to assist in deciding the prize winner, and nominees.

Bribing good governance  The Mo Ibrahim Prize is bribing African leaders to shift towards good governance. The financial incentive is being distributed to entice leaders to follow good governance approaches and models. The fact that no questions are asked on where the money provided goes; how it is used; and what the former leaders spend it on raise further questions. Most importantly to what extent can we claim elaborate bribery is an effective means to enforce good governance within the continent? For a start having what is essentially a bribe to encourage good governance is hypoctitical. Secondly a bribe for an individual relies on that one individual’s actions. Thus in 2007 the prize was granted to Mozambique’s President Chissano. However, since 2007 declines have emerged in the scores concerning law and rights (Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013).  Additionally for those motivated by money the money provided cannot compete with potential returns that can be gained from natural resources, tax evasion schemes, and capital flight. The bribery incentive does not compete with potential profits gained through alternative forms corruption (Bedell, 2009).

A contradictory approach  The prize will fail to promote good governance due to the contradictory approach it undertakes. Good governance cannot emerge and be sustained by rewarding former presidents. Having a good former president does not mean their successor will encourage their legacy to continue. Why celebrate good former leaders when we need to focus on what is happening now?  Moreover why reward someone just when they can no longer do any good? The prize suffers from the contradiction of regarding giving up power as a necessary criteria to obtain the prize. This ignores that Africa does not want those who are being successful at promoting good governance to leave their post – potentially to someone who will move backwards. Having a prize for someone who could have done more good had they stayed is contradictory.  Finally the prize is not good for Africa; the prize has raised negative stereotypes of African states, leaders, and systems. The attention gained by the prize not being granted for 3 out of 6 years is maintaining negative stereotypes of African leaders. This will only act to reinforce the global system of power - whereby the West intervene to implement a ‘good’ model of governance, not suited to Africa.

Who's on the committee?  Who decides whether governance is going in the right direction within the African continent? The prize committee includes six individuals who make the decision of who is worthy of the reward, and whether it is granted. The panel includes leading figures, not all of whom have held elected positions such as Mohamed ElBaradei, and not all of whom are African, such as Martti Ahtisaari and Mary Robinson (Mo Ibrahim Foundation Prize Committee). Among these distinguished panellists the voice of Africa’s population is missing. A prize about good governance should incorporate a people’s vote as good governance is only relevant if it helps the people. Moreover without a public voice there is a lack of transparency in the workings of the committee and the decisions made. Hardly a good standard for a governance prize.

Is the IIAG a good measure of ‘good governance’?  How do we define, classify, and recognise good governance? The Mo Ibrahim Foundation has created the Ibrahim Index. The IIAG calculates governance across Africa and assesses it over time. The IIAG shows governance has improved across the continent since 2000; and in 2013 classified Mauritius with the highest rank and Liberia as showcasing the greatest positive change over 13 years. But does the index have the right weighting? Where ‘good governance’ is found changes depending on the weighting applied. Even odder is that although the foundation has this index it is not actually used when awarding the prize, this is awarded by a committee to those who pass the criteria that don’t include the IIAG (Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013). The prize is therefore methodologically unsound as a way of looking at and promoting good governance

It is not contradictory to offer a reward for good governance after the leader has left office. Dictators holding onto power for long periods are one of Africa’s biggest problems. Rewarding those who step aside shows that an important part of good governance is having presidents who stick to constitutional terms. A stable transfer of power is vital in a democracy. This is something that is even more important when the transfer is to a political opponent. One of the most important advances in governance that can be made is to make be considered normal that the opposition is as loyal to the country as the government. When this happens power can easily be transferred without conflict or resulting disorder.

The reward is an incentive, not a bribe; consider it as being similar to performance related pay. The prize shows how if excellent leadership is promoted and good governance encouraged the leaders will be praised, recognised and rewarded. The prize is not a bribe, but a way of incentivising leaders to follow a path towards good governance. By highlighting cases where good governance has excelled the prize draws attention to the benefits of good governance through a cost-benefit appraisal. The social, economic, and political returns are highlighted; and other African governments encouraged to follow the trend.

If terrorism is the concern then the French intervening is one of the worst possible options. Having France fighting in Mali may well result in the internationalization of the conflict bringing in jihadists. [1] Already the islamists are saying the conflict is a holy war as “France has attacked Islam” and they will in response “strike at the heart of France”. [2]  [1] Welsh, Jennifer, ‘Sending soldiers to Mali may be the only solution’, The Globe and Mail, 14 January 2012,   [2] Bamat, Joseph, ‘Mali-based Islamists pledge attacks on French soil’, France 24, 14 January 2013,

Fighting terrorism  While it was Tuareg separatists who first sparked the insurrection wanting to split Mali but now the North has been taken over by Islamists and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb presenting a terrorist threat that cannot be ignored. France’s Defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian says "France's goal is to lead a relentless struggle against terrorist groups," and that "We have to eradicate this terrorism". [1] The United States was already clearly worried about Mali becoming a center of terrorism having on the 7th December designated the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa a terrorist organisation while other groups involved in Mali such as al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb were already designated as such. The State department highlights several terrorist attacks the group has conducted such as “a March 2012 suicide attack on a police base in Tamanrasset, Algeria, which wounded 23 people”. [2]  [1] CNN Staff, ‘France determined to ‘eradicate’ terrorism in Mali, official says’, CNN, 13 January 2013,   [2] Office of the Spokesperson, ‘Terrorist Designations of the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa, Hamad el Khairy, and Ahmed el Tilemsi’, U.S. Department of State, 7 December 2012,

Ban Ki Moon has also stated that “I am profoundly aware that if a military intervention in the north is not well conceived and executed, it could worsen an already fragile humanitarian situation and also result in severe human rights abuses” [1] so French military intervention is not necessarily the right course to take if the intention is to be helping the people of northern Mali. Equally we can ask if this will really end the civil war? Mali has suffered from several Tuareg rebellions in the past. In particular there was a civil war between 1990 and 1996 [2] which has had over a decade of sporadic peace negotiations while a cease fire held. So while outside intervention may end the civil war unless the French propose to remain in place for decades or work instead on a diplomatic solution in the long run Mali will be no better off.  [1] Tisdall, Simon, ‘UN urges caution over military intervention in Mali’, guardian.co.uk, 29 November 2012,   [2] Humphreys, Macartan, and Mohamed, Habaye ag, ‘Senegal and Mali’, January 2003,  pp.19-28

France was asked to intervene by Mali’s government  “France has answered… a request for assistance issued by the interim president of the Republic of Mali”. France is therefore not coming in uninvited. Mali’s President Traore directly appealed to French President Hollande to provide “French military assistance against these terrorist groups” that have “attacked our front lines of defense”. [1] As the former colonial power in much of West Africa, including Mali, France is the obvious country to turn to for help. As a result of this colonial past Mali is a member of the French led Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. [2] Mali is therefore fully within its sovereign rights to ask for assistance and Hollande is right to agree to provide it.  [1] Lynch, Colum, ‘France’s U.N. envoy: French military intervention in Mali is open ended’, Foreign Policy Turtle Bay, 11 January 2013,   [2] ‘Welcome to the International Organisation of La Francophonie’s official website’

Mali should be asking for diplomatic help to resolve the crisis not asking for a military force. France meanwhile should not be accepting a request from an unelected President to attack his own people. A request to intervene in a country does not make that intervention legitimate it simply provides a fig leaf to protect France from accusations of colonialism.

This might be an excuse to send a few soldiers to help evacuation and possibly a commando raid to free hostages but it is not a reason for all out intervention. If it was such a justification then in almost any conflict some state would have just cause to intervene because some of their citizens were in danger.

It is a humanitarian intervention  Fundamentally at its heart this is a humanitarian intervention by the French. The Islamists who took over Northern Mali have been imposing a severe, austere form of Islam demanding "No cigarettes, no CDs, no radios, no cameras, no jewelry" and beating those who disobey the rules. Men and women have to sit in separate areas in buses. With Sharia being more strictly enforced with increasing number of amputations despite opposition from the local population. [1] Much of the population of the North had already fled to the south with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees saying 200,000 have fled since January 2012. [2] Those who have, like Moussa from Timbuktu, clearly welcome the intervention, he told a French radio station “We have been suffocating and [France] has given us a breath of oxygen. We are ready to fly Malian and French flags alongside each other.” [3]  [1] Mben, Paul Hyacinthe, ‘A Trip Through Hell Daily Life in Islamist Northern Mali’, Spiegel Online, 29 October 2012,   [2] Caux, Helene, ‘IDPs struggle to survive after escaping fighting in northern Mali’, UNHCR, 12 December 2012,   [3] Bamat, Joseph, ‘Mali-based Islamists pledge attacks on French soil’, France 24, 14 January 2013,

French interests  This intervention is not all about terrorism and a humanitarian desire to end a civil war. France does have a stake in the conflict and a reason to deploy military forces. There are 6,000 French citizens living in Mali who are obviously at risk to a rebel advance; even without a full scale intervention France would almost certainly have had to deploy forces to protect an evacuation. Already there are seven French citizens being held hostage in Mali and rescuing them is one of the three main objectives for the French intervention. [1]  [1] Welsh, Jennifer, ‘Sending soldiers to Mali may be the only solution’, The Globe and Mail, 14 January 2012,

The French have rejected any parallel with Afghanistan and other quagmires. Fabius, France’s Foreign Minister, has said that "Later on, we can come as back-up, but we have no intention of staying forever," [1] the handover may be slower than anticipated but there is no evidence the French will be in Mali for an extended period.  [1] ‘Mali: France pledges ‘short’ campaign against Islamists’, BBC News, 14 January 2013,

Self-determination should first be internal rather than external. [1] In other words self-determination means autonomy within the existing state not a new state unless there is no other way of resolving the conflict. In Mali therefore the rebels need to put down their weapons and accept the authority of the central government, whose will the French and others are trying to enforce. It is clear that the people of northern Mali would prefer a solution within the state of Mali as half the population has fled to the south [2] and Ansar Dine and MNLA have walked back their declaration of independence promising “respect for Mali's national unity and territorial integrity” in December. [3]  [1] “Reference re Secession of Quebec”, Supreme Court of Canada, 1998, 2 S.C.R. 217,   [2] Fessy, Thomas, ‘Mali Tuareg rebels declare independence in the north’, BBC News, 6 April 2012,   [3] Agencies, ‘Mali rebels agree to respect ‘national unity’, AlJazeera, 5 December 2012,

African organisations should have lead the way  The United Nations charter is quite clear that it should be African Nations leading the way in this conflict. It says “The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies” [1] and since there are several African Security Organisations there is little reason why these could not have taken the lead. The African Union in particular has undertaken interventions in similar situations before; notably in Somalia. [2] This has been recognised right up until the French intervened and the UN Security Council resolution in December mandated for “the deployment of an African-led mission to support efforts by national authorities to recover the north.” [3]  [1] Article 52,   [2] Jowell, Marco, ‘Kenya: Intervening in Somalia – Risky Business With No End in Sight’, All Africa, 17 January 2012,   [3] Security Council 6898th meeting, ‘Security Council authorizes deployment of African-led international support mission in Mali for initial year-long period’, United Nations, Resolution 2085, 20 December 2012,

Quagmire  Western states seem to so often be willing to get involved in conflicts without thinking about how to get out of them. Interventions are difficult operations that need a lot of planning and the United Nations has previously said that in the case of Mali "Nothing could be done before September, October," and there should be diplomatic talks and a rebuilding of the Malian army first. [1] Unless there is a clear exit plan then there is the risk that the conflict in Mali will turn into a Quagmire from which French and other Western forces cannot easily extradite themselves.  The conflict has not resulted in many French casualties although they did have a helicopter shot down. [2] However there is still a question of how long France will have to keep a military presence in the country. The French initially said they would be pulling troops out in March; [3] the first troops did not leave until May. They said they would only have 1000 there by the end of the year [4] but in January 2014 still had 2500. [5]  [1] Irish, John, ‘No military intervention in Mali before September: U.N. peacekeeping chief’, Reuters, 5 December 2012,   [2] Chrisafis, Angelique, ‘Mali: high stakes in ‘Hollande’s war’’, The Guardian, 13 January 2013,   [3] Schofield, Hugh, ‘France action in Mali is real war, says Le Drian’, BBC News, 6 February 2013,   [4] BBC News, ‘Mali crisis: French troops begin withdrawal’, 9 April 2013,   [5] Al Jazeera Staff, ‘Interactive: Mali Speaks’, Al Jazeera, 21 January 2013,

Western countries should not be interfering in African internal affairs  Western nations should clearly not be interfering in African affairs. Not only is this conflict outside of NATO’s remit but it is internal to an individual African state rather than a war between states. By intervening France and other nations are taking part in a civil war in which they are aiding a government that was placed in office by a military coup in March 2012 so does not have a democratic mandate. [1]  This intervention is an example of France once more playing the role of gendarme and considering that it has some kind of divine right to intervene in Africa. [2] This war is of course in large part France’s fault in the first place; it is trying to hold together a nation that should be split in two as a result of artificial colonial borders that fan conflict by dividing communities. [3] In this case France is intervening to deny a legitimate people’s, the Tuareg, their right to self-determination. The Tuaregs are divided between Algeria, Kibya, Mali, and Niger but without a majority in any. [4] The Turegs when they took control of Azawad made a declaration of independence. [5] While this has not been recognised this simply shows how existing states are worried about accepting the logic of self-determination when they themselves have groups that may want independence.  [1] Felix, Bate, ‘Mali junta sees civilian government “in days”’, Reuters, 8 April 2012,   [2] Diop, Boubacar Boris, ‘La Vie en %$!’, Foreign Policy, July/August 2010,   [3] Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘African Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010,   [4] 10% in Mali ‘Mali’ The World Factbook, CIA,  9.3% in Niger ‘Niger’, The World Factbook, CIA,   [5] Fessy, Thomas, ‘Mali Tuareg rebels declare independence in the north’, BBC News, 6 April 2012,

This is ignoring both that African nations are taking a leading role in this intervention and that it is them who have asked for intervention by western states.  First of All Nigeria is going to send 600 troops, Senegal, Burkina Faso, and Togo 500 each, and Benin 300. These numbers far outweigh the 550 being sent by France and logistical support provided by other countries such as the UK and US. [1] It can therefore be said that this is an African mission.  Secondly the resolution in December did call for “coordination with the European Union and other partners”. [2] ECOWAS had already in December called for the United Nations to intervene [3] and “thanks the French Government for its initiatives to support Mali.” [4]  [1] ‘Mali: France pledges ‘short’ campaign against Islamists’, BBC News, 14 January 2013,   [2] Security Council 6898th meeting, ‘Security Council authorizes deployment of African-led international support mission in Mali for initial year-long period’, United Nations, Resolution 2085, 20 December 2012,   [3] AP, ‘ECOWAS calls for UN-backed intervention to reclaim north’, France 24, 7 August 2012,   [4] Ouédraogo, Kadre Desiré, ‘Statement of the President of the ECOWAS Commission on the Situation in Mali’, Reliefweb, 12 January 2013,

Cutting aid payments to the governments of states that are aid dependent would severely restrict the provision of public services and undermine public and international confidence in fragile political settlements. This dependence therefore prevents the aid being cut off.  Israel, for instance, would arguably be unable to survive without its foreign aid from the USA. Similarly, those states such as Micronesia or Tokelau which are almost exclusively aid dependent are essentially protectorates of those states that aid them, giving them political independence and the ability to develop.  The approach suggested by the resolution would also have a negative impact on nations that are politically stable but in need of reliable, uncomplicated economic support. Between 45 to 50% of all foreign aid goes to nations such as Argentina, Botswana and Brazil. Indeed, sanctions levelled against politically unstable or oppressive states such as Angola and Zimbabwe tend to restrict the aid payments they receive. Reducing aid to politically mature and conflict-free “emerging economies” reduces certainty and sustainability in development. We should deliver the aid which we have promised, the results of which- for many states- are now coming to fruition.

Preventing dependence  Direct aid creates dependence and a dangerous client culture among recipient states. ODA is entwined with foreign policy to the degree where aid is no longer allocated on the basis of need, but according to the political and policy objectives of donor states. The USA can muster the political will to provide military aid to Israel totalling nearly $3bn a year [i] , but even in the wake of Live8, real aid (payment of fresh funds to recipients, as opposed to funds acquired by rescheduling existing aid obligations) to the poorest nations in Africa is not as large proportionately.  Not only is ODA increasingly being used to incentivise compliance or non-interference with America’s objectives in the war on terror, as shown by the aid provided to Pakistan for its cooperation in the stationing of US military bases. When ODA is administered in this way, there is an increased risk that recipient governments will be seen by their people as less independent – as stooges of colonial interlopers.  Reliance on ODA can become entrenched but ODA has also created dependent nations such as Micronesia where 4/5 of the population are employed in ‘aid-created’ jobs and the government receives 90% of its revenue from the USA [ii] . It encourages a culture of aid-dependency where nations such as Kenya have come to believe that aid is the only way to lift themselves out of poverty.  [i] Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.   [ii] “Background Note: Micronesia.” U.S. Department of state. 31 October 2011.

Using central government spending to encourage growth is still a viable development strategy.  Whilst the important role that local markets play in the development process should be recognised, they are not capable of generating widespread economic change.  NGOs serve a different purpose to governments. They construct local infrastructure projects such as schools and wells, in addition to augmenting skills practiced by established communities by providing access to up-to-date tools and tuition that would normally be unaffordable to the citizens of developing states. However, economic growth also requires significant central spending, in order to develop national infrastructure such as roads and universities. Indian well-drilling efficiency has increased by 70% since the nascent Indian national space programme was tasked with using satellite technology to identify water pockets.  The diverse origins, policies and skillsets of NGOs tend to prevent them from collaborating in an effective fashion. Brazil’s hydroelectric power network could only have been constructed by a single, coherent organisation. A national education policy could not be formulated by NGOs. To reduce government aid would be to remove the backbone of central spending needed for national development.

Combating corruption  Changing the way money is given will reduce corruption, embezzlement and manipulation. Centralised government structures control aid distribution in many recipient countries. As a consequence, embezzlement by government officials has become more frequent and easier to conceal. Linking aid to specific projects is ineffective at solving this problem due to difficulty in tracking individual project accounts within the recipient nation. The need to monitor which individuals and institutions receive donated funds, and to confirm that funds have been applied according to agreed plans and schedules still presents a difficult and intractable auditing problem.  Recently the Netherlands has halted its $148m development aid programme to Kenya in protest at aid embezzlement in the wake of multiple ‘graft’ scandals there [i] . Similarly Sao Tome’s Prime Minister was arrested for aid embezzlement in 2004 [ii] .  Corruption inside government means that aid is also often directed to supporters of the government when eventually spent. Aid may be channelled to particular individuals or political organisations, a trend which has been observed in Zimbabwe [iii] . Similarly, aid may be channelled to favoured social, ethnic or religious groups. This is particularly likely to happen in highly plural states that are affected by underlying cultural tension and strict physical divisions between communities and territories. Discriminatory treatment of Arab Israelis in Israel and the exclusion of Christian and Animist communities from aid schemes in the former Sudan illustrate this trend [iv] .  [i] “Anti-corruption profile – Kenya” Trust.org.   [ii] “Sao Tomean PM steps down after coup.” Afrol News Online. 01 August 2003.   [iii] “Zimbabwe: Corruption Timeline.” Global Integrity Report.   [iv] “Background Note: Sudan.” U.S. Department of State. 08 April 2011.

Advocates of government-to-government aid do not have to defend such out-dated portrayals of ODA. Since at least 2000, many DAC member nations have tied their aid entirely or in part to political, economic and environmental reform. The burden is now on recipient nations to prove that aid payments are not being squandered. An onus is placed on recipients to invest in the creation of a political culture that tackles corruption, as has been seen with the founding of an ‘anti-graft task force’ in Kenya in 2006. Linked aid promotes political stability, development policies conscious of the limitations of national resources and a consistent economic framework.  Moreover, there is no guarantee that charities and NGOs will be any less corrupt or more able to prevent corruption. Easy access to large amounts of capital creates an environment that can foster corruption within any type of organisation, whether governmental institutions in the developing world or non-governmental institutions based in wealthy states. Passing aid to multiple NGOs, many of which may not be governed by accounting standards as strict as those applied to onshore organisations in the UK and the US, creates a system in which it is far harder to monitor and prevent embezzlement. In 2003, the Indian government placed 800 NGOs operating within its north eastern states under a regime of strict observation. Many of the organisations identified were suspected of having links to north eastern separatist and insurgent fighters; it was believed that funds donated to these NGOs, either privately or by the state itself, were being channelled to armed rebel groups [i] .  [i] NGO Regulation Network.

Supporting domestic development and domestic markets  Direct aid undermines local markets within developing states. Many economists believe that economic growth needs to occur at a local or micro level, with private industry spurring growth and providing employment opportunities [i] that act to elevate consumer demand. Chile is often given as an example of a country which has grown in this way.  Government aid frequently results in the growth of large, state-owned corporations which undercut the creation of local markets, preventing the development of private enterprise. This can be compared with the deskilling effect that long term food aid has caused within developing nations [ii] . Lacking the will or economic resources to expand land cultivation schemes, formally and culturally acquired farming have dropped out of use in a range of developing states. Dependence on centrally distributed aid is slowing reducing the number of skilled, practiced agricultural labourers able to work to grow food.  Similarly, state-owned resource extraction and processing firms can influence an economy’s real exchange rate, making cross border trade in the commodities produced by farmers and local craftsmen uncompetitive – a situation known as the Dutch disease. This is a significant hazard in continents with a high proportion of interdependent sovereign states, such as Africa.  State owned industry frequently undercuts local, privately owned industry in both the domestic and export markets of developing nations. Further, these processes raise the spectre of corruption in state institutions and state owned businesses [iii] , with large revenues tempting individuals to engage in graft, nepotism and patrimony.  The risks inherent in state supervised industry and micro-economic stimulus can be avoided by supplying aid funding to microbanking and microcredit institutions. Businesses of this type specialise in creating a large supply of low cost credit that small firms, farmers and households can borrow in order to fund the purchases and investments that will bring them closer to prosperity.  [i] “Direct aid: A dollar a day keeps the donor away.” Wahega.net. 23 January 2007.   [ii] The Development Effectiveness of Food Aid. The OECD. 2006, OECD Publishing.   [iii] The Political Economy of Foreign Aid. Hopkins, R F. Swarthmore College.

Direct Aid creates an international welfare trap. ODA incentivises states to restrict development spending, in order to avoid the cuts in aid donations that would accompany rising productivity, public health and growth indicators.  This is made worse by the fact that one of the primary measures of poverty is income below $1 or $2 a day (depending on the region), so governments have an incentive to channel aid to the elites or to schemes that incentivise or entrenched foreign investment, whilst leaving the very poorest members of their population below this poverty line. The construction of hydroelectric facilities, for example, may reduce the amount that private industrial plants and manufacturers pay for their power. However, an improved power distribution network may also be irrelevant to the needs of ordinary citizens within a state, unable to afford tools, medication or education, let alone electronic equipment.  Tax breaks and lax wage protection laws implemented in order to encourage foreign direct investment in a developing economy may act as a further incentive to stratify spending. Moreover, the suppression of average earnings in such environments tends to concentrate wealth among the owners of large amounts of land and other capital.  Further, a large proportion of direct aid is simply recycled by developing states’ governments as debt servicing. A significant proportion (over 60%) of aid donated to the poorest nations is spent to service interest (not even capital repayments) on debts incurred during the short post-colonial investment booms of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s [i] , often by dictatorial governments. Payment of aid to NGOs would shift priorities, adding impetus to large scale developments and stimulating further growth via multiple, smaller-scale schemes. Increases in tax revenue resulting from a general increase in economic prosperity throughout a state will enable faster repayment of sovereign debts.  [i] “Debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative.” International Monetary Fund. 06 September 2011.

NGOs do not deliver aid effectively  The idea that NGO’s are better able to deliver development aid has become received wisdom – accepted uncritically, repeated unthinkingly. Because charities do not have the political staying power of governments, nor a government’s ability to mobilise force or request assistance from intergovernmental bodies (such as the UN), they are often the first to withdraw when dormant war zones turn ‘hot’. Inevitably, and understandably, NGOs will always prioritise the lives of their staff and volunteers.  Problems also arise when faith-based NGOs attempt to involve themselves in development projects in poorer parts of the world. Even large, well-funded charities such as Christian Aid [i] or Saudi educational charities are perceived as partisan actors in certain states and territories. The presence of such groups has frequently exacerbated community tensions where access to political power, wealth or land is divided unequally among plural religious or cultural groups.  Most importantly, whilst organisations such as the Red Cross may be able to deliver emergency aid to areas where national governments are unwelcome, it is all but impossible to deliver development aid to conflict zones. Long term solutions to economic deprivation or agricultural failure are rendered meaningless in an environment where the destruction of infrastructure is widespread and unpredictable. Even the most basic forms of aid delivery may be diverted to rebel forces, perpetuating conflicts. The kind of peace that only national governments can impose is needed before serious development can commence.  [i] “Christian Aid: Continued Bias and missing context in Palestinian agenda.” NGO Monitor. 13 July 2006.

Protecting sovereignty  The international community should respect the sovereignty of developing nations. Side proposition has attempted to mischaracterise states in receipt of aid as undemocratic, authoritarian, kleptocratic or Hobbesian wastelands. Side proposition has done precious little to acknowledge that many states that are reliant on ODA are functioning or emerging democracies. Kenya, despite its growing wealth and increasing trade with Asian states still makes extensive use of aid donations. In 2012 Kenya will hold elections for seats in its national legislature – its first since a presidential election degenerated into political violence in 2007. However, even this extended period of civil disorder was brought to an end when the main contenders in the presidential ballot agreed a power sharing deal – a peaceful compromise that has now been maintained for almost five years [i] .  Reducing government aid to developing democracies prevents these states from allocating aid in accordance with their citizens’ wishes. In the world created by the resolution, aid distribution will be carried out by foreign charities that may have objectives and normative motives at odds with the aspirations of a government and its citizens. There is a risk that governments will abandon heterodox or non-liberal approaches to democracy in an effort to obtain tools and support from NGOs that they would otherwise be unable to afford. State actors will be placed in a position where any action they take will entail a significant sacrifice of political authority. A state that capitulates readily to the demands of a foreign NGO will not be seen as a robust representative of the national political will; it will be considered weak. Similarly, a state that refuses to accepting funding or the donations of new infrastructure materials will be forced to deal with the consequences of prolonged fiscal and economic deprivation within its borders.  NGOs are, as a general rule undemocratic, unaccountable interest groups. Like any other private organisation, they are not bound by the transparency and freedom of information regimes that western governments have submitted to. In many states, especially India, NGOs are subject to less regulation and less stringent accounting requirements than for-profit businesses. The American or European origins of the wealthiest NGOs, along with the large numbers of western professionals that they employee make auditing and judicial supervision of their activities difficult for poorer states. It can be complicated and expensive to challenge international conflicts in private law regimes; it can be equally complicated for new governments to renege on agreements that their predecessors may have concluded with NGOs.  Popular concern about the safety of western citizens working for NGOs in foreign states can lead to unbearable diplomatic pressure being applied to governments that attempt to discipline organisations that exceed the authority they have been granted or adopt a lax attitude to national laws or social taboos. An attempt by a French charity to evacuate one hundred and three children from Chad to Europe was subject to wide spread criticism [ii] when it emerged that the charity had produced fake visas for the children and had attempt to conceal the operation from Chadian authorities. The charity had previously published press material that contained open admissions that it was acting without the support of any national government or international organisation. Nonetheless, the French government attempted to influence the outcome of the criminal investigation that was mounted against the Charity’s workers [iii] .  The resolution would remove control over development policy from emergent representative institutions created at great financial and political cost. The resources and political capital normally bound up in ODA would then be transferred to NGOs that may be less accountable than national governments, that may sow conflict within divided communities, and may act unilaterally and without respect for the laws of aid receiving states. The message that the resolution would communicate is directly contradictory to the ethos of responsible, accountable and democratic intervention in marginalised or failing states that has underlain the last twenty years of development policy.  [i] “Deal to end Kenyan crisis agreed.” BBC News Online. 12 April 2008.   [ii] “Profile: Zoe’s Ark.” BBC News Online. 29 October 2007.   [iii] “’Families weren’t duped’, Zoe’s Ark duo tell court.” Sydney Morning Herald. 24 December 2007.

NGOS are better at delivering aid. Governments in those nations most in need of aid are often the least able or willing to deliver that aid. This is particularly true in those states where the line-drawing of colonialism has pitched ethnic groups into conflicts over resources, territory and political recognition. For example, the central government of the former Sudan consistently refused to apportion aid to the country’s restive southern region. Khartoum’s conduct prolonged conflicts in the area and hastened South Sudan’s secession. Similarly, the Nigerian government has no credibility in the Niger Delta region. The Somali government, barely able to assert control over the city of Mogadishu, is unable to distribute aid to other areas of the country. The same is true of south American and south east Asian nations that have been affected by regional insurgencies.  Under these circumstances, many first world states have been forced to withdraw ODA. By contrast, charities have the credibility of not being associated with governments; they can cross national borders and have a presence in rebel controlled areas such as the enclaves of northern Sri Lanka. NGOs are simply more effective at aid delivery in many of the poorest nations.

Biological weapons are indiscriminate. This is why they are so horrific, but also why they are not a concern in this instance. Any use of biological weapons in Syria would likely affect not only rebels but also government supporters. The Syrian government can’t afford to use such a weapon if it wants to ever have a chance of regaining control of the country.

What about biological weapons?  Chemical weapons are a horrifying weapon of mass destruction but they are by no means the only such horrific weapons. James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence says “We judge that some elements of Syria’s biological warfare programme might have advanced beyond the research and development stage and might be capable of limited agent production, based on the duration of its longstanding programme”. [1] Biological weapons could potentially be even more devastating than chemical weapons as they don’t necessarily affect just a localised area then disperse. As with other viruses they can be passed from person to person. In a country like Syria where the health services have broken down, and basically don’t exist in opposition areas the result could be huge numbers of deaths. It is inconsistent to disarm one type of weapon while leaving another type of WMD available to the Syrian regime.  [1] AFP, ‘Syria ‘may be able to produce biological weapons’’, The Telegraph, 29 January 2014,

That progress is difficult and slow is not a good reason to leave the country entirely and instead make no progress.

Inspectors don’t solve the real problem  The biggest difficulty with the weapons inspectors being in Syria is that they are a sideshow to the real problem. Yes chemical weapons use is horrific but their use in Syria has caused far fewer casualties than conventional weapons. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights put the total death toll at 115,000 at the end of September 2013 [1] by comparison the chemical weapons attack that triggered the threat of intervention and therefore the inspections caused somewhere between 136 and 1300 deaths. [2] Syria’s having joined the chemical weapons convention and allowed in inspectors may prevent more deaths as a result of chemical weapons but it has not stopped the conflict. Many thousands more will die as a result of the conflict while the international community looks on patting itself on the back that it has somehow managed to find a solution.  [1] Stampler, Laura, ‘Group Says Syria Death Toll at 115,000’, Time, 1 October 2013,   [2] Mroue, Bassem, ‘The United Nations is seeking clarity over the alleged chemical attack in Syria’, USA Today, 22 August 2013,

There is a limit to what can be done in internal conflicts such as the Syrian civil war. There is a chemical weapons convention that almost every nation has signed so there is an international norm against their use and agreement on their disarmament. This is not the case with conventional internal conflict. The Syrian regime will agree to disarm its chemical weapons to prevent bombing by NATO but removing conventional weapons or ending the conflict would be completely different; a much bigger operation which the Syrian regime could not agree too as it would mean signing their death warrant.

Withdrawing the inspectors is hardly going to make Syria live up to its commitments. Instead more pressure is needed on Syria when it does drag its feet.

Unlikely to make any progress  Weapons inspectors are unlikely to actually be able to totally disarm Syria. The OPCW has been given a target of dismantling Syria’s arsenal by the middle of 2014 but has admitted that it is a tight deadline that will require temporary ceasefires if the target is to be reached. This is because “For any particular move that the team has to undertake, the security situation is assessed. Unless we get the clearance from our UN colleagues, we don't move.” [1] Clearly if the weapons inspectors won’t go where there is a high risk to themselves they are unlikely to get the job done. Already inspectors have encountered situations where they can’t gain access to sites due to safety concerns. [2] Moreover in a conflict situation it will be extremely difficult to verify that all of Syria’s chemical weapons have been dismantled. There are two potential problems – will the Syrian government really be honest about the size of its stockpiles or will it quietly keep some back, and will the inspectors be able to gain access to all areas both government and rebel held? So long as there is conflict there will clearly be a chaotic situation in which weapons could be buried, or hidden, or simply never found.  [1] Ensor, Josie, ‘Chemical watchdog chief calls for Syria ceasefire’, The Telegraph, 9 October 2013,   [2] BBC News, ‘Syria chemical weapons inspectors hail progress’, 17 October 2013,

Syria has not lived up to its commitments  Syria is falling well behind on handing over its weapons. The deadliest chemicals were supposed to be removed by 1st January and the rest by 6th February. Neither happened. The Syrian government blamed the lack of protective equipment as well as the security situation but the OPCW says it has handed over the necessary equipment. [1] Under a new timetable Syria has pledged to remove all chemical weapons by 13th April, but by the end of March had only removed just over half. [2] If Syria continues to fail to meet deadlines there have to be consequences, including abandoning the mission.  [1] Blanford, Nicholas, ‘Months of stalling preceded Syria’s latest chemical weapons handover’, CS Monitor, 4 March 2014,   [2] AlJazeera, 2014,

The chemical weapons inspections take the pressure off Syria. When there was a threat of intervention by an outside power there was a reason for the Syrian government to negotiate with the rebels to find a peaceful solution. It is clear that it was coercion that got the weapons inspectors in as the White House said “It was the credible threat of U.S. military action that led to the opening of this diplomatic avenue.” [1] But it halts future coercion. With weapons inspectors in the country the possibility of using coercion is non-existent; no country is going to consider an attack while they are there and the Syrian regime knows this. The inspections may be considered a diplomatic victory for Russia and the USA but it has come at the expense of the bigger prize of peace. For which there is now almost no prospect.  [1] Zenko, Micah, ‘Would the Syria Deal Be a Coercive Diplomacy Success?’, CFR, 12 September 2013,

Conflict would not break out if the inspectors left; that point has passed. Now if the inspectors left it is likely that nothing would happen. Clearly the better option is for there to be significant pressure on Syria and Assad to bring about peace in the country – through sanctions, help for the rebels, even limited military action. This can then allow much more comprehensive weapons that don’t provide a chance for the Syrian regime to hide some amidst the chaos.

Inspectors are ending a chemical weapons threat  Unless you are a warmonger, or you have a particular hatred of the United Nations, then there is no reason to throw the weapons inspectors out. They do no harm in their mission in Syria and have the potential to do a lot of good by destroying one of the world’s biggest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. 189 countries representing 98% of the world’s population have signed up to the chemical weapons convention, which means getting rid of these horrifying weapons. [1] Clearly the world is in agreement that they must go and this is what the inspectors are endeavouring to do. Getting rid of the inspectors simply halts this vital work to no end.  [1] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, ‘Chemical Weapons’, un.org,

A point on the path to peace  Sometimes peace comes from one big agreement. But most of the time there are lots of small steps on the path to peace. This involves finding areas where deals can be made to help build trust that the negotiating regimes will carry out their promises. A cease fire is worthless if neither side believes the other will stick to it as it becomes a race to break it first. But the progress of weapons inspectors shows Syria can be trusted to fulfil its commitments. Peace talks have followed the agreement on chemical weapons. There have been conferences at Montreaux/Geneva, they have not brought breakthroughs, but neither have they broken down so progress on other issues such as prisoner exchanges, humanitarian access, or safe passage deals, are likely at some point. [1]  [1] Williams, Michael C., ‘Negotiating a path to peace: from Geneva to Aleppo, via Moscow’, New Statesman, 13 February 2014,

Nobody can afford to have the weapons inspectors leave  There were three main actors in the deal that allowed the chemical weapons inspectors into Syria; The United States, Russia, and the Syrian government, none of whom have any reason to want to see the inspectors leave. Russia took the initiative to create the deal having leapt upon Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks and so has a lot of international prestige tied up in making the deal work, it also shows that Russia can be constructive as well as simply a spoiler in the international arena.  If the deal collapsed then the United States would almost certainly be back to where it was when there was agreement on sending the weapons inspectors in; days or weeks away from military action. Such military action would be costly and unlikely to work; attacking chemical weapons from the air would be difficult and would risk chemical releases. [1]  Because of the risk of attack it would clearly be in Syria’s interest to stick with the current situation. So far it has given no indication that it will hinder the weapons inspectors in any way. This has been confirmed by Sigrid Kaag, the Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission, who in late October stated “To date, the Government of Syria has fully cooperated in supporting the work of the advance team and the OPCW-UN Joint Mission.” [2]  [1] Hambling, David, ‘How the US may try to destroy Syria's chemical weapons’, New Scientist, 3 September 2013,   [2] Kaag, Sigrid, ‘Statement of Sigrid Kaag, Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission’, un.org, 22 October 2013,

Inspectors were the only way to avoid international conflict  Before the deal on allowing in weapons inspectors the course was set for an international conflict in Syria; the United States and allies, such as France, would have bombed Syria. The only way to prevent such a conflict becoming a reality is to keep weapons inspectors on the ground. Syria crossed President Obama’s ‘red line’ when chemical weapons were used and despite initial reluctance on the part of the Obama administration this was always likely to lead to some form of military response. Syria's Foreign Minister when accepting the Russian suggestion to disarm its chemical weapons suggested this was why it accepted as Walid al-Moallem said they accepted to "thwart U.S. aggression". [1] If the weapons inspectors leave the United States is once more left with the question of how to get rid of the chemical weapons, the weapons inspections are the only non-military option.  [1] AP, 'Syria Accepts Russian Proposal To Surrender Chemical Weapons, Foreign Minister says', Huffington Post, 10 September 2013,

The deal that allowed weapons inspectors into Syria may have made peace further away not closer. By allowing Assad’s government to sign up to an international treaty while its legitimacy was contested by other groups showed that other governments accept only Assad as the legitimate government of Syria. This undid two years of attempts to delegitimise Assad; more than 30 countries had recognised Syria’s opposition as the country’s ‘legitimate representative’. [1]  [1] Freedman, Joshua Meir, ‘Don’t let Assad sign the Chemical Weapons Convention on Syria’s behalf’, AlJazeera, 29 September 2013,

Taking the weapons inspectors out of Syria need not be permanent, simply until there is peace and hopefully a new regime.

African states have been happy with the ICC in the past – they referred ICC cases to the court themselves.  If African states were to set up their own court, it would be unclear how it would work with the existing framework of the ICC as some African states may wish to remain ICC members. Also, a regional body would still lead to allegations of a “foreign court”, while at the same time placing the decisions in the hands of judges who may be less insulated from regional geopolitical pressures.

Regional court is “best of both worlds”  A regional court would be a good way to balance the competing issues between the legitimate concerns of the African states and the International Criminal Court.  It would be able to provide an African solution to African problems, with no accusations of external interference or colonialism. Similarly, it would have some of the advantages of the ICC particularly its independence from individual states, meaning those in high places are more likely to be held to account. With this accountability to an African court there would be an impression of being held to account by peers not outsiders.

There isn’t such a balancing act – without justice there cannot be peace as it is simply likely to lead to attempts at retribution or vigilante justice. Justice is a universal value, an end in itself. It is not something that can be given away as a bargaining chip.

ICC is biased against Africans  All of the ongoing ICC prosecutions are based on events in Africa, and all those on trial are Africans.  The ICC has not brought actions following the invasion of Iraq, or the conflicts in Sri Lanka and Colombia. The lack of action in any matter outside sub-Saharan Africa shows that the international community are happy to allow the ICC to exclusively prosecute Africans. The UN Security Council, which contains no African permanent members, can veto any possible prosecution [1] and refer a case to the ICC [2] ..  Replacing the ICC with an African Criminal Court would stop this bias, or perception of bias. This would be done by withdrawing from the Rome statute and the ICC which has been labelled as Western imperialism by people such as Rwandan president Paul Kagame [3] .  [1] Rome Statute, Article 16  [2] Rome Statute, Article 13  [3] Du Plessis, footnote 36 (dead links)

Almost all of the cases where people have been indicted before the ICC – DR Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic and the Ivory Coast – have been referred to the court by African nations themselves. Those that have not were referred to the UN Security Council. The only case where the Office of the Prosecutor started a case leading to incitement was the Kenya case, Kenya having signed and ratified the Rome Statute. The ICC can only act where it has jurisdiction [1] - it is not a kangaroo court for particular cases.  The ICC has looked in to cases outside Africa, including in Afghanistan, Honduras, the Mediterranean sea (an Israeli attack on Comorosian, Greek and Cambodian ships), Korea, Colombia, Georgia and Palestine [2] .  [1] Rome Statute, Article 22  [2] Office of the Prosecutor, Report in to Preliminary Examination Activities, 2013,

Drugs trafficking was considered as a role for the ICC, but rejected as unworkable – an ACC would face the same problems. “Unconstitutonal change of government” would be open to rampant political abuse, allowing existing governments to cling on to power.  No other supranational regional body has tried having its own prosecution system or criminal courts – not even the European Union. Regional bodies can – and should – have courts to deal with treaty interpretation or human rights treaties, but regional criminal courts are a major step into the unknown. Criminal cases are best served by one nation, or all of them – not a regional bloc with its own tensions.

ICC doesn’t strike right balance between peace and justice for Africa  The balance between peace and justice is a complex issue. The ICC has disregarded peace as a priority in cases, focusing exclusively on justice by indicting individuals, which reduces the diplomatic leeway and drives those indicted towards a bunker mentality. The result then may be the conflict goes on longer and more crimes are committed. Peace and preventing future crimes should come before justice for past crimes. The ICC have focused on prosecuting Omar al Bashir, but it may be a better option to focus on diplomatic alternatives to trials for dealing with the conflict in Darfur.

ACC could deal with pan-African problems that the ICC does not address  It has been suggested that offences such as “unconstitutional change of government”, drug trafficking, piracy and corruption [1] should be added to the jurisdiction of an African Criminal Court.  The ICC is limited to only a small number of crimes. However, an African Criminal Court could not only deal with the existing crimes, but create pan-African solutions in terms of dealing with a number of issues where Africa needs particular solutions.  An ACC could deal with piracy off the coast of East Africa, where there is no effective court system, due to Somalia amounting to a failed state. Similarly, “unconstitutional change of government” prosecutions could amount to a deterrent to coups.  [1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012,

An African Criminal Court instead of African ICC membership would not lead to impunity – just more local courts. The principle of complementarity, allowing national courts to take appropriate action – is already enshrined in the ICC. In a particularly bad case, the UN Security Council could still refer a situation to the ICC.  Running an African Criminal Court in tandem with the ICC would allow another layer of regional justice to bring the Nuremberg precedent – leaders held criminally responsible for criminal actions – in to fruition in Africa.

By being a court for the African continent by the African continent, there will not be room for allegations of imperialism and/or racism that already exist against the International Criminal Court.  In addition, the African states that are members of the International Criminal Court have chosen to do so – it is not a violation of state sovereignty for a state to voluntarily sign a treaty even if that treaty restricts the actions of future governments.

ACC could destabilize Africa  Depending on how the treaty is drawn up, an African Criminal Court could be open to abuse. If it has too broad powers, it could lead to political trials thanks to judges following orders from their domestic governments, and complaints to it by governments in diplomatic spats rather than actually resolving serious international criminal law crimes.  The same disputes that exist now within the ICC over issues such as interference with national sovereignty could just be replicated on a smaller scale – but rather than resembling a failure of any international body, it would be a regional body and lead to greater problems. If the ICC indicts a leader there is anger at the international community, if an ACC does the same there is a split in the AU.

An African Criminal Court would be a waste of money  International trials are expensive – 14% of the AU’s annual budget for an ICC trial [1] .  The ICC is cheaper than the cost of the tribunal system – the cost of the Charles Taylor trial was roughly two and a half times that of the $20M figure for ICC trials. Africa already contributes little to the budget of the ICC. The ICC will be cheaper than standalone tribunals thanks to economies of scale.  The African Union has a track record of failures as well – NEPAD, the New Partnership for African Development tried to have a quasi-judicial element aiming to create rulings against corruption, but failed [2] .  [1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012,   [2] Editorial, ‘African Criminal Court Not Viable’, the Star, 17 July 2012,

Anti-ICC sentiment is a simple desire for impunity  The sole motive for the anti-ICC arguments raised by organizations such as the African Union is a drive towards impunity – particularly for heads of state. The prosecutions of Uhuru Kenyatta and Omar al-Bashir, so viciously opposed by the AU, are a show that heads of state are and should be subject to the international criminal law – a principle that dates back to Nuremberg.  An African Criminal Court would simply be granting African leaders’ carte blanche to perform crimes against humanity, as there would be a ready-made court to acquit them.

Just as much of a violation of sovereignty as the ICC  Part of the calls for an African Criminal Court are based on the perception that the national sovereignty of African nations is being attacked in some way before the International Criminal Court.  However, an African Criminal Court would be just as much of a violation of the sovereignty of individual African nations as the ICC; it is a system of courts outside the control of the nation of those it is trying.  European states object to courts outside their control dictating even when they are regional courts – consider the reactions to the European Court of Human Rights on areas like voting for prisoners or to the European Court of Justice. That these are regional not global courts makes little difference to national opinion. It is no surprise then that not even the EU with its close relations has attempted a supra national criminal court system.

Peace is cheaper than war – however much a court case costs, in both human lives and money, it is better for there to be a trial.  Even if it is more expensive, justice is priceless – it is not something that can be subjected to cost-benefit analyses or bean counting.  The reason why Western countries fund the ICC is not some form of imperialism – simply a desire for global peace, justice and security so they would likely be willing to keep paying much of the cost.

If it is a damp squib, so be it – other international organizations have fallen in to disuse – UN institutions that only exist on paper such as the Trusteeship Council are not doing any harm and there would be the fallback of returning to the ICC if things go wrong.

It is only fair that the US should have some say on domestic drug policy considering the extent of their military assistance. The offers of assistance are optional and the conditions of compliance are known by both parties. The US gave $6,495 million in military assistance to the Columbian government between 1998 and 2008 to counter the narcotics trade and the rebels who were reliant on the business1. Since this funding comes from the USA’s federal budget, the US should be able to dictate how the money is spent.  1) Acevedo,B. ‘Ten Years of Plan Colombia: An Analytical Assessment’, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, September 2008

Sacrifice of sovereignty  Guinea-Bissau would have to sacrifice its autonomy if it became the new front for the war on drugs. In order to receive assistance from the US, a state must adhere to US policy on drugs. If it fails to do so, like Bolivia did in 2009, then aid is severed under the certification system1. This restricts the recipient state’s ability to respond to the drug threat in a way that they deem suitable to their own circumstances. As a state should be free to form domestic policy without influence by external actors, the USA’s certification process is a violation of national sovereignty.  1) Walsh,J. ‘U.S. Decertification of Bolivia: A Blast from the Past’, Washington Office on Latin America, 17 September 2009

The judicial system is not capable of handling narcotics cases fairly. Corruption and civil war have left Guinea-Bissau’s judicial system broken. Military leader General Antonio Indaj, who has alleged links to the drugs trade, has vetted all political and judicial appointments1. Considering that Guinea-Bissau has no prison, it is unlikely that those in the drug trade will be properly prosecuted. The US’ judicial system is seen as far more impartial and is, therefore, a more logical choice.  1) Reitano,T. &amp; Shaw,M. ‘Arrest of Guinea-Bissau’s Drug Lords Just the First Step in the Battle Against Trafficking’, Institute for Security Studies, 12 August 2013

Gives power to military coup leaders  Assistance from the US would ensure that the coup leaders of Guinea Bissau remain in power. The securitisation of issues such as drugs and ‘terror’ is encouraged by the United States. A major problem with this policy is that it provides undue power and legitimacy to those countering the threat1. In early 2014, the military were still unconstitutionally ruling over the country. The drug war provides an external threat for the military to justify their leadership position. Considering the military has refused to allow democratic elections to occur and has regularly committed coups2, the US drug war could be a perfect excuse for to remain in power until the ‘threat’ subsides.  1) Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’, International Journal of Drug Policy, 2012  2) BBC, ‘Guinea-Bissau drug trade ‘rises since coup’, 31 June 2012

Part of the financial assistance received by countries on the front line of the drug war is a fund for ‘strengthening of democratic institutions’. Plan Columbia, the USA’s attempt to reduce drug cultivation, saw 27% of all funding going towards democratic initiatives1. In a review by the Congressional Research Service of US drug control policy, the strengthening of the rule of law and democratic institutions is a priority for the US2. If the US drug war was brought to Guinea-Bissau then funding would most likely go towards promoting democratic institutions and a transition of power from the military to the civilians.  1) Acevedo,B. ‘Ten Years of Plan Colombia: An Analytical Assessment’, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, September 2008  2) Wyler,L. ‘International Drug Control Policy: Background and U.S. Responses’, Congressional Research Service, 13 August 2013

There is a stronger focus on alternative development in drugs policy compared to the beginning of the drug war. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), historically influenced by US drug policy, has taken an increasingly alternative development-orientated stance. The UNODC has committed itself to effective alternative incomes, gender mainstreaming and community participation which demonstrates a global shift towards beneficial development1.  1) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime ‘Making a difference through Alternative Development’ data accessed 30 January 2014

Judiciary are undermined  Should Guinea-Bissau become the new front of the US drug war then their judiciary will be furthered undermined. The US has frequently tried offenders from other countries in the US, superseding the local judiciary1. While this is usually due to formal agreements between states, extradition can cause indignation amongst the local population. Guinea-Bissau’s ex Naval chief Na Tchuto was arrested by American forces and, rather than allowing his home state to prosecute him, was tried by the New York District Court. This caused resentment in Guinea-Bissau towards the US2.  1) Aronofsky,D. &amp; Qin,J. ‘U.S. International Narcotics Extradition Cases’  2) Reitano,T. &amp; Shaw,M. ‘Arrest of Guinea-Bissau’s Drug Lords Just the First Step in the Battle Against Trafficking’, Institute for Security Studies, 12 August 2013

War on the poor  The war on drugs has turned in to a war on the poorest in society. Through heavy handed techniques of enforcement and militarisation, the American war on drugs has failed to identify to key motivating factor for many of those involved in the trade; poverty1. Guinea-Bissau is the 5th poorest nation in the world, and other primary exports such as cashew nuts are starting to fail1. Due to lucrative profits, many of the poorer in society turn to the drug trade. US policy does not put enough of a focus on alternative development projects which can provide a livelihood through licit means. Instead they are treated as criminals and, in turn, are pushed further away from reconciliation.  1) Falco,M. ‘Foreign Drugs, Foreign Wars’, Daedalus, 121:2, 2007, pg4  2) The Guardian, ‘Guinea-Bissau’s dwindling cashew nut exports leave farmers facing hardship’, 23 August 2012

Corruption is still present in many states which have joined the US drug war. The war on drugs has done little, and perhaps exacerbated, Columbia’s corruption despite US assistance. In 2011, Columbian ex-government ministers were jailed and prosecuted for corruption and co-operation with paramilitaries.1Judicial reforms have also met with varied success. The Merida Initiative in Mexico, designed at removing the corruption of the cartels, has failed to address corruption in the judicial system which is still rampant. 2  1) Bogota,S. ‘Closer and closer to the top’, The Economist, 29 July 2011  2) Corcoran,P. ‘Mexico Judicial Reforms Go Easy On Corrupt Judges’, In Sight Crime, 16 February 2012

Interdiction rarely works. If Guinea-Bissau were to remove illicit drug operations from within its territories then the cartels would move elsewhere. Known as the hydra effect, once one potential drug route is cut off then another one is found and the trade continues1. This was the case for interdiction efforts between the US and Mexico. Initial government operations were successful at interdicting drugs being shipped between South American and Florida. In retaliation, traffickers began to use the US-Mexico border. The border witnesses large volumes of trade and interdicting the drugs proved to be nearly impossible2. It is logical to conclude that traffickers would find a new way to ensure drugs reached the Western markets if Guinea-Bissau sought US assistance.  1) Boaz,D. ‘The Hydra-Headed Drug Business’, CATO institute, 30 June 1998  2) Morton,D. ‘The War on Drugs in Mexico: a failed state?’, Third World Quarterly,39:3, pg.1639

US will provide equipment  Guinea-Bissau should join the US drug war as they do not have the means to fight the war themselves. The local law enforcement is underfunded and ill-equipped to deal with the international threat. Guinea Bissau has one ship which patrols 350km of coastline, their officers have little in the way of land transport, petrol, phones or hand cuffs1. The limited reach of the law has allowed the cartels and gangs to prosper which, in turn, further damages law and order in Guinea Bissau. US military assistance will therefore help restore law and order to Guinea Bissau.  1) Parkinson,C. ‘LatAm Drug Traffickers Set Up in Guinea-Bissau, Expand in Africa’, In Sight Crime, 29 August 2013  2) Acevedo,B. ‘Ten Years of Plan Colombia: An Analytical Assessment’, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, September 2008Shirk,D. ‘The Drug War in Mexico’, Council of Foreign Relations, March 2011

Becoming a narco-state  Guinea-Bissau’s social fabric is being destroyed by the presence of the drug trade and requires international support. Guinea-Bissau has been named as Africa’s first Narco-state; a country controlled by drug cartels and gangs. Violence committed by these gangs has escalated since the arrival of the Columbian cartels in 20071. Addiction, a consequence of the cocaine and heroin use, is prevalent throughout much of the country. It was estimated in 2012 that around 20-30% of the population use crack, an extremely addictive form of cocaine, and there is only one clinic in the country2. The only people who are visibly profiting from the presence of drugs are the Columbian drug lords who have extravagant mansions and modern cars3. Guinea-Bissau cannot hope to fight the prominence of these gangs by themselves and require aid.  1) Time, ‘Guinea-Bissau: World’s First Narco-State’, data accessed 28 January 2014  2) Hatcher,J. ‘Guinea-Bissau: How Cocaine Transformed a Tiny African Nation’, Time, 15 October 2012  3) Vulliamy,E. ‘How a tiny West African country became the world’s first narco state’, The Guardian, 9 March 2008

Deal with Corruption  Guinea-Bissau’s institutions have become too corrupt to deal with the drug problem and require support. The police, army and judiciary have all been implicated in the drug trade. The involvement of state officials in drug trafficking means that criminals are not prosecuted against. When two soldiers and a civilian were apprehended with 635kg (worth £25.4 million in 2013), they were detained and then immediately released with Colonel Arsenio Blade claiming ‘They were on the road hitching a ride’1. Judges are often bribed or sent death threats when faced with sentencing those involved in the drug trade. The USA has provided restructuring assistance to institutions which have reduced corruption, such as in the Mexico Merida Initiative, and could do the same with Guinea Bissau.  1) Vulliamy,E. ‘How a tiny West African country became the world’s first narco state’, The Guardian, 9 March 2008  2) Corcoran,P. ‘Mexico Judicial Reforms Go Easy On Corrupt Judges’, In Sight Crime, 16 February 2012

Prevent drugs from reaching Western markets  By joining the war on drugs, Guinea-Bissau will be in a better position to thwart the transportation of cheap cocaine and heroin to Europe and North America. Guinea-Bissau’s position makes it ideal for the cocaine trade, where drugs can be unloaded from Latin America and then distributed more easily to the West1. Around 18 tons of cocaine (worth $1.25 billion) passes through West Africa annually, most of it travelling through the state2. US assistance and interdiction operations would help prevent illicit drugs from reaching the profitable Western markets.  1) Smoltczyk,A. ‘Africa’s Cocaine Hub: Guinea-Bissau a “Drug Trafficker’s Dream”, Spiegel, 8 March 2013  2) Hoffman,M. ‘Guinea-Bissau and the South Atlantic Cocaine Trade’, Centre for American Progress, 22 August 2013

Considering that many of the military leaders have an invested interest in the drug trade, it is unlikely that Guinea-Bissau will seek help on these grounds. Antonio Indaj, the army’s Chief of Staff, was accused in 2013 of acting as a middle man in transactions between the South American cartels and the Western markets1. Not only has he been involved in drugs transactions, but Indaj has also been accessed of supplying weaponry to the FARC. This makes it unlikely that these leaders would want US assistance which would disrupt their profits and possibly leave them open to prosecution.  1) Hoffman,M. ‘Guinea-Bissau and the South Atlantic Cocaine Trade’, Centre for American Progress, 22 August 2013

US assistance does not guarantee success against illicit drug organisations. Despite the militarisation of the drug war in the Reagan-era, armed gangs are still prominent throughout the drug world. In Columbia, the left wing FARC still remains despite decades of war against the Columbian and USA governments1. The FARC, who use drugs for much of its income, still control large territories in the South Eastern territories. The effectiveness of military aid is consequently uncertain.  1) Acosta,N. ‘Colombia’s FARC rebels end holiday ceasefire’, Reuters, 15 January 2014  2) Vulliamy,E. ‘How a tiny West African country became the world’s first narco state’, The Guardian, 9 March 2008

Modern society discriminates itself against the principles of individuals choosing self-determination and parental rights when it comes to the opposite case. There are high double standards when for example a couple chooses that their child should be deaf, just as they are.  This was the case with Tomato Lichy and his partner Paula, who wanted IVF in order to produce a child that was deaf- just as they are. The “embryo bill in 2008 (UK)” passed with a clause that exactly prohibits such actions as the deaf couple in limits of their right to self-determination and parenting requested.  Clause 14/4/9 states that, "Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop a serious physical or mental disability, a serious illness or any other serious medical condition must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality." (1)  Specifically this means that in cases of embryos the law makes parents choose the healthy embryo over the embryo of their decision. It is unjust to appeal towards the rights of self-determination and parental rights if they are not applicable to all parents and if the distinction is made based on arbitrary definitions of valuable physical characteristics.  1 Dominic Lawson, Of course a deaf couple wants a deaf child, 03/11/2008,  , accessed 05/23/2011

Parents have a right to acquire and act upon medical information  This argument comes from the idea, that a body is the property of its owner, as well as a fertilized egg is the property of the couple that created it whom also have parental rights  a) Self-determination  Some proponents of genetic screening might go as far to create the distinction between an embryo and a child: considering an embryo not to be a living being, but rather just a mass of cells, makes it possible to avoid entirely considering the "screening" process as a selection process between living human beings. Rather, it could be interpreted merely as a selection between different organizations of cells that have differing potential to become healthy "life".  b) Parental rights  Currently we allow couples to choose not to have children due to their own genetic deformations. We allow them to tie their tubes, get sterilized due to their own decision not to have children with genetic defects or children at all.  Experts suggest, that due to the sanctity of parental rights, the principle decision making should be in the hands of the parents, also regarding the power over the future of their DNA. With this, the society respects the principal decision making right of the individual to control their family and the destiny of their offspring (1).  Mainly making it a next step in deciding what their course of action regarding children will be.  1 Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998,  , accessed 05/23/2011

Seen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable.  That life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1)  1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy,  , accessed 05/24/2011

Genetic testing ensures the best quality of life for children vulnerable to heritable diseases  We have a duty to the child to give it the best possible start in life, and if the technology is available to determine whether a baby is brought into the world with or without a genetic neurological disease such as Huntington’s, cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, we should exercise that right.  A child that has Cystic Fibrosis (CF) produces too much fluid and mucus in the lungs, pancreas and passage ways, which then become thick, sticky and hard to move. This means that germs get stuck in the mucus and the child suffers from a lot of infectious diseases. Thus lead to reduced life expectancies (1).  For the gene detectable blood disease Thalassemia in its moderate and severe forms children may need very frequent blood transfusions, which over time lead to damage of heart, liver or other organs. Or may need stem cell transplants (bone marrow transplants) in order to get these transplants children will usually need to undergo radiation and need to have the luck of a well matched donor (2).  Congenital malformations, deformations, chromosomal abnormalities are the leading causes of 20% of infant deaths in the US. More than 6,000 single-gene disorders - which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births - such as cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis or sickle cell anemia.  Dr. Gregor Wolbring (University of Alberta in Canada) sees embryo selection as "a tool for fixing disabilities, impairments, diseases and defects"(3).  If we have ways to prevent children from such suffering and can manipulate only with those genes so that they do not have to suffer, we should do so.  1. KidsHealth,  , accessed 05/21/2011  2. Mayo Clinic,  , 05/21/2011  3. MedicineNet.com  , accessed 05/23/2011

The genetic test does not prevent or cure anything. It merely asserts whether someone is a carrier of a genetic disorder. The testing would be paid for by couples to see if they are both carriers of this disorder. The decision then a couple can make based on the screenings is then to:  a) not have children together  The idea of these tests preventing people from marrying is mental. In our liberal society surely it is love that counts in a relationship, not how well your genes fit together to make the perfect child.  b) choose in vitro fertilization  In order to make them prevent the disease, so that the defected genes (in some cases) can be manipulated.  c) abort the present fetus  We pressurize and take away choices of the parents, by giving them the knowledge, regarding their children.  A professor of Law at Harvard University, Paul Freund also takes up the position that an unborn child has the right to random genes. Freund states, 'The mystery of individual’s personality, resting on the chance combination of ancestral traits, is the basis of our sense of mutual compassion and at the same time, of accountability."  Professor Freund suggests that the ethical approach to advances in genetic technology allows the random assortment of genes to take effect, thereby protecting the sanctity of the human individual (1).  Further on with the advances in medicine genetic conditions and disorders no longer present such a burden on the children and enable them to live a good lifestyle and have high survival rates.  1. Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998,  , accessed 05/23/2011

Liberal societies have a duty to minimise avoidable suffering that might affect their members  Some of the genetic diseases tested include great suffering for the individual, one of them is the Tay Sachs syndrome. Where nerve cells become fatty from reoccurring infections.(1) This is a disease, where even with the best of care; a child dies at the age of 4.  Another is also Down Syndrome, where half of the sufferers have heart defects, increased risks of types of leukemia and high risks of dementia. Physical and mental limitations are also a feature of such a defect which causes many children to die early. (2).  So it is the duty of any society to prevent such sufferings for both child and parents at any cost or method. A similar view is shared among the Jewish community, who has problems with a high prevalence of Tay Sachs syndrome. They believe that due to the psychological and physical repercussions of the birth of a child with the genetic disorder it is better to screen and choose a healthy embryo (or abort the present pregnancy). (3)  So because such diseases cause great distress for the involved parties and we could prevent it, it is morally right for society to engage in genetic screening.  1. National institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke,  , accessed 05/24/2011  2.Medline Plus 10/18/2010,  , accessed 05/24/2011  3. Daniel Eisenberg, A Jewish perspective on issues related to screening Tay-Sachs disease,  , accessed 05/24/2011

Most genetic screening tests can also be performed at home, with results sent only to the user and so kept secretly – away from insurance companies and health institutions. It is then the domain of the individual itself if he or she wants to disclose this information. Discrimination based on the genetic pool currently seems to be rare but since thousands of Americans are accustomed to a health insurance system in which known risks carry financial penalties, they do not disclose this information (1).  Regarding genetic screening in the UK, there is a voluntary ban among members of the Association of British Insurers from being able to access the results of genetic tests (apart from Huntington’s disease). This ban will be again reviewed in the year 2014 (2).  1. Amy Harmon, Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests, 02/24/2008,  , accessed 22/05/2011  2. Impact,  , accessed 22/05/2011

Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to.  By having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race.  Genetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.

A screening culture may lead to the value of human life becoming distorted  Genetic engineering treats embryos like commodities: “if the product isn’t sufficiently equipped, doesn’t produce the desired results – we will not launch it”. Even if we weren't considering embryos to be "human life", it is inappropriate to treat them as commodities with an "option to purchase". This cheapens at least the potential life-forms these embryos can become.  Views of doctors and also future parents regarding the value of their unborn children’s lives are changing.  In a survey taken in New England (USA), there was a substantial majority in favor of genetic screening for a wide range of disorders. About 11 per cent of the couples have also admitted to wanting to abort a child that was genetically predisposed to obesity. A condition with which it is possible to live a good lifestyle (1).  With allowing more and more genetic screening and abortions / manipulations based on genes we are making life more of a commodity.  1.Jim Leffel, Genetic Technology, Engeneering Life: Human Rights in a Postmodern Age,  , accessed 05/23/2011

Genetic destabilisation  Natural selection is the process whereby people mate, have children and those children enrich the gene pool – if they survive. Occasionally genetic mistakes are made in that reproduction. As long as the result is not fatal, that mistake can begin to infiltrate the gene pool. More people may come to have this mistake in built into their genome. Whilst we may see it as a mistake in our current living conditions, that mutant gene may be a defense to future conditions.  For instance, the spread of sickle cell anemia in Africa. This disease causes red blood cells to carry less oxygen due to the squashed nature of all the red blood cells. This condition causes people to die younger, in 1973 life expectancy for a sufferer was 17, and it is now 50 and above. However, sickle cell anemia is a natural immunity against malaria. The life expectancy for someone with malaria is far lower.[[Sickle cell disease, QualityHealth, 13th January 2011,  accessed 25/05/11]]  We need different genes in the human gene pool even if we do not see the benefit of them now.

Genetic screening may lead to the pooling and centralised storage of genetic information  Most diseases people will not have heard of. Such tests can be used also to store DNA in a database. The hotly debated idea of a DNA database has received much criticism. By framing the question of the ethics of a DNA database in this light is much more positively received by the public, and this is a way governments and insurance companies will change the public perception of a DNA database.  Health insurance companies in America and life insurance companies in Britain will be very keen in the use of this data in order to give higher premiums to those who show positive for certain diseases.  Such genetic screening then may lead to companies demanding information about clients before ensuring them.  This fear of insurance in the US being denied due to genetic predispositions is not groundless. A study conducted by Georgetown University Health Policy Institute in 2008 proves a similar point. In 7 of 92 underwriting decisions, insurance providers (hypothetical cases) decided, they would deny coverage, charge more or exclude certain conditions from coverage based on genetic test results (1).  1. Amy Harmon, Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests, 02/24/2008,  , accessed 22/05/2011

Genetic screening may lead the marginalisation of those living with genetic disorders  Seen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable.  That life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1)  1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy,  , accessed 05/24/2011

Side proposition are not suggesting that natural selection would not still occur, but that seriously debilitating genetic diseases would no longer lead to the death of many infants, or the poor quality of life. In 1973, we did not have the technology to prevent malaria which we have now. With the technology we have today we can manage and treat many more illnesses than previously thought possible.

In 2006 already Baroness Ruth Deech, the former chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the UK explained, that it is far more ethical to choose an embryo before implantation, than getting pregnant, deciding there’s something wrong with the baby and then aborting it.  Mainly it is the duty to impose the right restrictions that would enable a distinction on what is necessary for a normal lifestyle and where to draw the line for genetic predispositions (so for example to not abort or not implant babies with genes for obesity).  Also it is in the human nature to abort fetuses from the uterus if they are not healthy, it is a help to the natural process. Because during every cycle of a sexually active female fertilized eggs if not found to be healthy enough to survive get aborted naturally (1).  1. Head to head: Genetic screening, 05/10/2006,  , accessed 05/23/2011

Reality is a lot murkier than theory. How are we to determine a state’s intent? Sometimes good intentions are bound up with bad; public justifications for war may not always represent the real reasons. And who is determine if a peace is just or a wrong has been committed? The nation initiating the war will use its own values to justify its intentions, and these values may be at odds with those of the other party to the conflict. Furthermore, it is altogether possible to fight a war for selfish motives and nevertheless protect civilians and reduce suffering in so doing.

Right Intention  The intentions behind the war must be good. States have the right to use war to restore a just peace, to help the innocent, or to right a wrong. For example, the US and NATO were justified in using force in Bosnia and Kosovo. Waging war was far more ethical than standing by and permitting genocide and “ethnic cleansing”.

Prospect of Success  The war must have a reasonable chance of success. War always involves a loss of life, but expending life with no possibility of achieving a goal is unacceptable. Thus, if a fighting force cannot achieve its goal, however just, it should not proceed. Charging an enemy’s cannons on horseback or throwing troops at a pointless occupation are clearly not just actions.

Many nations wage war without official declaration (e.g. the USA’s involvement in Vietnam) and act unilaterally instead. Such unilateralism does not necessarily lead to an inevitable circumvention of the Geneva Conventions, it merely avoids the bureaucracy necessary to draw authoritative approval. Moreover, who is to decide which entities can and cannot issue calls to arms? Legitimate authorities have sanctioned some of the most horrific wars in history.

Proportionality  The goal of the war should be proportional to the offense, and the benefits proportional to the costs. For example, when an attacker violates a nation’s border, a proportionate response might extend to restoring the border, not sacking the attackers’ capital. A war must prevent more suffering than it causes.  The Coalition that formed under the aegis of the United Nations to repel the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait fought a proportional conflict to the extent that they did not march on Baghdad after they had pushed the Iraqi Army out of the occupied territory.

Just Cause  Wars are just if the cause is just. Nations should be allowed to defend themselves from aggression, just as individuals are permitted to defend themselves against violence. In the UN Charter, signed in the wake of World War II, article 2, paragraph 4 altogether prohibits the use or threat of force with only self-defence, as stated in article 51, permitted as a justification to the resort to arms. [1]  [1] United Nations. (1945, June 26). Chapter I: Purposes and Principles. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from Charter of the United Nations:

Just cause is an elastic concept. Who determines what is “aggression”? Could violating a disputed border region (e.g. Ethopia-Eritrea, Pakistan-India) or imposing economic sanctions (e.g on North Korea) be aggression? And if a state is unable to defend itself, can another state intervene militarily on its behalf? These borderline cases make invoking this criterion very problematic.

We have seen that a proportional response frequently doesn’t work. Suicide bombers continue to blow up victims in the Middle East despite the response. Why should a nation tolerate continued aggression for the sake of proportionality? And if a nation knows it is likely to be attacked, why should it wait to disarm the aggressor? Is not pre-emptive action justified to prevent the loss of innocent life? Finally, what of deterrence: a vigorous response to an aggressive act may not be strictly proportionate, but by making all potential aggressors think twice about future actions, it can be justified as saving more suffering in the long run.

Sometimes it is morally imperative to fight against overwhelming odds, as resistance fighters did in World War II. Also this condition may give large nations free rein to bully small ones because they could not win a war. It also may cause a country to surrender in a war it might actually win. Weak countries have won wars against powerful ones – look at the American Revolution. Finally, the point at which a war became unwinnable, and therefore unjust by this definition, is often only identifiable with hindsight – consider the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, or the American involvement in Vietnam.

Sometimes going to war before all alternatives are exhausted is the most moral action. For example, a nation might decide to go to war if it determines that waiting would enable to the enemy to increase its strength and to do much more damage than an early war would have inflicted. This, after all, is the bitter lesson of the failure of appeasement in the 1930s. Waiting might allow an invading state to entrench itself so that far greater force would be necessary to remove it at a later date.

Legitimate Authority  The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority. This prevents inappropriate, terrorist-style chaos, and ensures that other rules of war will be observed. For example, when states declare war, they generally follow specific legislative procedures; a guaranteed respect for such procedures is likely to ensure that the nation will respect international humanitarian law, formally codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and updated in the Additional Protocols of 1977.

Last Resort  War must be a last resort. The state is justified in using armed force only after it has tried all non-violent alternatives. Sometimes peaceful measures – diplomacy, economic sanctions, international pressure, or condemnation from other nations – simply do not work, but they must at least be tried in order to give every chance for a peaceful resolution to a crisis.

The traditional just war framework may be difficult to apply to the contemporary war on terror, but whilst war remains, we must possess the just war framework as a strategic tool to both prevent and regulate its occurrence. Whilst they may involve the alteration of certain criteria, as has happened throughout its history, it does not suggest it has lost all use. The Bush administration’s attempts to circumvent the jus in bello principles of non-combatant immunity were stalled, albeit belatedly, by widespread public disapproval, proving the basis for just war thinking is not in vain idealism but moral intuition. Therefore the just war doctrine is not only necessary but to an extent, innate.

War is a necessary element in international affairs when there is no scope for diplomacy and conditions dictate that force is necessary to prevent or stop suffering. Few would argue that the United States was acting unjustly in entering the 2nd World War, or that more generally the defeat of the Nazis was an unjust act on the behalf of the Allies.  Furthermore, just war theory has little to say on the overall existence of war, but merely seeks to regulate war as a permanent feature of international society. War, as an institution and a human activity, has existed for as long as there have been political communities. The resort to force is therefore not one made due merely to a belief in its legitimacy but a belief in its utility. Just war theory acts therefore as a series of moral criteria to regulate the resort to warfare in order to prevent, rather than exacerbate, war for war’s sake. It recognizes the ‘war is hell’ mentality and is, if anything, born from it, encouraging a resort to force only in cases where diplomacy is unable to function and war is strictly necessary. Even then, jus in bello principles apply to regulate the conflict itself, ensuring that a just war does not descend into the use of illegitimate means and methods of warfare. It does not purport to comment on the matter of the existence of warfare, merely recognises its occurrence and seeks to regulate both its regularity and bloodshed.

The just war doctrine encourages resort to war  The just war doctrine establishes a framework for leaders to justify the resort to force in any given situation whereby they can find ostensible evidence for all the necessary criteria. It, in other words, leaves war on the table constantly as an option; diplomatic negotiations and bargaining must succeed with the constant shadow of war looming as not only a realistic eventuality, but an eventuality that could potentially be deemed ‘just’ by either side. Any such doctrine therefore renders the resort to war as far too permissive, and encourages the false presumptions of aggressive states that their motives are not only self-serving but legitimate.

Just war doctrine is an anachronism  The ‘Global War on Terror’, according to the Bush administration and its legal team, ushered in a new ‘paradigm’ of warfare. [1] Characterised by non-state actors, acting across international borders, often from failed states, just war theory is arguably out of its depth in dealing with it. The United States’ war in Afghanistan was not proportional, had little prospect of success in eradicating the ideology of Al-Qaeda itself and certainly was not a last resort, but nevertheless many felt it was ‘just’ in 2001.  [1] Lukach, T. (2005, March 17). War on Terror creates New Paradigm for Guard, Reserve. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from U.S. Department of Defense:

War is always unjust  The formulation of the just war doctrine, a moral framework for the institution of war, inadvertently serves to legitimise its activities and inherent barbarity. It undermines the intuitive norm against warfare by emphasizing the ‘just’ and undercutting the ‘war’, leading to a framing of public discourse whereby anti-war campaigners can be presented and ostracized as traitors and soldiers, even of aggressor nations, heroes.  In many religions war can never be legitimised for example in Buddhism “War happens. Buddhism does not deny such facts. It tries to understand how war happens. But Buddhism never accepts or legitimizes war as necessary or “just.” One naturally defends oneself when attacked. One may prevent someone from doing harm to others. Neither, however, justify harming the alleged or imagined perpetrator/aggressor.” [1]  [1] Bhikkhu, S. (2003, March). "Just War" is an oxymoron. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from Liberation Park:

War has always been an option in international affairs; few rulers before just war theory was developed felt constrained by the absence of such a moral framework. What the just war criterion provide for is a regulatory framework whereby war cannot break out before at least one side satisfies the criterion. As such, this ensures a temporal space for diplomatic negotiations to play out and if necessary, for either top-down pressure from more powerful states or bottom-up pressure from the public to alleviate any desire for war.

Some forms of elite manipulation will be much worse under direct democracy. Media barons, for example, influence politics primarily by influencing public opinion. Whereas elected politicians can sometimes resist public opinion, this is not possible if the public make political decisions directly. Under direct democracy, owners of newspapers and other media outlets would be much more powerful because their power over the public mind could be translated directly into political decisions. This influence would even be outsized when individuals opinions are sought, as in the wiki constitution model, as people’s opinions are shaped by the media many will simply follow the lead set by the members of the elite who are setting the agenda through their media networks.

Representative Democracy Enables Rule by Elites  Representative democracy is less legitimate because it empowers unelected elites. Representative democracy is systematically biased against ordinary people, particularly poor people. Unelected elites like wealthy businessmen, trade union leaders, civil servants, party officials and media proprietors are able to bypass the democratic process and exert direct pressure on elected politicians. This happens because decisions are made behind closed doors by individual politicians who can be easily bullied or bought out. This allows elites to effectively wield public power even when they are not elected themselves. If decisions were made more directly by the people there would be less scope for elites to manipulate the process by simply appealing to a politician’s self-interest. Elite influence is a systematic problem because it is self-reinforcing: elites lobby for laws to preserve their own power and disempower the public. A good example of this is Rupert Murdoch’s behind-the-scenes lobbying for the repeal of regulations preventing him from dominating the media market. [1] Considering that at any past time in the human history the conditions of equality in labour division, education and technological tools were not as favourable as nowadays in terms of allowing citizen political involvement, a more participatory political decision-making must be now taken into account. [2] A clear example is the Iceland's "wiki constitution" (2011). [3] Then, although the classic criticism against direct democracy formulas based on the premise that size creates problrms –referring to the difficulties to shape participatory citizen deliberation in our enormous current nation-states– may still be true, cultural, social and technological conditions for participation have become much more favourable.  [1] Toynbee, P. (8 July 2011). “The game has changed. The emperor has lost his clothes”, The Guardian.   [2] Resnick, P. (1997). Twenty-first Century Democracy. Montreal &amp; Kingston; London; Buffalo: McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 84  [3] Siddique, H. (9 June 2011). “Mob rule: Iceland crowdsources its next constitution”, The Guardian.

The problem of domination by elites and assertive minorities will be exacerbated because they are the only people who will be able or willing to make the time to play politics. Participatory democracy demands much more involvement than representative democracy – indeed that’s the whole point. Every single issue is the subject of its own debate, campaign and even referendum, and most voters will lose track. It’s a simple question of motivation: people with extreme views will tend to be strongly driven to impose their beliefs, whilst people whose special interests are at stake will be prepared to go out and fight for them. Ordinary working people or people without strong political views will not have the time or the inclination to put in the high level of involvement participatory democracy requires.

Participatory Democracy Produces Better Decisions  Participatory democracy will lead to better decisions because laws will only be passed if they can be justified to the people. Professional politicians are disproportionately drawn from the privileged classes and are often ignorant of the effects their policies will have on ordinary people – as are the civil servants who advise them. Moreover, professional politicians are susceptible to corruption, lobbying or bullying by powerful vested interests seeking to direct government policy away from the general interest represented by the vast majority of the individual citizens, who generally lack such a determinant influence over the decision-making. Participatory democracy will therefore make sure that the legislation that is passed will help the people as much as possible; for example they will limit unecessary bureaucracy and make sure that policies are fair. Thus for example Switzerland has passed with 68% of the vote in a referendum a proposal that prevents big payouts for managers known as ‘golden handshakes’ and ‘golden parachutes’ and shareholders will have a veto over saleries. [1]  [1] Willsher, K., and Inman, P. (3 March 2013) “Voters in Swiss referendum backs curbs on executives’ pay and bonuses” The Guardian.

Participatory Democracy Preserves our Natural Liberty  Representative democracy is oppressive because it takes more power away from the people than is strictly necessary. Whilst a completely direct democracy is impractical, we should nevertheless recognise that there is no reason not to have as much direct democracy as possible. In the words of Herbert Marcuse, “Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves”. [1] The key point is that merely holding an election every four years does not fundamentally alter our state of subservience: at election time, we are given a choice of three or four manifesto programmes on an all-or-nothing basis, manifestos which may never be honoured. The only power over our government we as citizens have is the power to punish politicians retrospectively, by voting them out after years of obeying them. It is quite possible to create an authoritarian system that has regular representative elections, even with several competitive candidates and yet still not be giving power to the people, as is shown by Iran. [2] This is wrong. The presumption should always be that the people keep as much power over their own lives and hand as little to their masters as possible because they never get to consent to the powers that rule them. Given that we are born under governments which exist whether we like it or not, it as an offense to our natural liberty and equality that those governments should hold any more power over us than is absolutely necessary. Besides, when the interests of the state are not the interests of the people, we have the government of the few over the rest. [3]  [1] Marcuse, H. (1991). One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press  [2] Gedmin, J. (1 March 2013) “Not All Elections Are Worthy of the Name” Foreign Policy.   [3] Pocock, J.G.A. (1975). The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press

First elections are not just a retrospective vote on how the government did, it is also about what political parties want to do. Yes a few elction promises get dropped but the vast majority stick to their promises because they know that not doing so will result in them losing the next election. It is simply not true that representative democracy is oppressive. If people aren’t happy with the way the government is using its power they can vote for a candidate who promises to undo what the previous government has done, or they can even enter politics themselves. The people can always take back powers that they don’t want the government to have by forming and supporting a party or a lobby specifically for that purpose. The reason why this hasn’t happened yet is that most people are happy with the representative system and do not feel like their liberty is being violated.

Professional politicians know that they will be held accountable if they pass policies that are ineffective or damaging. This gives them a big incentive to carefully research all the options before making an important decision, and they have the time and the resources to do so (making decisions is their only job). Ordinary citizens do not have a big incentive to get a policy right unless they can directly see how it affects them, and even if they had the inclination to make an informed decision, they will lack the time and resources. Participatory democracy is therefore much more likely to lead to a muddle of contradictory legislation as different groups focus on different legislation without an overarching vision that advances the nation’s interests.

This point only stands if participatory democracy actually involves more participation. In reality, when taking the example of referendums, for most voters all that changes under a participatory system is that they get to vote more regularly – which given how turned off voting many people are this may simply lead to them ignoring all the new votes. In any referéndum all the electors have to do is decide to vote yes or no. There’s hardly any intellectual stimulation at all. This binary choice is much more basic than choosing which political party to vote for, and encourages even sloppier thinking – just look at the misleading claims the “No to AV” campaign spread in the 2011 UK referendum on electoral reform. [1] Then, participatory democracy is not the be all and end all, we should not ask only for more participation but we must move towards a more deliberative democracy, where the public debate and consequent consensus is an important issue to pass new political decisions. [2]  [1] Newman, C. (25 February 2011) “FactCheck: the AV campaign gets dirty” 4 news.   [2] Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Participatory forms of Democracy Can Restore Trust in Politics  Representative systems struggle to sustain popular trust, which is bad for democracy. Public trust in politics always tends to be dented by three specific features of representative systems. Firstly, the perception of elite influence over the political process is a largely unavoidable feature of electoral democracy because such elites are easily placed to manipulate politics, even if they do not actually do so. Secondly, the spotlight in representative democracy is on individual politicians (rather than on policies) and consequently exposing scandals and smearing the characters of politicians is an essential part of the political game: media coverage of politicians is largely hostile (particularly problematic if it diverts discussion from the merits and demerits of particular policies). A third feature of the system is that, since public opinion has no direct power, unpopular decisions don’t have to be properly justified. Governments often defy public opinion when they think a policy will pay off in the long run, and often they don’t really bother explaining why they are doing so (a good example of this is Gordon Brown’s signing of the Lisbon treaty in 2007). These three factors all tend to undermine trust in politics in representative systems. Trust is essential for democracy because without it people will not bother following politics or voting, leaving the door open for elites and aggressive minorities to wield undue influence. A clear example of this phenomenon is in the United States, where Christian fundamentalists – despite being a minority – wield enormous power. The reason for this is that turnout in American elections is very low, whilst fundamentalist Christians are politically very active and organised, allowing them huge influence.

Participation Is Good In Itself  Giving people more responsibility for making political decisions is itself a good thing. Participating in political decision-making allows citizens to achieve a higher state of intellectual and moral maturity, letting them lead better and wiser lives. Since the difficult business of government forces them to learn how to make tough choices and compromise they will quickly abandon their simplistic prejudices and assumptions. Representative democracy is the opposite: it treats the public as if they are incapable of making important choices themselves, and thus denies most citizens a chance to meaningfully participate. Representative democracy often implies a mercantile vision of the political performance, where the politicians play the role of the sellers and the voters act as a simple buyers of political options. [1] This means that the vast majority of voters remain ignorant at best, and apathetic at worst. This leaves them vulnerable to manipulation by deceitful politicians and political commentators. Furthermore, since many government decisions involve major moral dilemmas, citizens who participate in such decision-making will develop a more nuanced moral understanding and more thoughtful personal conduct. Thus, all democratic participation is beneficial. Participatory forms of democracy allows people to participate more than they otherwise would. Evidence for the impact of democratic participation is that radical and intolerant views are frequently expressed in young democracies but fade away as participation in democratic politics implants in the people respect for due process and different points of view. A good example of this is that intolerant far-right parties are much more successful in the young democracies of Eastern Europe than the old democracies of Western Europe. [2]  [1] Macpherson, C.B. (1977). The Life and BTimes of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press).  [2] The Economist (12 November 2009) “Right on down”,

The more experience of participatory democracy the people have, the better they will get at it. In particular, common wisdom will learn from past mistakes. Whilst the Californian example cited is true, it is also true that in 2000, just six years after the “Three Strikes” law was introduced, the 1978 tax amendment was partially repealed in response to money shortages. [1]  [1] State of California (7 November 2000) “Proposition 39 School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes Accountability Requirements.” Smart Voter.

Under participatory democracy people can participate as much or as little as they like. They are not obliged to vote in every referendum or attend every public meeting, but they have the right to. If they only care about a few political issues, they can just vote on those and ignore everything else. That way they get to have their say on just the issues they care about without becoming part-time citizen-politicians. Moreover, that would be more effective than simply voting for a politician once every five years because it would allow them to specifically vote on the issues they cared about rather than having to support an all-or-nothing manifesto that they will probably only partially agree with.

Referenda Produce Snap Decisions  Referendums will lead to poor-quality snap decisions. The problem with referendums is that they are called and voted on quickly, without a series of lengthy parliamentary debates or review by committees. This means that decisions are essential made by short-term popular opinion. This is a problem because there are many policies that are painful and unpopular in the short term but essential in the long run, such as cutting unaffordable public debts. Under representative democracy, governments can make these tough decisions and hope that they pay off before the next election. Harmful short-termism is particularly likely because voters, unlike professional politicians, may lack the technical or economic expertise to realise the necessity of adopting long-term solutions. A clear example is the effect of referenda over the fiscal policy in California. [1] Then, when short-terminism is at the heart of political decisions in a given society, it becomes very difficult to govern. Furthermore, it establishes a more instable political ground for the future generations, who may suffer from the irresponsible political measures adopted by their predecessors, for example inheriting disproportionate amounts of public debt.  [1] Plunkett, J. (18 April 2010) “Would California-style referendums be good for Britain?” guardian.co.uk.

Representative Democracy Prevents Domination by Special Interests  Governments often have to pass decisions which anger small, well-organised special interest groups – like teachers unions – but are in the long-term interest of the country. Under representative democracy, the government can simply make the decisions it has to, and resist the political pressure these groups put on them. But under more direct forms of participatory democracy, the special interest groups can organise their members to campaign and vote against proposals which are good for the country but against their private interests. The reason why they are likely to be successful is that most voters won’t have the technical knowledge to recognise the importance of the proposal (curbing unaffordable public sector pensions, for example), they may be uninterested if they do not see how it directly affects them, and will probably be exhausted and bored of referendums if they are held very regularly – an effect observed in Switzerland called “election fatigue”. [1] As a result, turnout amongst regular voters is likely to be low, but the unions or interest groups will be well organised and will be active in campaigning and voting, since they know that they are fighting for their interests. The effect of this will be to enable organised interest groups to dictate policy on issues where they have a major conflict of interest. An example of this is a Californian initiative in 1990 to raise billions of dollars on the bond markets to invest in railways. The initiative was passed after a campaign funded by railway companies. [2]  [1] Buhlmann, M. et al. (2006) “National Elections in Switzerland: an Introduction” Swiss Political Science Review, 12(4) 1-12   [2] The Economist (17 December 2009) “The tyranny of the majority”

Participatory Democracy Facilitates the Misrepresentation of Issues  An intrinsic problem with participatory democracy is that issues are easily misrepresented to the public. Whilst most voters may be intelligent and informed enough to understand a single issue in isolation, they will almost certainly not understand its complex relationship with other issues, and what a “yes” or “no” vote would mean for everything else – this is because only a full-time politician has the time and the resources to properly understand how dozens of different government policies fit together. An example of this effect is that in 1978 Californians voted to pass an amendment making it almost impossible to raise taxes, and then in 1994 voted for the “Three Strikes” Law that tripled their prison population. As a result, California is now almost bankrupt. [1] The reason why this happened was that these issues were presented in isolation from one another and from other issues as a simple yes-or-no choice – the public just didn’t connect the fact that if they were going to lock up more people for life, they would need higher taxes.  [1] Adams, G. (18 February 2009) “Jobs terminated as California goes bankrupt” The Independent.

Representative Democracy Lets People Get On with their Lives  People should be free to get on with their private lives, but they can’t do that if they’re expected to also be their own government. The reason why we delegate powers to politicians is that we want to have a say in government and still be free to get on with our lives. The business of government is tremendously complex and most people just don’t care about having total control over the details of policy – they just want the power to kick out governments that are no good. Think about it: how many people actually have time, on top of all the other things they have to do, to attend weekly meetings and committees, research technical policy details to decide which policy they will support and then go out and vote on a dozen issues every week? You’ll notice that all the ancient direct democracies – like ancient Athens – were societies in which there were more slaves than citizens. It is only because the slaves did all the work that the citizens were free to spend their time playing politics. The key point is, under the status quo, people who deeply care about politics can get involved in politics – they can join a party, write to politicians, canvass for issues etc – and the people who don’t care about politics that much but still have an opinion are free to vote and then get on with their lives. But under a more direct democracy people have to choose between devoting half of their lives to politics or losing all possible influence over the curse of the decision-making. It’s not right that ordinary citizens should be forced to choose between having any say in politics and having a private life. This makes the difference between the "liberty of the ancients" and the "liberty of the moderns". [1]  [1] Constant, B. (1816). The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns. See online at:

This point assumes that there will be no organisations capable of campaigning against special interests, and this is plainly false. Political parties, taxpayer’s organisations and even rival special interest groups already run counter campaigns against perceived special interest lobbying. Furthermore, special interest groups are naturally disadvantaged in the battle for public opinion because it is very easy to paint them as selfish or greedy. A good example of this is the hostility with which the public usually greets strikes and industrial action. [1] In addition, governments in liberal democracies might pay special attention to particular issues precisely because of the existence of powerful lobbies. In such case, they would be under-representing other groups or individual citizens becoming, then, the cause of the domination of the public decision-making by special interests.  [1] Smithson M. (21 June 2011) “ComRes finds little support for public sector strikes”, PoliticalBetting.com.

That is just a case for having a cooling-off period in between the proposal of a new law and the referendum on it. There is no reason why referendums cannot have a lengthy public debate before the vote takes place. It is not clear that the voters will only look at the short-term consequences: in the 2010 UK General Election the British voters backed the Conservative Party and their long-term deficit reduction plan, for example. [1] Furthermore, professional politicians may also take decisions thinking in the short term in order to raise their popularity. In such case, referenda would not be worse than the representative system.  [1] Glover, J. (21 June 2010) “Budget 2010: Three quarters of voters back spending cuts not tax rises – Guardian/ICM poll” guardian.co.uk.

A medical procedure is not a product that should be excluded from those who cannot afford it. Either it is beneficial enough to be subsidized by the state and therefore available to all, or it is the start of a slippery slope towards designer babies and therefore should not be available to anyone. Furthermore, the investment and expertise required to develop such technology are resources that should be utilized for causes that are far more important, under-funded and under-developed than gender selection. To allow the private sector to provide such a gender selection service would not only encourage further investment in a unnecessary technology but tempt medical professionals away from their government-funded research with the promise of more money.

The private sector can provide parents, who can afford to and want to, with gender selection technologies  Gender selection technology should be available, at whatever cost the market dictates, to those who can afford the process and wish to choose the sex of their children. There should be no other restrictions on the couples wishing to go through with the process, other than an assurance that the mother is physically able and willing. As it is not an essential procedure, the state should not be expected to subsidize either the process or the development of the technology. Nevertheless, the private sector should be encouraged to develop the technology and continue to provide the public with a path to maximise their own happiness.

Freedom of choice is an important principle generally, but it should not be granted at the expense of unconditional love for one’s children. The pre-selection of gender ‘is a threat to the core value of parenthood that is usually expressed by the commitment to unconditional love’, according to a Georgetown professor 1. Children should not be loved because of who they are, not because they are exactly what we wanted of them. As Harvard professor Michael Sandel notes, ‘consider the father who wants a boy in hope of having as a son the athlete he had never been. Suppose the son isn’t interested in sports…what sorts of expectations will burden a child who has designed with certain purposes in mind?’ 1. For that reason, parents should not be permitted freedom of choice in this regard, but encouraged to love their child equally, regardless of gender.  1. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post:

Gender selection will prevent incidents of infanticide  Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If a state's population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the West, have balanced populations, and given that many families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of the other sex, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect in many countries. Even in China, the problem is largely due to the "one-child" policy which has been relaxed in many areas since the mid-1990s. Over time, a scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, for example the paying of dowries may change, and women will achieve higher status.

This argument veils the likely result of the policy: reinforcement of already unhealthy cultural practices. Selective abortion has meant that gender imbalance in China and India is already very, very high – 914 girls for every 1,000 boys in India – demonstrating the likely result of such policies in some countries 1.  ‘Parents choose to abort female foetuses not because they do not want or love their daughters, but because they feel they must have sons’ (usually for social reasons) 1. Even in western countries some minority groups' gender preferences may result in serious imbalances in some communities. These imbalances are socially harmful because in time many young men will be unable to find a partner; in China this is already linked to a rise in sexual violence, kidnapping and forced marriage, and prostitution.  1. The Economist. (2011, April 7). Add sugar and spice. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Economist:

Sex-specific, generic diseases are only avoided a majority of the time, the process is not near 100% accurate and therefore the medical benefits cannot be used without considering of the medical costs. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis involves the development of embryos outside the womb, which are then tested for gender. One or two of the desired gender are then implanted in the womb. Those that are not of the desired gender, or are surplus to requirements are destroyed (typically, over a dozen embryos are used to select a single one to be implanted). A human life has been created with the express purpose of being destroyed. This is another form of abortion – only the conception is deliberate. Ultimately, it will be these technologies and not MicroSort that is used, since whilst the latter has a 93% accuracy rate if a girl is desired (itself a lower result than genetic diagnosis), its accuracy falls to 82% for boys, and the vast majority of selections will inevitably be for males 1 . Thus, given that they are so keen to have a child of a particular gender and so unwilling to risk having one of the other gender, parents will not risk using MicroSort. Even if they do choose it, whilst there have not been overt problems thus far, scientific experts like Lord Winston express the fear that the process damages sperm, making genetic mutation much more likely. Both techniques are therefore to be condemned.  1. Genetics and IVF Institute. (2008, January 1). Microsort. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Genetics and IVF Institute:

Parents should have freedom of choice  People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family" and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed 1.When a family have a large number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a different gender if the technology exists? As the Director of the Fertility Institute notes, ‘these are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices…(they) are really happy when they get what they want’ 2.  1. U.N. General Assembly. (1948, December 10). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from United Nations:  &gt;  2. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post:

Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided  Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests that they don't have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to fall back on 1 These range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system 2. Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a 'sperm-sifting' machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 1200 babies have been born using the technology 3.  1. Macnair, D. T. (2010, August). Fragile X Syndrome. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC Health:  2. Doe, J. (2000, December 18). Immune System Disorders. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Time:  3. Genetics and IVF Institute. (2008, January 1). Microsort. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Genetics and IVF Institute:

It is hardly shattering the mystery of childbirth, given how common ultrasound scans are. Sharla Miller, who went through gender selection, refutes the suggesting it is like playing God, arguing 'it's just like every other procedure the medical field can do for you. When our eldest child had spina bifida, they fixed that. Were they playing God?' 1. Moreover, knowing what gender a child will be is tremendously helpful for parents in planning for the future (picking clothes, colour schemes, toys, names etc.). Why not extend that ability to plan? Moreover, in many countries and cultures gender selection happens already, usually by selective abortion or abandonment of unwanted babies. Everyone can agree that this is a terrible waste of life and potentially very dangerous for the mother concerned, and of course many people object strongly to abortion on moral grounds. The use of new technologies to allow gender selection at the start of pregnancy will reduce and hopefully eventually end the use of selective abortion.  1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News:

It is for the individuals to decide whether this treatment is worth the expense. The anecdotal evidence from parents who have gone through the process suggests that pre-selecting the sex of their children was not a ‘frivolous purpose’. Asked whether her three boys had not been enough, Sharla Allen replied ‘They are. They’re totally everything I could ever want…but why not have two daughters that will be just as wonderful as they are?’ 1. No-one is harmed in this process, the parents know the risks beforehand and it should be their prerogative to have the treatment.  1. Gajilan, C. (2005, November 17). Gender selection a reality, but is it ethical? Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CNN Health:

Children should not be designed to specifications  Children are not toys. They are not meant to be designed to specifications most convenient to the ‘owner’. ‘It runs the risk of turning procreation and parenting into an extension of the consumer society’ argues Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel 1. If we allow parents to choose gender, soon some will want to choose eye colour, or hair colour. That is only the beginning. We are, in allowing this, encouraging false ideas of ‘perfection’ – damning those that don’t look a certain way. Furthermore, since of course there’s no justification for allowing such indulgence at public expense, the divide will grow ever-larger between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only their clothes and belongings to reflect their wealth, but also the bodies of their children. If a "gay gene" is discovered, would parents be permitted to weed out embryos with it, using the technology this proposal would condone? We really should be encouraging the idea that when it comes to children, you get what you are given – otherwise, people be more and more likely to reject their own child when they don’t get exactly what they want…  1. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post:

The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with  Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car. To many people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human motives. Dr. Mark Hughes, who helped pioneer the procedure, intended it to be used to prevent disease and 'your gender is not a disease, last time I checked. There's no suffering. There's no illness. And I don't think doctors have any business being there' 1.Furthermore, In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. These new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer a specific gender.  1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News:

Pre-selection of gender uses expensive medical care for frivolous purposes  The treatment required for the pre-selection of gender was initially designed for the prevention of disease. Many of the patients now using the revolutionary new treatment are perfectly capable of conceiving healthy children naturally. Dr. Mark Hughes, a director the Genesis Genetics institute, says that 70% of patients wouldn't have needed IVF in the first place, meaning 'healthy, fertile couples are choosing this higher risk, expensive, sometimes painful process when they could conceive otherwise' 1.  1. Gajilan, C. (2005, November 17). Gender selection a reality, but is it ethical? Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CNN Health:

Parents have every right, if the technology is present, to choose the gender make-up of their family. Guaranteeing (or improving the chances of) a child being of the gender they want means that the child is more likely to fit into the family's dreams. He or she is, bluntly, more likely to be loved. Talk of designer babies is scaremongering nonsense. 'All babies are, to some extent, designed. Individuals do not procreate randomly: they choose their partners, and often choose the time of conception according to their own age and prosperity' 1. Parents give so much to children. They invest years of their lives and a large amount of their earnings in their upbringing. Isn't it fair that in return, they get to decide something like this if they want to? This is an extension of reproductive rights.  1. Meek, J. (2001, July 5). Baby Blues. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Guardian:

The alternatives to either invasion or atomic bombing are covered in the previous counterpoint. It can only be said that none of them are without a high human cost, though invasion spearheaded by an atomic barrage is surely the worst. The principle of advantage of the conventional bombing option being that it would be easily justifiable as only quantitively different to what the Japanese had already meted out themselves. The blockade similarly has easy justification in not being a deviation from any accepted standards as well as only indirectly attacking the home islands while putting the onus on the Japanese government to avoid starvation. Really in order to find a less costly alternative then diplomacy has to be raised for which refer to the second response argument.

The continuation of a conventional war would have been much costlier than an atomic attack  The US was planning for a massive invasion of the Japanese Home Islands (Operation Olympic). Nine divisions were to land on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. However the Japanese had ten divisions in southern Kyushu by August, and 600,000 troops on the whole island. [1]  The US army widely disseminated a figure of half a million casualties for the conquest of Japan. This was however only the figure for public consumption and some calculations went much higher. [2] On top of the US losses the same amount and probably considerably more Japanese deaths would have to be added. The estimates of US losses were so bad that atomic bombs were actually considered for use in clearing the landing beaches.  Chief of Staff George C. Marshall argued “We had to visualize very heavy casualties unless we had enough atomic bombs at the time to supplement the troop action.” [3] Invasion was therefore not really an alternative to the A-bomb use at all. Although the use of the bomb in a battlefield situation might be more justifiable that it was considered shows the ignorance of the radiation effects that might well have been a disaster for US forces as well as Japanese.  [1] Edward J. Drea, ‘Intelligence Forecasting for the Invasion of Japan: previews of Hell, Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) p.59,71  [2] D. M. Giangreco, "A score of bloody Okinawas and Iwo Jimas": President Truman and casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan’, Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007), p.88  [3] Edward J. Drea, ‘Intelligence Forecasting for the Invasion of Japan: previews of Hell’, pp.74-5.

Having a weapon is hardly a good argument for using one, society would fall apart if ‘I have a gun thus I must shoot someone’ became an accepted maxim. Since war is policy by other means the ultimate weapon is one that achieves its policy objectives without the need to be actually be used. As to the cost, the $2.2bn translates to a little below $7,000 for each Japanese life taken.

The use of atomic bombs was the only was to persuade Japan's rulers to surrender  From late 1944 Japan’s defeat was certain. The Japanese leadership knew this, but this knowledge did not equate acceptance nor did it translate into action. The Americans felt that some sort of game changer was needed to push the Japanese into surrender.  According to Henry L. Stimson “We, [the administration] felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the Emperor and his military advisors, they must be administered a tremendous shock which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the Empire.” [1]  The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reckoned that to cause equivalent damage done by the Atomic Bombs using conventional weapons would require 345 B29’s. [2] However it is not the fact that the Atomic bombs saved hundreds of B29 missions that is the crucial element. That is the sheer terror that the destructive power of the atomic bombs. This made the Atomic bombs of a different order to any number of conventional B29 missions and was a crucial factor in bringing about the Japanese surrender. If the fact that a city could be levelled in a single night could make the Japanese surrender they would have done so many months previously, and many times over. Important members of the Japanese government agreed with Stimson’s assessment of the importance of shock. Prime Minister Suzuki said “The atomic bomb provided an additional reason for surrender as well as an extremely favorable opportunity to commence peace talks. I believed such an opportunity could not be afforded by B-29 bombings alone.” [3]  [1] Secretary of War, Henry Stimson quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.27.  [2] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War),  p.24.  [3] Suzuki Kantaro quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) p. 35

It can be argued that conventional bombing could have brought about a Japanese surrender without the recourse to the use of the atomic bombs. Compared to conventional bombings the atomic bombs caused disproportionate amounts of civilian casualties. The Strategic Bombing survey estimated that in the 9 months prior to the surrender there were 806,000 Japanese civilian casualties inclusive of A-bombs, of which 330,000 were deaths. Therefore nearly a third of civilian deaths were as a result of the atomic bombings (and that is only counting those who died immediately). In Hiroshima 72% of buildings were destroyed, in Nagasaki 37.5% of buildings were destroyed. However in a conventional raid Yokohama was 47% destroyed in an hours bombing, for the comparatively light cost of 5,000 civilian fatalities. [1] Of course some conventional raids, particularly fireraids caused very heavy casualties, in particular the Tokyo firebombing of March 9th 1945 killed 100,000 and destroyed 15.8 square miles. However that is still three times the area destroyed of Hiroshima. Since the only possible justification for attack on cities is the destruction of infrastructure conventional bombing was similarly effective while being the cause of many fewer civilian deaths.  According to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” [2] The accuracy of this prediction has since been called into question, [3] after all the allies dropped far more bombs on Nazi Germany without securing surrender. However the fact remains that the conventional bombing campaign was only just starting to get going and might have achieved decisive results.  Possibly even more important for the prospects of a conventional victory, and one not clouded by the stigma of massive bombing campaigns against civilians, was the maritime blockade. By the end of the war Japan had only 700,000 tons of shipping remaining, she had started the war with 6,337,000 tons. Of 122,000 sailors in the merchant marine 27,000 were killed 89,000 wounded. For an island nation reliant on imports not just to run its industry but also to keep its people fed this was devastating. The result was starvation in the Japanese home islands. After the war it was reported that up to 10 million would die of starvation without American food aid, as a post war report to the Diet (Japanese Parliament) put it ‘the greatest cause of defeat was the loss of shipping’. [4]  [1] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War),  pp.20, 23-24.  [2] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War),  p.26.  [3] Gian Peri Gentile, ‘Advocacy or Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan’, in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) pp.123-4.  [4] Joel Ira Holwitt, “Execute against Japan”: The US decision to conduct unrestricted submarine warfare, (College Station TX, 2008) pp.166-9

The United States need to maximise the effectiveness of its atomic weaponry program before it could be compromised  There was no possibility of keeping nuclear weapons under wraps; scientists from several countries had been working on them. They were ripe for discovery. Robert Oppenheimer pointed out “it is a profound and necessary truth, that deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them” [1] If Atomic bombs were going to be developed anyway there was a compelling reason to be the first to own these weapons, even to be the first to use them. Deterrence, would not work if suspected to be a bluff or a dud, having used the bomb twice it could not be doubted that the US was willing to use it again in extremis.  The cost of building the bomb was enormous. At 2.2 billion dollars the Manhattan project cost about the same as the drive to get to the moon in the sixties, but the comparison is not adjusted for inflation. [2] The vast majority of the cost, and of the 130,000 employed in the project, was not in the development but in the building of the factories to produce the fissile material. The opportunity cost of that 2.2 billion is surely huge, how many more bombers and tanks or how many more medicines and bandages could it have bought? Not using the bomb and squandering that investment would bring that opportunity cost to life; the question is not just how many would die in months more war but how many might not have to build something unused.  [ 1 Robert Oppenheimer quoted by Richard Rhodes, ‘The Atomic Bomb in the Second World War’ in C. C. Kelley (ed.), Remembering the Manhattan Project : Perspectives on the Making of the Atomic Bomb and Its Legacy, (River Edge NJ, 2005), p.18  [2] ibid p.22

Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki the use of the Atomic Bomb did not raise profound moral questions with allied policymakers. Civilians had been intentionally targeted from the air since the start of the war and both Japanese and German cities had been already subjected to relentless bombardment. There was no compelling reason for politicians to view the Atomic bomb any differently from the London blitz or the Dresden raid. [1]  The Hague conventions had been systemically honoured only in the breach for the previous six years and so would not have given Truman or his advisors any particular heartache. The radiation effects were as yet unknown and so there was no reason to treat atomic bombs as anything more sinister than a mighty conventional bomb would be. Had the radiation been known about then it might have moved them into a category akin to chemical or biological weapons, which were already frowned upon. Chemical weapons were banned by the Hague convention in 1899. [2] This did not of course prevent their widespread use in WWI but the horrified reaction to the use of mustard gas and other agents lead to the Geneva Protocol [3] which came into force in 1928 although the US was not a signatory. In practice Atomic weapons have not been since treated as equivalent to poison gas or other ‘analogous devices’ and thus the International Court of Justice has said that they do not breach the Hague conventions or the Geneva Protocol. [4] Therefore as these were the only international laws in force at the time of the action the dropping the bombs were not illegal acts.  [1] Barton J. Bernstein, ‘The Atomic Bombings Reconsidered’, Foreign Affairs, vol.74, no.1, Jan.- Feb., 1995. p.135.  [2] Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases; July 29, 1899;   [3] Geneva Protocol to Hague Convention   [4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 54-6.

The justification for the second bomb relies principally upon the argument that Japan would presume there was only one A-bomb if another was not dropped, so the destruction of Nagasaki was a necessary evil to force surrender just as much as that at Hiroshima. Indeed senior Japanese figures did argue that there was only one bomb, and even in one case that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not atomic at all, simply a very big conventional bomb. The Chief of the Naval General Staff Toyoda Soemu thought “it is questionable whether the United States will be able to use more bombs in rapid succession.” [1] This was a view that Anami Korechika, the army minister, shared until it was shattered by the second bomb although even then he said “The appearance of the atomic bomb does not spell the end of war” [2]  [1] Admiral Toyoda quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.37.  [2] Army Minister Anami quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.40.

A negotiated peace would have been preferable to the dropping of the atomic bombs  It is conventional to argue that Japan was defeated already and so the bombings were unnecessary as Sadao Asada points out this confuses defeat with surrender. However such a position seems equally to confuse surrender with peace. That there had to be an unconditional surrender seems almost unquestioned. Most wars do not end in an unconditional surrender of one side or the other, Japanese defeat was plain so a negotiated peace would normally have been set in motion when the US saw the terrible casualties it might be forced to take in its push for total victory. The Americans learnt of Japanese willingness to negotiate in July, on the 13th Secretary of the Navy Forrestal wrote in his diary “The first real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war came today... Togo said further that the unconditional surrender term of the Allies was about the only thing in the way of termination of the war” [1] Stimson, Grew and Forrestal aimed at persuading president Truman to offer the Japanese promise of the preservation of the monarchy as an alternative to unconditional surrender. [2] Ultimately the Potsdam declaration set the unconditional surrender policy in stone. [3] Offering such a condition would certainly have strengthened the peace party within the Japanese cabinet and allowed them to present further resistance by the generals and admirals as endangering the monarchy. [4] However, on its own this would probably not have lead to peace, the cabinet would still have been split 3-3 with the Army and Navy ministers both opposed and with vetoes on policy. Even the most belligerent of the Japanese Cabinet, Army Minister Anami’s conditions were preservation of the Imperial institution, no military occupation of the home islands, Japanese forces were to demobilize and disarm themselves and war criminals were to be prosecuted by the Japanese themselves. [5] While these conditions are obviously ripe for exploitation, would they really disarm and try war criminals? they are not unreasonable. Just because there was no hope that the US would accept these conditions, they fly in the face of the Potsdam Declaration from which the allies would not deviate, does not mean that another alternative to unconditional surrender should not be considered as an alternative to the dropping of the Nuclear bombs.  [1] Secretary Forrestal quoted by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge MA, 2005) p134.  [2] Campbell Craig and Sergay Radchenko, The Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War, (New Haven, 2008) p.69  [3] Potsdam Declaration,   [4] Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge, 2005) pp.290-1.  [5] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p. 39.

The bombing was immoral and illegal  The use of the Atomic bomb raised immediate moral questions as to its use.  Albert Einstein argued “The American decision [to use the bomb] may have been a fatal error, for men accustom themselves to thinking a weapon which has been used once can be used again... [on the other hand] Our renunciation of this weapon as too terrible to use would have carried great weight” [1] So far Einstein has been proved wrong and the precedent thus set has not been followed. That the bombs are ‘to terrible to use’ does seem to have sunk in.  The use of the bombs was also illegal as it would have breached the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907, signed by the US. Of Hague IV The Laws and Customs of War on Land it probably breached articles 23, forbidding the use of weapons that cause ‘unnecessary suffering’, and article 25 forbidding the attack of undefended towns. It would certainly by its indiscriminate nature have breached article 27 “In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes” [2] as well as the attendant declaration forbidding attack from aircraft!  Clearly such sections forbidding attack from aircraft, or balloons in the 1899 version make the Hague convention seem antiquated but the laws of war in general remain even now as they were codified in 1907. [3] The International Court of Justice has referred back to these precedents “In the view of the vast majority of states as well as the writers there can be no doubt as to the applicability of humanitarian law to nuclear weapons. The Court shares that view.” [4] That humanitarian law included the Hague conventions. The court reconfirmed the view that “States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets” [5] It is noteworthy that dissensions from a position of banning the use of nuclear weapons entirely focus on the possible use with minimal civilian casualties. [6] Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did not attempt to minimize civilian casualties the implication is that their use was illegal based upon the Hague conventions that were already in force.  [1] Albert Einstein, quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.25.  [2] Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907   [3] Malcom H. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge, 1997), p.807.  [4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 85-6.   [5] ibid. para. 78.  [6] ibid. para. 91.

It was not necessary to use atomic weapons on a population centre  The first bomb, on Hiroshima was sufficient to achieve the objective of surrender without the use of the second bomb after only a very short period of time. There was only three days between the two bombings, an unpardonably short period. Communications between Hiroshima and Tokyo had unsurprisingly been severed, so the full effect had yet to sink in on some policy makers by the time ‘Fat Man’ was dropped. It had however already convinced Foreign Minister Togo, Prime Minister Suzuki and crucially the Emperor himself. He said upon hearing the news of Hiroshima: “Now that things have come to this impasse, we must bow to the inevitable. ... We should lose no time in ending the war so as not to have another tragedy like this.” [1] The rest of the cabinet was as yet unmoved, but even if they had been it is unlikely they would have been able to actually surrender before the second bomb was dropped.  There were significant other factors in play as well. Before the second bomb was dropped the Japanese had learnt of the Soviet attack which dashed their last hopes of mediation for a favourable settlement and they were not optimistic of their chances in that conflict, even the army’s planners expected Manchukuo’s capital Changchun would fall in two weeks. [2] Although the Cabinet was deadlocked 3 to 3 this was the case both before and after the news of Nagasaki came in, the point of fact that the US had more than one bomb although a shock to those opposed to surrender did not alter their position. Ultimately the Emperor was forced to intervene on the side of the proponents of peace, his mind had been made up even before the first bomb. It is arguable that Hiroshima was necessary to push him into acting, which was unprecedented but the Nagasaki bombing was entirely superfluous. Historian Sadao Asada’s opinion is that the second bomb was unnecessary. [3]  [1] Emperor Hirohito quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism p.33.  [2] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.36.  [3] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, pp.38, 41-2.

Offering the preservation of the Monarchy was unlikely to have altered the outcome of the conflict by bringing peace before August 6th. This was the only concession to the Japanese that was even considered by the US government. It was thought that even this would be very hard for the American public to swallow. Truman’s personal feeling was also that nothing short of an unconditional surrender would do to avenge Pearl Harbour. [1]  [1] Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge, 2005) p.291.

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.  Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.  If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

The Tax Cuts Only Exist Due to An Unjust System  The tax cuts that were created under a Republican government can be strongly linked with the Republican power base. The Republican party relies on a relatively small number of very rich and powerful donors. A tax cut for these people often leads to an increase in funding for the Republican party. Republican representation among the other classes generally comes from other conservative policies as opposed to one fiscal policy.  Further, there is an attitude in the U.S. among many poorer communities that tax regardless of the actual purpose is a bad thing. As such, the Republicans can often reduce taxes for the wealthy without significantly harming their voting base among other communities, despite the fact that these changes often harm poorer communities a great deal.  This means that implementation of the tax cuts was due to a political system that focuses on parties winning elections as opposed to doing what is best for America as a country. As such the system forces the Republicans to pander to the rich for funding and this leads to a worse situation for the country overall. Given that this is true, the tax cuts are unjust and should be removed. [1]  [1] Creamer, Robert “Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich.” Huffington Post. 28/07/2010/

As is mentioned in argument two of the opposition, if tax increases for the rich cause them to leave the country then it is entirely possible that this will lead to even less parity between those left behind and the poor who have to make do with even less tax revenue through redistribution.  Further, the rich are often the people who provide work for the poor through investments in enterprise and new products. Given that this is true, lower taxes for the rich often benefit the poor by allowing the rich to invest more and take more risks with their money. This often leads to innovations and the creation of new goods and services that often the poor may buy into and this allows them to improve the quality of their lives in the long run. [1]  [1] Ortman, Johnathan, “Tax Incentives for Entrepreneurship and Innovation.” Entrepeneurship.org

Removing Tax Cuts Would Reduce the Deficit  Maintaining Bush tax cuts would cost the government $680 billion in revenue over the next ten years according to Paul Krugman.  Given the downgrade in the U.S. credit rating by some credit agencies, it seems prudent to choose to roll back at least some of these cuts in order to please those agencies and convince them that the U.S. is taking serious action to tackle its debt. If this is the case, then they are likely to upgrade or maintain the U.S. credit rating. This is beneficial for the U.S. as it means that in the future it has smaller repayments to make on its current debt and can more readily take on debt in the future.  Further, given that the rich spend a smaller percentage of their money than the poor on consumption, an increase in taxes for the rich will firstly not cause a significant downturn in consumption and secondly, if spent responsibly by the government, will lead to further growth in the future which might cause the government to be able to recoup the money that it spends through higher tax revenue from a growing economy in the future. [1]  [1] Krugman, Paul “Now That’s Rich.” New York Times. 22/08/2010

Under current economic circumstances, the deficit is bad, and a downgrade of the credit rating has bad effects. However, stimulation of the economy during a recession is needed more.  If the economy is stimulated through lower taxes, it might cause it to recover faster and move into a boom period earlier. If this is the case, then even if the lower credit rating results in higher repayment costs, the economy returning to growth earlier will mean tax revenue is higher earlier. If that is true then it is possible that the government will recoup the cost of the tax cuts later on with higher growth.  Secondly, the extension of Bush tax cuts for a two year period is unlikely to have any lasting impact on such a large deficit. Whilst the rich have a lot of money, it is entirely within their power to use accountants and other means such as offshore bank accounts to ensure that they do not bear the full brunt of the change. Bush tax cuts caused more rich people to keep their money in the U.S. This meant that despite the lower taxes, the greater amount of money kept in the U.S. meant that overall there was a net profit from the change. [1]  [1] Twerkel, Amanda “Cantor Admits Extending Bush Tax Cuts Would “Dig The Hole Deeper on the Deficit – But He Doesn’t Care.”” Think Progress. 02/08/2010

Removing Tax Cuts for the Rich Promotes Equality.  The removal of tax cuts for the rich will help create greater equality in the U.S.  Firstly it can do this by direct means, taxing the rich to a greater extent than is currently done would mean, obviously that the rich have less money and are thus more equal to the poor in income. However, further to this, money gained from such tax cuts that is not being reserved for deficit reduction can be redistributed to the poor in order to allow them to progress further in society.  Income inequality within the U.S. is significantly worse than in most other Western liberal democracies. It often leads to problems of the poor feeling disenfranchised within a society where they feel that the rich have all the influence. Poverty can lead to crime, motivated either by want and pure physical need, or by a distorted sense of entitlement fostered by consumer culture. A lack of parity in an economic system may be interpreted as justifying participation in crimes with an economic component, such as drug dealing, fraud or involvement with organised crime. [1]  [1] Garofalo, Pat, “Stephen Moore Calls for raising taxes on the poor in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich.” Think Progress. 08/07/2010.

There are a number of social ties that the rich have to the U.S.A. with many of them having inherited wealth or having families in the U.S.  Moving to another country is inconvenient as it leads to the removal of all of these social ties, further the actual cost of moving is often enough to prevent them from doing so.  Further, many rich Americans have an attachment to America itself, either as a land where their parents prospered or as a land where they managed to earn their own wealth. As such, there are emotional ties to the country. Many have political influence in the U.S. which they would be unable to take advantage of should they leave the country. [1]  Finally, it should be noted that states which routinely impose extremely low rates of personal income tax, or which refrain from taxing the bonuses paid to businesses’ senior managers obtain the majority of their state funding from natural resources revenues. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest and most active oil extractors and exporters in the world. It can make up for shortfalls in personal tax revenues by controlling the price and supply of the oil that it drills.  [1] Confessore, Nicholas, “Taxes Not Seen as Making Rich Flee New York,” New York Times, 18/03/2009

As mentioned, tax cuts for the rich offer the least direct stimulus owing to the small percentage of their income that the wealthiest Americans spend on consumption. Often what is taxed is money that simply sits in bank accounts accruing interest. Given, then, that the super rich are a tiny portion of the population, despite their wealth, the immediate change the policy will have on the economy is fairly negligible.  Opposition may talk about investment in businesses, however the risks that businesses take and their benefits are only truly reflected in long term statistics, which are irrelevant in the case of recession prevention as in a few years it is likely that there will not be fears of another recession. [1]  [1] “A Real Debate On Taxes,” New York Times, 23/08/2010

Expiring the Tax Cut Would Harm Small Business  A number of small businesses are owned by individuals who pay taxes as individuals. However, being small business owners they often earn enough to put them in the highest tax brackets. Given that this is true, the tax rate that these business owners would face following the abolition of the Bush tax cuts would be a rate higher than most big business. It seems unjust that small business owners would pay rates of tax at 36% or 39.6% given that businesses such as Goldman Sachs pay lower tax.  Further, the expiration of a tax cut for these small businesses means that the owners will often project less personal gain from projects that the business might undertake. A simple example (for use in a debate) is of a project that costs $100 to invest in and has a 10% chance of success, returning $1100. A tax rise could theoretically cause the return for the owner to fall from $1100 to $1000. This means that now a project that would have been profitable is no longer so and thus the owner won’t risk taking the project up.  This means that fewer projects are taken up in the thousands of small businesses that exist throughout the economy. As such, excess taxation stifles the innovations that small businesses often provide,costing the economy a great deal more in lost profits and lost market-share than is returned in tax revenue in the long run. [1]  [1] Murdock, Deroy, “Halt Reckless Spending and Extend Bush Tax Cuts,” Deseret News, 26/07/2010

Expiring the Tax Cuts Would Cause Investor Movement Abroad  As mentioned in the previous arguments, the expiration of Bush tax cuts would firstly cause investors and people in the upper brackets to resort to tax avoidance methods, such as placing money in foreign accounts and using legal lacunae to reduce their tax liability.  However in a world where the upper management of most businesses can be handled from other countries, it is prudent for those facing higher taxes in the U.S. to move away to avoid them. Most countries in the U.A.E, for example, have incredibly low tax rates for the entire population.  The reason that many American taxpayers in upper brackets have not moved away to take advantage of this is because the tax cuts and the Republican government have kept them satisfied enough that there is no reason to go through the inconvenience of moving.  The removal of the tax cuts could easily provide this impetus owing to the fact that they might result in further higher taxes for the rich down the line. As such, tax increases of this nature could cause the rich to leave the country and cease paying tax altogether. [1]  [1] Bruner, John, “Where America’s Money is Moving,” Forbes, 14/06/2010

Expiring Tax Cuts Would Cause a Double Dip Recession  Whilst the rich spend proportionately less of their income than the poor, the rest of their income is often invested in other areas and financial vehicles, boosting the economy in both the short and long term. In the short term this money allows businesses to take more risks owing to a greater pool of money to offset the risk, alongside lower interest rates. In the long term, these risks often lead to innovations that help the economy overall.  In increasing the tax burden on the rich, the spending and investment that wealthy individuals partake in is cut off, preventing these areas of the economy from growing. Recessions and recession prevention are often reliant upon public perception of an economy’s general health and the extent of its exposure to less stable economies. Due to this feedback mechanism, it is possible, therefore, that an unfounded belief that tax rises could obstruct economic growth might cause panic amongst the media and the populace. A recession might come about through the mere expectation that there will be a recession.  In fact, given that the majority of the media is controlled by the rich, it is within their best interest to report that there will be a crisis if there is a tax increase so that they can claim the policy was at fault in the future. [1]  [1] Vaughan, Martin and Mckinnon, John, “Democrats Dissent on Bush Cuts,” Wall Street Journal

Firstly, the harm to small business from such tax cuts could easily be mitigated by providing some measure of exception for small business owners. The U.S. already provides subsidies for small businesses that show signs of innovation and as such it seems logical that another exception could be added to prevent harm to small businesses.  Further, less that 2% of tax returns citing small business revenue come from the top two tax brackets. Most small business owners simply aren’t part of the top income bracket and further most investors in the top income brackets do not rely on small business revenue as their primary source of income. The harm should this policy go through without exception is much smaller than portrayed by opposition.  Further, the focus on small business is also a result of a “supply side” economic policy that has failed. Whilst the Bush system focused mainly upon supporting the private sector in order to create jobs, it has emerged after eight years to have had almost no effect on the number of Americans being employed, with most changes coming from government hiring. Small business makes a contribution to the economy, but nowhere near the level that opposition need for the argument to hold water. [1]  [1] Gale, William, “Five Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts,” Washington Post, 01/08/2010

Having children enriches parents emotionally. The experience of parenting triggers deep and genuine emotions, which parents would not experience otherwise. Attachment, caring, compassion, understanding, moral outrage, joy, and wonder are all inevitably a part of parenting. Many parents claim that they have never loved anybody as much as their children. Thus, having children actually enlarges both the spectrum and the intensity of emotional experiences for parents. Worrying for kids is a natural consequence of praising them so much. The more valuable something is, the more attention we pay to it. The fact that parents worry about their children that much is only a further evidence of how much children’s contribution means to parents.

Having children is emotionally draining for parents  The level of emotional involvement in bringing the child up is immense. Parents pour all their souls into children, who, in turn, often leave them disenchanted and exhausted. Parents also have to share their child’s problems, fears and traumas, so that the amount of grief that parents take on themselves doubles (or even triples, depending on how troublesome the child is). Not only that, but those who have offspring also become more vulnerable. They worry about their kids from the moment they are born until the day they themselves die. Parents’ to-worry-about list is endless: from child’s nutrition to summer camps, from accidents to social acceptance, from choosing a school to moving out. Having raised children, parents become emotional wrecks. All parents agree that it is emotionally draining and stressful, in 1975, advice columnist Ann Landers asked her readers, “If you had it to do over again, would you have children?” seventy percent of respondents said “no.”*  *Goldberg, 2003,

Not having children promotes gender equality  Social and economic inequalities between men and women stem primarily from the fact that women are the child bearers, and mothers overwhelmingly spend more time on childrearing tasks than do their male spouses. Not surprisingly then, many employers still discriminate against women when recruiting to work. They view females as those responsible for parenting and thus not reliable, devoted or loyal as employees. Even when there is little or no discrimination in recruitment women often hit a ‘glass ceiling’ due to breaking their careers in order to have children, in the UK a recent report by the Chartered Management Institute found it would take until 2109 to close the pay gap.* On a social level, not having children will mean more gender equality as there will be no ground for justifying an unequal labour division.  *Goodley, 2011,

Any money spent on children is well used. Is there a better way to invest money than to use them to support future generations? The more we spend on children’s health care, the more productive our society will be; the more we spend on their education, the wiser our society will be; the more we spend on their cultural awareness, the more conscious of art our society will be. There is no better use of money than spending them on our kids.

Not having children is environmentally friendly  The more people consume in the world, the greater the environmental damage. An average American produces 52 tons of garbage by the age of 75.* However, producing extra litter and pollution is not the only hazard that every child poses to the planet. Increasing world’s population also places incredible stress on Earth’s resources. It is estimated, for instance, that by 2025 three billion people will live in water-scarce countries. By reducing the number of human beings we will manage to avoid numerous overpopulation crises and reverse the damage done to the environment.  * Tufts Climate Initiative., 2006,

Having children has a devastating effect on lives of parents  Parenting effectively prevents people from pursuing their own interests and fulfilling their own goals. The child becomes the center and the only valid part of parents’ lives. By having kids, people turn from free individuals into servants. They often have to abandon their careers in order to take care of the offspring. Women’s careers are most heavily affected, as women usually end up being the major childcare provider. Furthermore, people with children have much less time for socializing resulting in losing friends. Couples’ relationships are also bound to deteriorate as mother and father become more interested in a baby than in themselves. It has also been proven that couples with kids engage in sexual activities far less often than those who are childless. All of these reasons contribute to general dissatisfaction of parents who feel they have lost their own lives. As the evidence for that we can quote Daniel Gilbert, who holds a chair in psychology at Harvard. Based on his research findings, he reports that childless marriages are far happier.* Such a view is supported also by Madelyn Cain, a teacher at the University of Southern California, who says "Statistics show childless couples are happier. Their lives are self-directed, they have a better chance of intimacy, and they do not have the stresses, financial and emotional, of parenthood."**  *Kingston, 2009,   **Goldberg, 2003,

Having children is one of the most fulfilling and rewarding experiences in life. When people become parents obviously they experience a major change in their lives. However, change doesn’t mean a change for worse. Raising children is not easy, but it brings about a feeling of fulfillment. For many people, having children is the main purpose in their lives. Kids enable parents to rediscover the world around them. Additionally, parents feel empowered as they can shape another human being to a previously inexperienced extent. Relationships with kids seem to be the deepest, most enduring ones. These are the very reasons why people become so upset when they cannot have children. The development of treatments such as in vitro fertilization proves how much we want to have babies. There is also substantial evidence supporting the claim that having children has a constructive rather than destructive influence on parents. Dr. Luis Angeles from the University of Glasgow in the UK has just published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, claiming that the research he has conducted suggests that having children improves married peoples' life satisfaction, making them happier.* A recent Newsweek Poll also found that children add to general levels of parents’ happiness. Fifty percent of surveyed Americans said that adding new children to the family tends to increase their happiness levels. Only one in six (16 percent) said that adding new children had a negative effect on the parents' happiness.** The evidence that having children has a devastating effect is mixed at best and in many cases outright wrong.  *Bayaz, 2009,   **Newsweek, 2008,

Not having children is not a good way to combat environmental problems. The real answer to environmental issues is developing clean technology and promoting ecological awareness. If we start to produce energy from renewable resources, switch to electrical transportation, recycle waste etc. we won’t need to reduce population in order to sustain the environment. Furthermore, a higher population living in a more eco-friendly manner would be less harmful than the current level of population with its lifestyles.

There are better ways of eliminating gender inequality. First of all, inequality between sexes is far more complex of an issue than the proposition would like us to believe. There are many reasons why gender inequalities prevail in the society. They are grounded in different physical, psychological and social features of males and females. Moreover, they date back to prehistoric times when men and women occupied themselves with different tasks and had different responsibilities. It is too simplistic to say that by not having children gender inequalities will be eradicated. Furthermore, there are other more effective and less damaging ways of heading towards equality between sexes, such as education, affirmative action and social policy encouraging men to participate in childcare on equal basis with women.

There is no better present for somebody than to give him a life. Our lives are not just about money. There are so many valuable emotions, situations, experiences that have nothing to do with wealth level, for example falling in love or simply being enchanted by the world’s beauty. Even if the child is born to an impoverished family that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to rise out of the poverty. There are numerous sponsored programmes that encourage social mobility in both developing and developed countries. However, we need to accept this simple truth that life is not a sequence of only joyful events, and sometimes we have to experience a difficult situation to be able to appreciate all the good out there. Additionally, positive experiences in lives usually outweigh those negative, that’s why a vast majority of us would never change our lives for not being born. Therefore, giving a child a life is more than morally right.

Having children is extraordinarily expensive  For majority of people children are the biggest expenditure they ever undertake. The United States Department of Agriculture reported in 2008 that the average annual expenses associated with raising a child can be as high as $22,960.* If we assume that a child will live with their parents until the age of 18 and add average cost of sending a child for 4 years to college, we arrive at the conclusion that bringing up a child in a developed country costs around $500,000. This money can be far better spent, for instance, on enhancing the standard of education or health care, subsidising economic initiative in developing countries, investing in green technologies, etc.  *Boy Scouts of America, 2011,

It is morally wrong to bring children to this cruel and miserable world.  Four out of every five children will be born to families whose members survive on less than $10 a day. Around one third of children in developing countries is estimated to be underweight or stunted.* Research suggests that even in the USA, 20% of children live in poverty. And such an extreme plight of the child is only the beginning. Even if a child is born into a relatively well-off family, there are endless devastating situations he has to face during his life: war, death of family members, chronic illness, divorce, crime, and social exclusion. The list can go on and on forever. Having children is the equivalent of forcing innocent people, against their will, to experience the misery of life. Thus, it is inhumane.  *Shah 2010,

There is no causal link between having children and being supported later in life. After children leave home they become fully independent individuals. They haven’t chosen to be born and so they shouldn’t be burdened by the parents. If kids do look after their parents it should be out of choice as it is not their duty to do so. It is government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens, so that the elderly can spend their last years in fair conditions with the possibility to live in decent old people’s homes if necessary.

People are free to choose whether or not to have children. Human beings are granted freedom of choice. The decision to have offspring is, like many others, only a matter of personal choice and there is no duty here that we can talk about. The only real responsibilities towards society that people have are those imposed on them by law. (Paying taxes or protecting a country being prime examples of these). Because society has not chosen to create a law forcing everybody to have children, we see that choosing not to bear offspring is accepted by society.

Having children is the essence of existence for every creature  The most basic purpose of every human being, like of any other animal, is to reproduce, thus ensuring the continuity of ones species. Reproduction is even included in our very definition of life “the state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones and from inorganic matter, characterized chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ability to reproduce and respond to stimuli”.* Our bodies (physiological features), behaviour (flirting, dressing up) and sexual drives all point to that fundamental aim of our lives. It is only by having children that we can fulfil the most natural goal of our existence. Until very recently the family and ensuring its continuance has been the goal of almost every human. This is shown by how hereditary has been one of the defining features of almost every society in history, whether it is in government; through monarchy or an aristocracy, in the economy; through passing wealth down from one generation to the next.  * Collins English Dictionary, 2003,

The act of having children makes people more desirable citizens.  Not only does parenting teach responsibility, but it also triggers such feelings as love, compassion and helps develop such features as patience, devotion, tenderness, understanding. For instance, if parents learn the benefits of being patient towards their children, they are more likely to react patiently in other life situations, which in turn will lead to less aggressive society. Therefore, the more people have children, the more desirable our society becomes.

Having children guarantees support for parents  From parents’ point of view it is also beneficial to have children as they are the only guarantee of help and support when parents get old. It has been one of the most prevailing practices around the globe for children to return their parents care and dedication. When they become elderly, parents that have lost their spouse often come and live with their children. Additionally, kids tend to look after their parents when they get chronically ill towards the end of their days. It is also the child that visits its parent in hospital. Moreover, many kids support their parent financially, which may become crucial in an era of population ageing, which will bring about drastic reductions in pensions. In China a traditional saying is “Raise children in preparation for one’s old age’ as families often have to care for senior citizens but with a declining population each person may soon be caring for two parents. There is very little in the way of social care there are old-age beds for only 1.8% of the population in China, compared with 5% to 7% in most developed and 2% to 3% in developing countries.* The best way to secure a safe future is to have children to care for you rather than assuming an overburdened state will provide.  *Worldcrunch, 2011,

Having children is our duty and responsibility  We cannot live without the society; it is that very society that provides us with basic goods and services such as education, health care, transportation, work. We can only interact with other people and fulfil our most basic needs if we live within the society. Therefore, we owe it to the society to ensure its continuation. It is only by having children that we can do this. Falling rates of population growth in developed countries highlight how dire the need for reproduction is. If people don’t have children today, the society will run into an enormous economic crisis tomorrow, as there will not be enough citizens to work for the growing numbers of the elderly. In the long run, not having children will lead to human beings’ extinction. If present trends continued it would only be 25 generations before Hong Kong’s female population shrank from today’s 3.75 million to just one. Similarly on current trends Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not reach the year 3000.* It is therefore clear that by not having children people fail to fulfil their most fundamental duty.  *The Economist Online, 2011,

Having children can be counterproductive in achieving a desirable society. First of all, having children is by no means necessary for possessing all those valuable traits. All of them can be developed though other experiences as well. Secondly, having kids may actually lead to society being less desirable. For instance, parents being exhausted by constant absorption with their children become less productive. They can also become disillusioned or frustrated by their offspring, which will result in their general bitterness.

There is a lot more in humans’ lives than having children. There are numerous differences between humans and other animals. While it may be true that the purpose of animals’ lives is to produce offspring, it is not the case when we talk about humans. People, being much more complex creatures, can contribute to society in many other ways than by having kids (for instance by artistic or scientific activities). So, although our physiology and behaviour may point to reproduction as the main purpose of our lives, these indicators are simply misleading.

There is no clear reason why a 'desire' must be a 'right', even if it were universal. Merely wishing for something does not establish the existence of rights, but merely creates a 'wish list' which may not actually be possible in reality. For example humans may universally desire a life of leisure without hard work, but it would be impossible to meet this desire for everyone, as then there would be no work done and therefore no resources to support leisure.

Universal individual desires  Certain desires, such as the desire for happiness, are universal to all human beings. Even if they actively deny them to others, every individual works towards the fulfilment of these desires for himself, and recognise that the denial of this fulfilment is harmful to himself. For example historically slave-owners still desired freedom of movement and labour for themselves, even if they denied it to their slaves on the basis of selfish interests. Therefore, because all humans desire happiness for themselves, and also desire the means to this end such as freedom of speech and the freedom to make their own choices, there exists a universal basis of desire for human rights in every individual. The enshrinement of 'fundamental human rights' simply universalizes what every individual acknowledges for himself: that the denial of certain rights is always harmful. This already even has a basis in the 'Golden Rule', to not do what is harmful to yourself to others, which can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition. [1]  [1] Blackburn, Simon. “Ethics: A Very Short Introduction”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. p.101

The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain is far from clear-cut. [1]  [1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011.

Universal human nature  Fundamental human rights exist and are founded on universal human needs. Certain needs are necessary to human life in every instance and circumstance. These include food, water, shelter and security of person. Human life is not possible without any one of these things, and so these needs may be termed 'fundamental rights' necessary to the continued existence of that person. Every person has a right to the fulfilment of these needs as the alternative is non-existence, which is contrary to our basic human nature to survive. Because all humans everywhere possess at birth a drive to survive and all share these requirements, they are clearly fundamental to our nature and we have a right to their fulfilment and protection.

Not all 'human rights' are necessary for existence. The so-called 'right to free speech' and 'right to liberty' can both be removed from a person forcibly without ending their existence, and so cannot be justified on the basis of a 'universal drive to survive'.

Universal benefits of human rights  All humans benefit from the protection of the human rights of others. For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they should lose the ability to protect themselves which they may enjoy in the present. This fear would lower the quality of life for all, and make society worse. Therefore, it could be argued that, even if fundamental human rights do not exist, it is still beneficial for us to believe in them and protect them, as we are all better off as a consequence. This applies internationally as well; the conception of universal human rights which everyone possesses has meant that many modern instances of humanitarian disasters, such as the 1984-1985 famine in Somalia, have been met with a vigorous response by nations, groups and individuals concerned with human rights, helping to alleviate the human suffering there. [1] This can be compared to historical examples in times when there was less concern with universal human rights and where therefore much less action was taken to alleviate famines and human suffering, such as occurred in the Irish Potato Famine between 1845 and 1852. [2]  [1] de Waal, Alex. “Famine Crimes: Politics &amp; the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa” African Rights and the International African Institute, 1997  [2] Kinealy, Christine. “This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52.” Gill &amp; Macmillan 1995

The labelling of a right as 'fundamental' ensures it is protected against opportunistic or populist attacks which may not fully consider the long term. As long as we limit our definition of 'fundamental rights' to those things needed and desired by all humans universally, we should avoid enshrining 'rights' which are only needed in some times and places.

Fundamental human rights were 'new' to all cultures once, but this does not mean that they have not always been an underlying fact. Arguments surrounding different cultural perceptions of rights and 'cultural relativism' are almost universally used by the powerful interests in certain cultures to justify their abuse of the human rights of those with less power in their cultures, for example leaders of authoritarian regimes who protect their own power at the expense of the freedom of their people and justify it on the basis of 'Asian values'. The recognition of fundamental human rights will always require change in a culture or locality that did not previously recognise them, but this does not mean that they are not universal on the basis of needs and desires that do exist in all cultures.

Human rights contradictions  Many human rights are not compatible with each other. If two things are both 'fundamental' then they must both be equally true and important. However the protection of any human right requires the violation of others. For example the right to security of person requires the existence of a police force, which must be funded by taxes coercively obtained, which violates the right to property. Similarly the right of a wife to divorce her husband to protect her own happiness may compromise his own happiness. A right cannot be 'fundamental' if it must be weighed up, balanced against and possibly compromised in light of another 'fundamental' right, as this would mean they exist in conflict with each other.

Danger of dogma  Having a fixed set of fundamental human rights makes it harder to adapt to changing circumstances. As we have already seen conceptions of human rights vary by culture and time, and should be properly seen as a product of those specific factors, not as universal fundamentals. What was seen as a 'fundamental right' in the 18th Century may not be appropriate for the 21st, and what is seen as a right in the 21st Century may be actively harmful to recognise as a right in the 24th. For example it could be argued that the right to keep and bear arms was more useful in the America of the 18th Century, when there was no police force and hunting for food was more important, than in the 21st Century, where it could be argued that gun ownership results in higher gun crime rates for America than for other industrialized nations. [1] Enshrining rights as 'fundamental' makes it much harder to remove or modify them as circumstances change and they become less useful.  [1] Gumbel, Andrew “The Big Question: Can America ever be weaned off its love affair with guns?”,The Independent, Wednesday, 4 October 2006.

Relative perceptions of human rights  If fundamental human rights really existed, then they would be equally and identically recognised in all cultures, localities and times. This clearly is not and never has been the case. Firstly there are differing conceptions of what fundamental rights are originating from different cultures and traditions, which often contradict each other. For example the former Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia Lee Kuang Yew [1] and Mahathir bin Mohamad have both cited 'Asian values' which differ from Western conceptions of human rights by having a greater focus on community stability, order and loyalty at the expense of personal freedoms. [2] Even within similar historical traditions conceptions of 'fundamental' human rights differ. The 'right to keep and bear arms' is considered fundamental under the constitution of the USA [3] but is not found in either the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights [4] or the European Union's European Convention on Human Rights. [5] Therefore no fundamental human rights exist, as if they did they would be recognised in all cultures, but they are not. This furthermore makes their application across different cultures highly difficult, and such culturally-relative conceptions of human rights may be used as excuses by more powerful cultures to control less powerful ones in the name of protecting 'fundamental' rights.  [1] McCarthy, Terry. “In Defence of Asian Values: Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew”. TIME Magazine U.S., 16/03/1998.  [2] bin Mohamad, Mahathir. “Agenda for a New Asia”. Address at Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Fall Gala Dinner 28/10/2000.  [3] United States, Constitution of the United States, May 1787.  [4] United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948.  [5] Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 1 June 2010.

It is possible to establish a hierarchy of rights whereby only the most important are the 'fundamental' human rights. The fulfilment of the needs we all cannot live without, such as food, shelter and security of person, should be given the greatest priority, as they are all equally necessary for life, and need not be balanced against each other as they are all equally necessary.

There are many reasons to doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty. For one thing, many criminals may actually find the prospect of the death penalty less daunting (and thus, less effective as a deterrent) than spending the rest of their lives suffering in jail. Death by execution is generally fairly quick, while a lifetime in prison can be seen as a much more intensive punishment. Moreover, even if criminals preferred life in prison to the death penalty, it's not clear that a harsher punishment would effectively deter murders. Heinous crimes often occur in the heat of the moment, with little consideration for their legal repercussions1. Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it would have to be immediate and certain. This is not the case with the death penalty cases, which often involve prolonged appeals and sometimes end in acquittals2. Finally, the empirical evidence regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty is at best mixed. Many of the studies that purport to show the deterrence effect are flawed, because the impact of capital punishment cannot be disentangled from other factors such as broader social trends, economic factors and demographic changes in a region2. Other studies have even suggested a correlation between the death penalty and higher crime rates. States such as Texas and Oklahoma, which have very high execution rates, also have higher crime rates than most states that do not have the death penalty2. 1 Amnesty International. "Abolish the Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.

The death penalty deters crime.  The state has a responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime. The reasoning here is simple- fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in convincing potential murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison may be frightening, surely death is a more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can change the cost-benefit calculus in the mind of murderers-to be so that the act is no longer worthwhile for them1. Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. A 1985 study by Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina showed that a single execution deters 18 murders. Another influential study, which looked at over 3,054 counties over two decades, further found support for the claim that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise2. On top of this, there are ways to make the death penalty an even more effective deterrent than it is today. For instance, reducing the wait time on death row prior to execution can dramatically increase its deterrent effect in the United States1. In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of innocent people. 1 Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives," August 28,2007. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate." The New York Times. November 18, 2007. Accessed June 9, 2011

Escapes from prison, though sensationalized by the media, are relatively rare occurrences1. In 1998, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 6,530 people escaped or were AWOL from state prisons. Given a total prison population of 1,100,224 state prisoners, that figure represents just over half a percent of the total prison population. On top of this, it is not impossible for people to commit further crimes while on death row. Those sentenced to death may be even more eager to escape prior to their execution than those awaiting life in prison, so it is not true that execution necessarily prevents further crimes. 1 Suellentrop, Chris. "How Often Do Prisoners Escape?" Slate. February 1, 2001.

Execution helps alleviate the overcrowding of prisons.  POINT  The death penalty can help ease the problem of overcrowded prisons in many countries, where keeping people for life in prison contributes to expensive and at times unconstitutional overcrowding1. In 2011, California prison overcrowding was so problematic that a district court panel ordered authorities to release or transfer more than 33,000 inmates. This decision was held up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which argued that the conditions in the overcrowded prisons are so overwhelming that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment2. Similarly, in the United Kingdom two thirds of prisons in England and Wales have been deemed overcrowded3. As such, the death penalty may be preferable to life in prison since it helps alleviate a pressing problem in the criminal justice system. It is better to execute those who deserve it than to be forced to release dangerous offenders into society because prisons are overcrowded by people serving life sentences. 1 Sanchez, Mary. "California prisons: Cruel and unusual." The Miami Herald. May 30, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2011. 2 Martinez, Michael. "California officials: We'll fix prison crowding, won't free 33,000." CNN. May 24,2011. Accessed June 9, 2011. 3 "Two-thirds of prisons overcrowded." The Guardian. August 25, 2009. Accessed June 8, 2011

It helps the victims' families achieve closure.  The death penalty can also help provide closure for the victim's family and friends, who will no longer have to fear the return of this criminal into society. They will not have to worry about parole or the chance of escape, and will thus be able to achieve a greater degree of closure. Mary Heidcamp, a Chicago woman whose mother's killer faced the death penalty before the State Governor commuted the sentences to life in prison, stated 'we were looking forward to the death penalty. I'm just so disappointed in the system'1. Other victims' families deemed the decision a 'mockery', that 'justice is not done'1. 1 Goldbery, Michelle. "The Closure Myth". Salon. January 21, 2003.Accessed June 30,2011

Many victims' families oppose the death penalty1. While some might take comfort in knowing the guilty party has been executed, others might prefer to know that the person is suffering in jail, or might not feel comfortable knowing that the state killed another human being on behalf of the victim. Furthermore, Stanford University psychiatrist David Spiegel believes 'witnessing executions not only fails to provide closure but often causes symptoms of acute stress. Witness trauma is not far removed from experience it'2. Even if it was the case that capital punishment helped the victims' families, sentencing is simply not about what the victims' families want. Punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed, and not the alleged preferences of victims' families. 1 Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation. Accessed June 9, 2011. 2 Rahka, Naseem. "Capital Punishment: Muhammad and the 'Closure' Myth." November 1, 2009. Accessed June 29, 2011.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

There is no fairness or consistency in an eye-for-an-eye attitude towards justice. Justice should remain above the petty retributive justice that marks street or community warfare, whereby the murder of one family member justifies a revenge attack against the murderers' family. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with other areas of the law. As New York University Law Professor Anthony Amsterdam notes, 'we don't burn arsonists' houses'1. Capital punishment 'attempts to vindicate one murder by committing a second murder. And the second murder is more reprehensible because it is officially sanctioned and done with great ceremony in the name of us all'1. The Christian logic of an eye for an eye is undermined not merely by the Pope himself, who advocated 'clemency, or pardon, for those condemned to death', but scripture itself, which preaches mercy just as vigorously as it does retribution1. 1 Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983. Accessed June 30, 2011.

Execution prevents the accused from committing further crimes.  POINT  The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or commit further crimes while in prison. While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide, suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can receive1. Putting dangerous murderers in prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them. The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from prison. Even the highest security detention facilities can have escapees2. Thus, the only way to be absolutely certain that a convicted murder can no longer hurt others is to execute them. 1 Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30, 2001. Accessed June 9, 2011 2 Davis, Laura. "Crime and Punishment: the view from a convicted criminal." The Independent. May 19, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2001.

The death penalty should apply as punishment for first-degree murder; an eye for an eye.  The worst crimes deserve the most severe sanctions; first-degree murder involves the intentional slaughter of another human being. There are crimes that are more visceral, but there are none that are more deadly. Such a heinous crime can only be punished, in a just and fair manner, with the death penalty. As Time put it, 'there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital punishment that is simple and satisfying enough to feel like human instinct: the worst possible crime deserves no less than the worst possible punishment'1.Human life is sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in place that ensures that those violating that fundamental precept are punished. Capital punishment symbolizes the value and importance placed upon the maintenance of the sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence would fail in this duty. 1 Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983. Accessed June 30, 2011.

Wrongful convictions are particularly rare in cases where the death penalty is sentenced. The lengthy and thorough procedures associated with death penalty cases offer sufficient protection against wrongful convictions. If there is any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, they will not receive the sentence. Finally, even in cases where there is a wrongful conviction, there is generally a lengthy appeals process for them to make their case. For example, in 1993, Alex Hernandez was sentenced to death for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 10-year old girl in Chicago; he was released a number of years later due to his lawyers proving both a paucity of evidence and the confession of her actual killer1. As a result, very few innocent people receive the death penalty, and the legality of capital punishment does not increase wrongful or prejudicial convictions2. 1 Turow, Scot. "To kill or not to kill," The New Yorker, January 6, 2003. Accessed June 3, 2011, 2 Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30, 2001. Accessed June 9, 2011

A just state regularly abrogates people's rights when they intrude upon the rights of others. By sentencing people to prison, for instance, the state takes away rights to movement, association, and property rights from convicted criminals. The right to life should be no different. When you commit certain heinous crimes, you forgo your right to life. This does not devalue life, but rather affirms the value of the innocent life taken by the criminal. Certain crimes are so heinous that the only proportionate sentence is execution. As for the executioners themselves, there are methods of execution that involve multiple executioners which might reduce the associated psychological burdens. At any rate, no one is forced to become an executioner, and people who choose to take on that role do so with full awareness of the risks involved.

The death penalty is a financial burden on the state.  Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on taxpayers, which far outweighs the costs of alternative punishments such as life in prison1. A single capital litigation can cost over $1 million as a result of the intensive jury selection, trials, and long appeals process that are required by capital cases2. The cost of death row presents an additional financial burden associated with the death penalty. Savings from abolishing the death penalty in Kansas, for example, are estimated at $500,000 for every case in which the death penalty is not sought1. In California, death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning convicts for life2. This money could instead be better spent on measures that are of much greater benefit to the criminal justice system- greater policing, education, and other crime-preventing measures that are far more cost-effective. 1 Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate." The New York Times. November 18, 2007. Accessed June 9, 2011 2 "High Cost of Death Row." The New York Times. September 27, 2009.

The death penalty can produce irreversible miscarriages of justice.  Juries are imperfect1, and increasing the stakes of the verdict can pervert justice in a couple of ways. First, implementation of the death penalty is often impacted by jury members' social, gender-based or racial biases2, disproportionately impacting certain victimized groups in society and adding a certain arbitrariness to the justice system. A 2005 study found that the death penalty was three to four times more common amongst those who killed whites than those who killed African Americans or Latinos, while those who kill women are three and a half times more likely to be executed than those who kill men2. Regional differences in attitudes towards the death penalty can also introduce elements of randomness into sentencing. For instance, in Illinois, a person is five times more likely to get a death sentence for first-degree murder in a rural area than in Cook County2. Finally, the fear of wrongful execution can also pervert justice by biasing juries towards returning an innocent verdict when they would otherwise be deemed guilty3. When they are told that the consequence of a guilty verdict is death, they are likely to find some kind of reasonable doubt to avoid being responsible for the death of that criminal. This means that more criminals who would've otherwise been convicted do not get charged. In this sense the death penalty can pervert the goals of justice and prolong the difficult process for victims' families. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Turow , Scot. "To kill or not to kill," The New Yorker, January 6, 2003. Accessed June 3, 2011, 3 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

Wrongful convictions are irreversible.  There are an alarming number of wrongful convictions associated with the death penalty1. So far, more than 130 people who had been sentenced to death have been exonerated2. In many cases, unlike those who have been sentenced to life in prison, it is impossible to compensate executed prisoners should they later be proven innocent. The state should not gamble with people's lives. The chance of wrongful execution alone should be enough to prove the death penalty is not justifiable. 1 European Union Delegation to the USA. "EU Policy Against the Death penalty." October 10, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.

State-sanctioned killing is wrong.  The state has no right to take away the life of its citizens. By executing convicts, the government is effectively condoning murder, and devaluing human life in the process. Such acts violate the right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment2. On top of this, the state forces executioners to actively participate in the taking of a life, which can be unduly traumatizing and leave permanent psychological scars. Thus, a humane state cannot be one that exercises the death penalty. 1 Amnesty International. "Abolish the Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 European Union Delegation to the USA. "EU Policy Against the Death penalty." October 10, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2011.

The fact that juries are prone to several biases is not a flaw inherent or unique to capital punishment. If there are racial or prejudicial issues in sentencing, these are likely to present themselves just as often in cases where the punishment is life in prison. It is equally problematic for people to die or spend decades in jails for crimes they did not commit. These errors suggest that the judicial process may need some reform, not that the death penalty should be abolished. Implementation errors that result in discrimination can and should be corrected. Moreover, there is little evidence that these biases are even present in most death penalty cases1. A study funded by the National Institute of Justice in the US found that differences in sentencing for white and non-white victims disappeared when the heinousness of the crimes were factored into the study1. Thus, factors relating to the crime, not the race, of the accused accounted for some of the purported racial disparities that were found. Finally, jurors must be "death- qualified" in such cases, meaning that they are comfortable sentencing someone to death should the fact indicate their guilt2. Thus, it is unlikely that many jurors will abstain from a guilty verdict because they are uncomfortable with the death penalty. 1 Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives," August 28,2007. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Haney, Craig. "Juries and the Death Penalty." Crime and Delinquency. Vol 26 no 4. October 1980.

Justice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive than other punishments, that is not sufficient reason to ban it. Fair and proportionate punishments should be independent of financial considerations. Further, there are ways to make the death penalty less expensive than it is today. Shortening the appeals process or changing the method of execution could reduce its costs1. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.

Excluding cases of rape, the woman exercises any right to choose in causing conception initially. Afterward, even if a woman has a right to her body and to "choice", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.

Women have a right to choose  Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet.

Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. The rapist violated her rights. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. In 2004, only 1%1 of women cited rape as their reason for abortion, so this is more an exception than a reason for legalizing abortion.  1 L.B Finner et al

There are practical problems with banning abortion  Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against a woman's right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their fetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The middle way of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. The demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk.1  Example: Polish women, living in a country with extremely restrictive abortion laws often go abroad to the Netherlands, Germany and Austria for abortions.2 Women who are not lucky enough to live in environments such as the EU may be forced to go to foreign countries and undergo underground, unsafe abortions.  1 WARSAW BUSINNES JOURNAL

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.  Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.  As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

What right does anyone have to deprive another of life on the grounds that he deems that life as not worth living? This arrogant and sinister presumption is impossible to justify, given that many people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What disabilities would be regarded as the watershed between life and termination? All civilized countries roundly condemn the practice of eugenics.

Rape victims have no choice when it comes to getting pregnant, therefore they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy  Women, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child.  In cases where the rape victim cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favor. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault they underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the "unwanted children".  1 SECASA

There can be medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy  There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus.  Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.1  1 PRO-Life Information

Yes, our societies do strive to affirm life as much as possible, and to make the quality of life of our citizens as high as possible. Foetuses do not apply here because they:  a) are not lives, are not human until fairly late  b) if they are born as unwanted children, and the mother is effectively forced to give birth, the quality of life of both the child and the mother will be lowered, and that is what really goes against the principle of life affirmation.

Women do not "want" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice.

Legalizing abortions leads to irresponsible sexual behavior  Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control when other forms are readily available. With contraception being so effective, unwanted pregnancies are typically a result of irresponsible sexual behavior. Such irresponsible behavior does not deserve an exit from an unwanted pregnancy through abortion. In Mexico City, a year after abortion was legalized, the frequency increased.1  1 LIFESITE NEWS

A fetus is a life from conception, therefore abortion is murder  It is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the ability to feel and think and be conscious of its own existence. The unborn child will have every ability, and every opportunity that you yourself have, if you give him or her the opportunity. The time-restrictions on termination had to be changed once, when it was discovered that feeling developed earlier than first thought, so they are hardly impeccable safe-guards behind which to hide: In the UK, the restriction was moved from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990, due to scientific discoveries.1 Human life is continuum of growth that starts at conception, not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who they are is first mixed at conception upon the male sperm entering the female egg. This is when the genetic building blocks of a person are "conceived" and built upon. The person, therefore, begins at conception. Killing the fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can be considered murder. Ronald Reagan was quoted in the New York Times on September 22, 1980 saying: "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." in the 1980 presidential debate.2  1 THE TELEGRAPH

Legalizing abortion defies the principle of life affirmation  Every life presents an inherent value to society. Every individual has the potential to contribute in one way or another, and taking the child's life before it has even had a chance to experience and contribute to the world undermines that potential. Even more, the underlying philosophical claim behind abortion is that not every life is equally valued and if a life is 'unwanted' or 'accidental' it is not worth enough to live. That kind of thinking goes directly against the life-affirming policies and philosophies of most countries, and peoples themselves.

Most abortions are performed out of convenience  Most abortions are performed entirely voluntarily by women that have the means to raise a child, but simply don't want to. While emergency abortions or abortions under trying circumstances such as rape are held out as reasons to continue to have abortions, they are infrequent and serve more to provide cover for voluntarily "life-style" abortions. This is wrong. For example: In 2004, only 7% of women in the US cited health risk as the reason for abortion. Most had social reasons, i.e. were not ready, did not want a baby, a baby would interfere with their career etc.1  1 L.B Finner et al

Are we really talking about a 'life?' At what point does a life begin? Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not conscious of its own 'existence,' really commensurable with the killing of a 'person?' There rightly are restrictions on the time, within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining what truly 'human' life is. A foetus is not a life until it fulfils certain criteria. Before 24 weeks, a foetus does not feel pain, is not conscious of itself or its surroundings. Until a fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be called a life, any more than the acorn can be called a tree.

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations.  Without compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed [i] .  [i] "Libertarianism". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

A growing alliance that defies party lines and the definitions of the last century  A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so.  The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state [i] .  [i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990

The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else.  It is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives.  In those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them.  The fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies.

Neither citizen nor subject, consumer nor customer: the supremacy of the individual  A sensible Libertarian position accepts the rights of people to do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the life of anyone else. That may sound like something that anyone could sign up to but the reality is not so simple. The Right may defend corporate greed and the Left government intervention but there is a clearer principle; I have the right not to have my air poisoned by your chemical company which means I don’t have to pay for any government body to clear up the mess.  The Oglala Sioux activist and actor, Russell Means has argued that “A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility.”  All too often the line between consumer and citizen is blurred because the interest of both state and private actors have become conjoined leaving little or no room for the individual between them. A libertarian approach would break that cozy consensus.

It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies.  The Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it.  Benjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.” [i]  The point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that.  [i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12,

There is very little meaningful choice left in many societies with the major parties all singing from the same score  One of principal reasons for the growth of libertarian parties, especially in the West, is the dominance of one particular ideological viewpoint that is broadly shared by all the major parties.  As a result anyone who does not share this viewpoint are effectively disenfranchised and have the world view of a de facto governing class imposed upon them. The only sensible response is to reduce the impact of that government altogether.  Indeed in the United States, where the libertarian argument has been made most vociferously, the entire political system is designed on the predicate of a minimalist state and is poorly designed to deal with the behemoth that the Federal Government has become.

The reduction in the size of the state is a process and not an event. Rolling back the state can be done over time giving people responsibility and power over their lives on a growing range of issues. The presumption that the state should only act when individuals can’t, however, would reverse the direction of legislation which has tended to see the intervention of the state into the lives of its citizens as beneficial in and of itself – not just the nanny state but the further assumption that ‘nanny knows best’.  The role of government should only to be that all have equal access to the available freedoms and that those freedoms are not abused. These principles are known as the law of equal liberty  and the non-aggression principle between the two of them they comfortably control and define the role of the state.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.  The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.  Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.  [i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010,  pp.15-16

Libertarianism is really a coalition of the unwilling; the fringes of the left and right, happy to criticize but without a single policy on which they can agree  The alliance supporting libertarianism is an interesting one, consisting mostly of right-wing pragmatists who don’t want to pay taxes and left wing idealist who think that everyone would be kind and helpful in a free society.  What both groups simply ignore is that there are many issues, such as the redistribution of income or prohibition of drugs, where there is a settled will of society that supports the status quo. Even the very presence of, for example, wide-spread drug use would be an offence to very large numbers of people and unfairly impinge upon their lives which is why so few people actually vote for libertarian parties once they find out the realities.

Libertarianism only works – even in theory – if you start off with a level pl  It is entirely possible, if one were constructing a hypothetical society from scratch, that you wouldn’t end up with one looking like an actual society that has evolved over centuries or millennia. However in the real world there are interest groups and those who to a greater or lesser degree are advantaged or disadvantaged, everyone may have equal rights but we do not always naturally have an equal capability to defend our rights. The role of the state is to provide some degree of balance. Simply removing the mechanisms in place would accentuate those differences that existed within society at the time of their removal.

Libertarians would return society to a state of nature where ‘life is cruel, bloody and short’.  There is no denying that government is ultimately responsible for maintaining the series of compromises that we all adopt as part of the social contract. Destroying that capacity would, in effect, destroy the contract it underpins. The process of governance may at times be cumbersome and apparently interventionist but the results of those interventions are collective security. Without it society as we know it would return to a state of nature where all except those with the means to pay for their own protection – physical and financial – would be at risk.

It is absolutely the case that an individual has the right not to be harmed by the actions of another but it would be impossible to argue that they have the right not to be offended.  The presumption should always be in favour of the fact that people are free to do in their own lives whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t cause harm. That is an attractive position to many but, inevitably, those interested in lifestyles or policies that do not fall within the ‘standard model’ as a result libertarian policies have tended to receive their most vociferous support at the margins of the policy agenda, that does not mean however, that the approach is not equally beneficial to those with a more mainstream view.

States may not be perfect but they are better than a stateless society.  Whilst states do not have a perfect track record a stateless society would have all sorts of negative consequences. The laws in modern countries are designed to protect the weak from theft and harm. Property laws protect people's property that, in the case of houses they may have worked for 20 years or more to acquire. A stateless society is one that cannot enforce these laws and must always be more unjust than a society with a state.

The state is a meaningless metaphysical entity that is unnecessary and indeed detrimental for our lives.  There is nothing that states provide for us that we cannot provide for ourselves by working together as communities. All the state seeks to do is oppress the people, forcing us to obey laws and pay taxes we did not consent to. In many cases the state goes out of its way to deprive people of their basic needs, for instance when the state evicts squatters from houses that were being left unused, the UK for example is moving to criminalize squatting [1] ; or when the state has property laws that keep wealth in the hands of the few whilst the many struggle to survive as has been the case in the United States, particularly in the 19thCentury when President Hayes argued “There can be no republican institutions with vast masses of property permanently in a few hands, and large masses of voters without property”. [2]  [1]   [2]

Democracies are not perfect but they are better than the other options.  Whilst democracies are not perfect they are the best way we have of aggregating the interests of society. People might not always get what they want but this is inevitable where there are differences in opinion and one course of action must be taken.  Heads of state may not be demographically representative at the moment but we are seeing an increase in the numbers of minority groups in positions of power in many countries. Removing the state to solve this problem is using a sledgehammer to crack a n

Community action is a more powerful tool than the state for providing goods.  Forcing people into community action, as the state tries to do, detracts from real community action. People naturally try to help one another out and do what they can for their communities but when the state tries to undertake this action itself it always wastes a huge amount or resources and sends the message that the job is done. In a stateless society people would know that they have a responsibility to care for their fellow man and take all the steps they possibly can to do so. This action will be more direct, enthusiastic and relevant than any taken by the government because those organising it will inevitably be in closer contact and have more of a stake with the problems they are trying to solve.

Even in societies with a state, anarchist groups provide a voice for the oppressed.  Even if the state is never overthrown anarchism will always have something important to say. Anarchist groups were at the forefront of resistance groups in world war two, and today they are at the forefront of protests against the state whenever it tries to take even more from the worst off in society, for example in anti cuts protests in the UK. [1]  Anarchist communities like Freetown Christiana in Copenhagen exist as centres of peace and culture, by standing outside of society it provides a useful commentary on society as well as being an example for how people can live more freely without a state.  [1]

Anarchists in fact often have a negative effect on protests, they regularly use far more extreme measures than any other protester at the demonstration and this can often distract from and distort the message behind the protests. Anarchist groups are infamous for trying to hijack protests that were not about anarchism; trying to use extreme and often violent measures to get an anarchist message across when the original protesters have no interest in anarchism whatsoever. Even Christiana cited by the proposition has seen violence in 2009 when 1500 people were arrested after setting fire to barricades and throwing fire bombs at police. [1] Anarchist groups have their own ideology, not the interests of oppressed groups at heart.  [1]

Community action is good, but the state is always necessary. Community can make a big difference but it can make a bigger difference with state help, states fund many organisations which would not be able to operate.  Organisations like state health services would not be able to function as community projects; they require a huge amount of funding, specialist training and facilities and organisation that would simply not be available without the state.

States have done much good as well; World War Two was fought because states wanted to prevent Nazi conquest; states intervened in the Kosovo war to prevent ethnic cleansing; and the American Civil War was fought to stop slavery, it is clear that states use their military power for good as well as bad, in a stateless world there would be no actors who would be there to prevent people from taking advantage of their fellow man.  While states can do bad things the solution is not to dismantle states, we need a better international court system to help prevent atrocities and hold those responsible accountable for their actions.

States are never truly representative of the people.  Even if we ignore all of the totalitarian regimes in the world, democracies do not truly represent the people. Politicians all too often promise progressive changes and then fail to deliver, for example Obama’s failure to close Guantanamo Bay [1] and Nick Clegg breaking his promises over tuition fees [2]  The interests of politicians in democracies are far too often tied to the interests of the rich and powerful; people like Rupert Murdoch have unprecedented access to politicians which is quite simply not available to the average person [3]  Demographically heads of state are very rarely representative, The USA has never had a female or Hispanic president, the UK has never had a non white Prime Minister and 66% of UK ministers have been privately educated [4] . These people can never truly have the people’s interests at heart.  [1]   [2]   [3]

The state has far too often been an instrument for facilitating wars and other acts of violence.  The state has, throughout history, been responsible for an immeasurable amount of violence and destruction. From ancient times where states were the primary instrument of enforcing laws so that people could keep slaves, to the actions of imperial nations like Britain, to the holocaust to all of the pointless wars fought throughout history, states have a long record of slaughtering and ruining the lives of countless numbers of their own and other states people. William Eckhardt estimates battle deaths since 3000 BC at 151million while Beer came out with a much higher figure of 1.1 billion battle deaths (NB both use dodgy calculations and of course in either case the total military deaths let alone civilian would be much higher).1  These actions are always taken because they are in the interest of the ruling class, but the ruling classes are never the ones directly involved in these conflicts, they instead use the state as an instrument to coerce other people to fight their battles for them. In a stateless society the people might need to fight against oppression but they would never be forced to fight for causes that have nothing to do with them.  [1]

This is an unfair portrayal of Freetown Christiana. Soft drug use is something that the people of Christiana have decided is not immoral or illegal and is something that they tolerate in their society. They should not be criticised for people who do things which are totally within the rules of Freetown Christiana society.

COUNTERPOINT  These could still be provided in a different way. These issues can be dealt with quite sufficiently within small communities, in the case of a fire people the whole community would likely assist in fire-fighting duties whilst equipment could be owned communally.  Anarchist communities do not necessarily have no rules, these rules can be adequately enforced by the community and the community can collectively decide what to do about rule breakers.

Anarchy has nothing to contribute but violence.  Anarchist groups may claim to contribute to political discussion and propose a viable alternative to states, but too regularly they contribute very little more than violence, they regularly hijack legitimate peaceful protests and by acting in a violent way detract from those protests. [1] In order to be able to contribute to society they need to be able to show that they have something to contribute. People will not listen if the movement is associated with violence so anarchism will never have an opportunity to contribute while it practices violence.  [1]

Anarchist Communities have a very poor track record.  Without the state there is very little in the way of protection against immorality, if one looks at Freetown Christiana, supposedly an anarchist utopia, it has actually been a blight on Copenhagen society; it has only thrived because of the cannabis trade, and is a haven for biker gangs [1] where the police have been attacked with petrol bombs [2] . If a small community like Christiana cannot survive without becoming a hotbed of immorality then what hope is there for a totally stateless world?  [1]   [2]

The state provides functions which are utterly essential.  Anarchist groups are very naive in believing that we could survive without states, states provide a countless functions that would not exist otherwise. Things like the fire service would be very hard to organise as a community, it is likely that that very few people would volunteer to perform such a dangerous job. There are many vital services that require economies of scale to exist in order to provide the specialized services. This means that something larger than a local community is needed to provide it. For example communities could provide basic healthcare but could they provide the cutting edge research necessary to improve it, and then the expensive treatments to be able to take advantage of that research?  Legal systems are dependent on the state for their existence, without a centralised system of law and a state to appoint judges and organise and fund courts and the police. Under anarchy law and order is likely to look a lot more like mob justice. Without any sort of police force or judiciary it would be highly likely that a community would be able to prevent crime.

Violence is not intrinsic to Anarchy Whilst there are many violent anarchists there is nothing about anarchy that means that violence need be a part of it. Many anarchists identify themselves as Anarchist-Pacifists and are against any and all violence.

Ignoring the law some of the time undermines the state. The opposition believe that this legislation goes much further than showing solidarity between the government and religion, and is actually the government showing submission to religion. This legislation sets religion as a higher authority than the government and, as such, undermines the government’s power as the ultimate authority.  The likely effect is that religious groups will begin to see themselves as above the law and will begin to disregard to government to an ever greater extent.

Relationship between state and religious population  People who are caused distress and have their religious freedom limited by their government are likely to feel disillusioned with and sidelined by their government. They will wonder why other religious groups can follow all the teachings of their faith while the government limits theirs. This kind of limitation of how to worship or what traditions and beliefs to follow can be part of the cause that leads to members of that religion feeling not welcome and discriminated against, ultimately leading to extremism. Allowing religious beliefs to override government laws would relieve these feelings and dramatically improve religious people’s relationship with the state.  This improvement in relationship would severely reduce the likelihood of anti-government feelings and general civil unrest.

Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it.  In terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.

People have a right to freedom of religion.  Freedom to religion is widely considered to be a fundamental human right. Freedom of religion is very similar to freedom of expression and is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away by the state. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states “Everyone has the right to freedom of… religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” [1] In addition to this, many people consider religion to be the single most important thing in their life.  Under the status quo, many people are inhibited in their ability to practise their religion to its fullest degree. This not only causes them great distress due to how important this is to them but is a breach of their human rights.  The government has an obligation to provide people with a basic standard of life and thus must pass this legislation.  [1] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations Article 18

Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society.  The government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.

Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1]  The opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring.  [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Relationship between state and organised religion.  Currently, the state and organised religion are often seen as diametrically opposed. [1] For example the state often worries about the threat of religious extremists. This causes a lot of tension between the government and religious communities within the country, as well as between the state and states which hold religion more highly. As the Bishop of Liverpool puts it “Church and politics are not two parallel lines; rather they are two live wires, side by side, which when they touch should ignite and explode.” [2] Thus when Rowan Williams suggested Sharia might be accommodated his comments created a political storm.  This legislation would show that we do value and respect religious freedom and rights and would improve our relationships on both of these fronts.  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press 1992  [2] The Bishop of Liverpool, ‘Church and Politics: “My Kingdom is not of this world” Really?’, St Wilfrid Lecture, 18th February 2010.

Delegitimises religious  Currently, bombings and attacks in the name of religion are a big problem. These are mostly caused by people feeling that their religion is being discriminated against. [1] For example Dr Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury believes that "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law." He believes this would help maintain social cohesion because Muslims would not need to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". [2]  If the government is seen to be supporting all religions then these attacks will lose their credibility and will inevitably be reduced in both severity and frequency.  [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.  [2] BBC News, ‘Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’’, 7 February 2008.

This treats everyone the same rather than treating people differently. The proposition does not accept that people will perceive this as one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for another. This legislation does not create divisions in society but relieves them by ensuring that everyone is allowed to practise their religion to the fullest extent that they wish to.  The status quo is that some religious groups are allowed to practise their religion to its fullest extent and others are not. The proposition believes that this is far more divisive than this legislation.

This is a weak slippery slope argument. The proposition does not accept that this legislation puts religion above the law. Religious people and movements do not see the potential to practise their religion to its fullest degree as a way to get one over on the state but a right that they deserve as a human being.  This legislation will not be seen as weakness but as tolerance.  As for honour killings, they are not religious but cultural and are denounced by leaders of all the world’s major faiths [1] as such they have nothing to do with this legislation and would not be perceived as having anything to do with this legislation.  [1] “Honour Crimes.” BBC Ethics Guide. 2011.

Makes the affected laws effectively inoperable in their totality.  If people wish to carry knives in public or smoke marijuana, the rational thing for them to do under this legislation is to falsely claim to be Sikh or Rastafarian respectively so that they are not subject to these laws. This logic applies to all laws affected by this legislation.  The government would first have to work out what religions count for this legislation, the government would likely want to exclude at least some extremist cults and would not want to allow individuals or small to make up their own religions. Equally problematic would be that the government would need to regulate what all these beliefs are so as to prevent new beliefs from springing up to get around laws. The government would then have to work out ways of working out if someone is legitimately part of a religion or not, this would be practically impossible. The ultimate effect would be that all laws affected by this legislation would be so easy to get around that they may as well not exist.  Instead the government should look to accommodate religious values within British law by making the necessary changes in specific instances rather that introducing a carte blanche to override the laws of the land. [1]  [1] Petre, Jonathan et al, ‘Bishop: Impossible to have sharia law in UK’, The Telegraph, 8 February 2008,

Causes divisions in society.  One of the most fundamental things in any democracy is equality between those in that society. Many minorities have been struggling for this equality for decades. This includes religious minorities for example between the reformation in the 16th Century and 1829 Catholics were second class citizens. [1] This demand that religious beliefs should override government laws switches things around and once again means that not everyone is equal before the law.  Moreover making it law that certain groups of people are allowed to behave in a way that other groups of people are not inevitably leads to social divisions. This means people who are unaffected by this legislation will see religious people as getting special treatment, feel side-lined by the government and see religious people as their enemy in this.  This will promote tension between religious and non-religious communities and will thus create divisions in society as well as deepening pre-existing ones.  [1] Living Heritage, ‘Religion and Belief’, parliament.uk.

Sets a standard for religion as it being above the law.  This legislation essentially indicates that anything to do with religion is not subject to the same laws as everyone else and removes the state from his position as ultimate authority over its subjects. The limits will be very difficult to draw – there are some things that everyone would agree is based upon religious belief such as the Sikhs carry knives but there may be other cases where a minority of the religion believes that something is required by their religion, should this still be allowed? Similarly would this apply to every single religion and sect or would the state have to define what it counts as a religion and limit it only to major religions?  By extension, this legitimises actions like honour killings, which are killings done in the name of religion. Although they would not be directly allowed by this legislation, they would be implicitly encouraged and those carrying it out would try to claim that it was carrying out a religious belief in order to get protection from the law. Already 1 in 10 young British Asians back honour killings, they do not need any encouragement from changes to the law like this. [1]  [1] BBC News, ‘One in 10 ‘backs honour killings’’, 4 September 2006.

This harm can be avoided very easily. Avoiding these laws becoming completely inoperable would actually be quite simple. People who observe nothing but the potentially illegal parts of the religion would not be considered part of that religion, particularly if they only began identifying as part of that religion once this legislation was passed.

Term-limiting legislators insults the intelligence of the electorate. Individuals can make prudent decisions about who to vote for, and it so happens that that decision is often to keep incumbents in power. If the reason for such high reelection rates is due to an uneducated or disaffected electorate, then the problem is not be solved by simply instituting term limits. Rather, such results mean an effort must be made to educate voters and to fight voter apathy. Neither of those things is accomplished by limiting the choice of the voters.

Term limits create more competitive elections for public office that empower new leaders and ideas:  Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Politicians almost always win reelection. The frequency with which they win varies over time and between states, but incumbency is always a powerful advantage. This is seen most visibly in the United States Congress of the past 30 years, in which it has become virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent legislator. Legislators are reelected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for whom they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. Term limits actually increase voter choice by making elections more competitive and encouraging more candidates to run. In areas where term limits have been instituted there is far higher turnover amongst legislators, giving voters far more choice in who should represent them. In California, the institution of term limits on state legislators caused a rush of retirements, which led to 50 percent more candidates than would otherwise have been expected, as well as a marked increase in the diversity of the backgrounds of those elected [1] . Ultimately, old legislators using election machines to retain power do their country and constituents a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order to allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.  [1] Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

Term limits restore a concept of rotation in public office, and reestablish the concept of the citizen legislature:  It is gravely unfortunate that politics has become an accepted career path for citizens of democratic states. It is far better that participation in government be brief. To end politics as a lifetime sinecure, thereby making legislative service a leave of absence, rather than a means of permanently absconding from a productive career in the private sector, requires that there be term limits 1. Without term limits, the temptation to remain in office for life will keep people seeking reelection long after they have accomplished all the legislative good of which they are capable. It does not take long for legislators to become more occupied with their relationships with each other and with lobbyists, than with their constituents. Representative assemblies work best when they function as citizen legislatures, in which people who pursue careers other than politics enter the legislative forum for a brief time to do their country service, and then leave again to reenter society as private citizens2. Such citizen legislators who enter politics to make their mark and then leave are far more desirable than the career politicians of today who focus only on building their own power influence, rather than considering the people they were elected to represent. US states with 'citizen legislatures', where the state legislature is part time with short sessions so allowing its members to hold other jobs, were at the top of freedom indexes. New Hampshire was both the most minimal parliament and the state with most fiscal freedom according to the Ruger-Sorens Index.3 1 Will, George. 1993. Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Restoration of Deliberative Democracy. New York: Free Press. 2 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 3 Rugar, William and Sorens, Jason. 2011. "The Citizen Legislature: How Reasonable Limits on State Legislative Salaries, Staff and Session Lengths Keep Liberty Alive" Policy Brief, Goldwater Institute,

If people wish to pursue a career in politics, then it is their right to do so. There is nothing wrong with career politicians so long as they obey the will of their people and accurately represent the desires of their constituents. While there should be no bar to people seeking to enter politics on a temporary basis, placing that form of political participation over a more lasting one makes no sense. Furthermore, career politicians have valuable experience that can be extremely useful in the forming of legislation and the conducting of public business. Term limits destroy this valuable resource by casting people out of the halls of government at a fixed point, regardless of the worth they might still impart to the legislative process.

A term-limited legislator suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term legislator will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Building the necessary support for worthy legislation might thus prove far more difficult than it would have had the legislator not been a lame duck. Furthermore, with regard to lobby-group support, a politician on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favor groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for outgoing legislators, paid for often at the expense of the public.

The longer a politician remains in office, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage:  Power is highly intoxicating; it can corrupt even the most scrupled individual given enough exposure over time. For this reason, power should not be left in the hands of specific individuals for too long. When a politician is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits legislators often become self-serving individuals, more interested in craving out personal power bases than with serving the people who elected them. Because legislators are so likely to be reelected, lobbyists and special interest groups find the lines of power in states' capitals largely predictable, and are thus able to buy the influence of the permanent power nexuses in the legislature with relative ease1. Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to put forward self-serving legislation and to retain power indefinitely 2. Instead, by maintaining term limits, legislators have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.  1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 2 Green, Eric. 2007. "Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships". America.gov.

The need to constantly fight elections compromises a politician's ability to make the difficult and unpopular decisions that may be needed at a given time:  A major focus of a legislator hoping to serve another term is on the next election and on vote getting. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by legislators, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are fixated on being reelected. Legislators have an incentive to put tough decisions off if they can retain power by doing so. An example of such seemingly perpetual procrastination is observable in the United States Congress's attitude toward social security. The fund is set to become insolvent, by some estimates, in less than two decades, yet congressmen and senators have chosen time and again to put off enacting painful, but necessary reform to the system. They find it easier to delay a decision until the next Congress, preferring their own reelection to the good of the nation. When constrained by term limits, legislators must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform1. Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places politicians in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behavior, it is curtailed by term limits, as legislators will, in their final term at the very least, not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again. Bolder legislative action is observed from retiring legislators in the United States Congress, for example. When a congressman or senator does not intend to seek reelection, his tendency to vote along strict party lines diminishes substantially. Term limits, just like voluntary retirement, leads legislators to vote more on the basis of principle than on party stance2. The result of this is a more independent legislature, with a greater interest in actually serving the people.  1 Chan, Sewell. 2008. "Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits". New York Times. 2 Scherer, Michael. 2010. "Washington's Time for Bipartisanship: Retirement". Time.

Legislators may gain skill in maneuvering in the legislative arena with time, but they also gain a propensity for power grabbing and self-advancement. Politicians of long standing use their knowledge of the working of the legislature as much for the lobbyists and interest groups, who they prefer to work with rather than young, inexperienced legislators. The power of lobbyists is magnified by the solidity of the channels of political influence created by high rates of incumbency. Term limits actually serve to restrict the power of interest groups, and instead places emphasis on the production of progressive legislation.

Term limits promote greater choice in candidates and protect democracy1. While people may not be able to vote for a legislator again who has reached his limit of service, they can still vote for a continuation of his policies by voting for his chosen successor or for his political party's candidate. Limiting individual politicians to specified terms, however, prevents them from becoming too powerful and damaging the democratic system through efforts at self-enrichment and influence-peddling.  1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.

The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits:  With term limits, a legislator will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of legislators in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. A study into term limits in Brazil found that "mayors with re-election incentives are signi?cantly less corrupt than mayors without re-election incentives. In municipalities where mayors are in their ?rst term, the share of stolen resources is, on average, 27 percent lower than in municipalities with second-term mayors."(Ferraz, 2010) Furthermore, lame duck politicians can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former parliamentarians, cabinet ministers, senators, etc. find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement (Wynne, 2004). Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behavior, as politicians look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people. 1 Ferraz, Claudio and Finan, Frederico, (2010). "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments" Berkeley, 2 Wynne, Michael. 2004. "Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy". University of Wolongong.

Term limits tend to increase partisanship between political parties and factions:  Term limits on legislators serve to exacerbate partisan tensions between political parties1. This is due to several causes. First, the increased iteration of primary elections, caused by politicians being forced out of office by term limits, in which there tends to be low voter turnout, and higher voter apathy when they happen to regularly. This leads to the selection of more conservative candidates from the right, and more radical candidates from the left. These more opposed groups forming large portions of political parties' representation will lead to more tension in the legislature. Second, newly elected politicians are often more likely to readily take the party whip when they enter the legislature. These results in more disciplined voting, which restricts the ability of moderates on either side to build consensuses on legislation. Third, the ability to build consensus and support from other parties relies on experience and deft political acumen, which are usually garnered through lengthy participation in the legislative process.2 Term limits exclude many skilled politicians from being able to use their expertise in the building of such consensus efforts. Fourth, concerns for their post-legislative career can lead to greater partisanship from retiring legislators. This is due to their need to court appointments to positions at party-affiliated, or party-leaning, think tanks, and on corporate boards favorable to their party. All of these factors lead to a less cooperative legislature when term limits are instituted. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. "Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea". Big Government. 2 Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Experienced legislators who understand the workings of the legislative system are needed for their expertise and wisdom:  The process of drafting legislation and shepherding it through the legislature often requires a delicate and practiced hand, especially when the issue under discussion is of a controversial nature. By forcing politicians out of the legislature on the basis of term limits, the depth of knowledge and experience available to the assembly is reduced, often to its serious detriment [1] . Seasoned politicians are also needed to help newcomers acclimate to the environment of the legislature; something first-time elected individuals are completely unused to. Naiveté on the part of new policymakers who are unused to the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Lobbyists and special interest groups will seek to influence politicians while they develop their first impressions of life in the legislature, and will immediately capitalize upon any perceived vulnerability. Luann Ridgeway a Republican senator in the Missouri senate argues that term limits mean “we rely more on the trustworthiness of those established -- government relations individuals and staff persons -- because we have to”, [2] this would include more taking advice from the long standing lobbyists. Furthermore, legislation often requires lengthy periods of negotiation, that require not only the experienced hand of long-standing legislators, but also the continuity they offer. If legislators are constrained by term limits their time horizons are narrowed causing them to put too much emphasis on near-term, rather than long-term legislation. Clearly, term limits undermine the effective operation of government and deny the legislature an invaluable source of experience and ability.  [1] Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State LegislativeProfessionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  [2] Coleman, Emily and Bushnel, Michael, (2009). “Legislators attribute heightened partisanship to term limits”, Missourian, 16th May 2009

Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their representatives without guidance:  Term limits are flagrantly undemocratic. If a legislator is popular and desired by the people to continue to represent them, then it should be their choice to reelect him. The instituting of term limits assumes voters cannot act intelligently without proper guidance. This is a serious insult to voters' intelligence. The electorate can discern for itself whether a legislator is doing a good job and will vote accordingly. Preventing a potentially popular candidate from standing for reelection simply removes the right from people to make important political decisions. It is not the duty of the state to encourage more candidates to run in elections to replace politicians who are already popular and doing a suitable job1. Should the US people have not been allowed to elect Franklyn D. Roosevelt for his third term? FDR was a very popular and successful president who brought the United States out of depression and won the Second World War and it was those very successes that lead the American people to reelect him. The people, if they have the freedom to choose who should represent them, should have the freedom to choose incumbents, and to do so indefinitely if that is what the popular will demands. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. "Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea". Big Government.

The dynamics of party primaries are not the same in all jurisdictions, and efforts at promoting moderate and capable candidates can still be made after the institution of term limits. Furthermore, new politicians may in fact be more willing to work on bipartisan projects, as they are not inculcated in the culture of confrontation that predominates between political parties in many legislatures. For this reason politicians of longer standing might actually be a hindrance to bipartisan compromise. It is far better to allow for a preponderance of political views by making the legislature more open. The best way to accomplish this is clearly to impose term limits.

A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to his ability to do what is right for the nation. Politicians who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a representative who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision, rather focusing on the short-term goal of reelection.

It is wrong to simply make drones “a default strategy to be used anywhere”. Yes some of the time drones will be the right choice for catching terrorists and other militants but much of the time they won’t be. Instead of spurning institutions like the ISI and Pakistan’s Military we should be relying on them to fight extremism. This targeting of terrorists is happening in other countries sovereign territory. Their sovereignty should be respected wherever possible meaning that the Pakistanis, the Somalis and the Yemenis should be the ones who carry out these engagements.  Again here there is the difficulty of not knowing how many were killed in drone strikes (see counter to prop 1). We cannot compare other types of strikes unless we have more reliable figures. This is something that sending special forces in would help with; they would have much more accurate figures of who they kill and could check whether they really killed the person they were supposed to be targeting. This would prevent any attempt to inflate the kill count through including those they are not sure of as terrorists. [1]  [1] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012.

UAVs are the best possible weapon for the job.  We need to eliminate terrorists somehow and UAVs are the best possible equipment with which to carry out this mission. All the other options either would result in significantly more casualties or would have other problems that would likely allow terrorists to escape.  First there is the collateral damage that would be caused by using other alternatives to striking terrorists. Professor Plaw of the University of Massachusetts says that when terrorists were being confronted by the Pakistani Army, who were attacking at the behest of the United States, 46% of casualties were collateral damage. A similar number of 41% was the figure when Israel was targeting Hamas. [1] When compared to the 16 or 28% collateral damage figures for UAVs the choice should be easy.  Moreover other options have other disadvantages. Sending a hit squad in to eliminate terrorists may mean little collateral damage but would cause a diplomatic crisis as it would be tantamount to invading another country. Using a missile or local support on the other hand significantly increases the chances of the target escaping. Pakistan’s ISI, military intelligence, has for example been accused of helping the Taliban – they could hardly be trusted to kill them. [2]  [1] Shane, Scott, ‘The Moral Case for Drones’, The New York Times, 14 July 2012.  [2] Perlez, Jane, ‘Pakistan Scorns U.S. Scolding on Terrorism’, The New York Times, 23 September 2011.

This is incorrect; It makes the assumption that UAVs could not be used at all if they were not being used to attack targets. They could still be used in a surveillance role so providing the same amount of time to deliberate before striking in a different fashion, one that is appropriate to the situation.

UAVs cause less collateral damage.  There are only two things that really matter when targeting terrorists; is the terrorist eliminated, and is collateral damage kept to a minimum? In Pakistan there have been a total of 334 strikes by UAVs between 2004 and June 2012 with the total reported killed at 2496-3202 of which only 482-832 were civilians according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. [1] Moreover the number of civilians killed in strikes is falling; 28 percent of casualties in 2008 were civilians but by 2011 this had fallen to 16 percent [2] and this is a figure that is likely to continue falling as drones improve technologically making identification easier and making strikes more precise. These figures show that the United States in its use of drones is not only hitting a lot of terrorist targets and eliminating them but is causing very little collateral damage in comparison to the number of strikes made.  [1] Woods, Chris, and Serle, Jack, ‘June Update – US covert actions in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalis’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 2 July 2012.  [2] Shane, Scott, ‘The Moral Case for Drones’, The New York Times, 14 July 2012.

Because drones are not on the ground and can’t check the identities of those who are killed there is no way of knowing if they really do cause less civilian casualties; what the proposition calls ‘collateral damage’. We also do not know what damage would be caused by other forms of attack on the same targets. It is however definitely open to question whether these attacks really do cause less civilian casualties. Local activists believe that around 3,000 people have been killed in Waziristan of whom only 185 were named al Qaeda operatives – a very poor ratio of 16 civilians for every al Qaeda man killed. [1] The Brookings institution meanwhile estimates that for every al Qaeda and Taliban militant killed there are ten civilian casualties. [2] If either of these estimates are anywhere near the mark then there are very large number of civilian casualties, much higher than proposition believes, and probably higher than other forms of strikes would cause.  [1] Shackle, Samira, ‘Drones and the “bugsplats” they cause’, New Statesman, 13 June 2012.  [2] Byman, Daniel L., ‘Do Targeted Killings Work?’, ForeignPolicy.com, 14 July 2009.

Today most forms of conflict do not have much risk to western militaries. While the attacks were carried out from high in the sky NATO did not suffer a single loss in combat operations over Kosovo in 1999. [1] Moreover this lack of danger with UAVs is potentially immoral; we no longer have a war in which both sides are at risk rather a shooting range for drones to kill ‘terrorists’. Having at least some danger is needed as a restraint on the use of force. A good litmus test to use for the authorisation of lethal force would be whether the public would find the goals of the action worthwhile even if it did result in the loss of several soldiers.  [1] Gallis, Paul E., ‘Kosovo: Lessons Learned from Operation Allied Force’, CRS Report for Congress, 19 November 1999, p.8

UAVs allow more care and safeguards before shooting.  When engaging in covert operations it is essential that the right target is identified so that the correct target is eliminated. This is something that using UAVs allows as they are able to track their target, sometimes for days, before attacking. This means there is much more time for scrutiny of targets and possible collateral damage.  This also means that there is plenty of room for the decisions to be made right at the top. Every person on the kill list gets discussed at a weekly meeting of more than 100 members of the US government’s security apparatus. President Obama himself signs off on strikes and can change the decision if the situation on the ground changes. Former National Security Advisor Jones says “Many times… at the 11th hour we waved off a mission simply because the target had people around them and we were able to loiter on station until they didn’t.” [1]  While UAVs may be ‘unmanned’ they are certainly heavily monitored as each drone has 43 military personnel rotating in three shifts. They include seven joystick pilots, seven system operators, and five mission coordinators, there is also from the CIA 66 people, including 34 video crew members, and 18 intelligence analysts. [2] This means that there are a large number of eyeballs to make sure that the right person is being targeted, to check he is with as few others as possible before the strike. None of this would be possible with other forms of attack where the emphasis has to be on the speed of the operation.  [1] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012 .  [2] Kaplan, Fred, ‘Who’s Afraid of the Kill List’, Slate, 15 June 2012.

Using UAVs prevents soldiers from being killed.  To put it bluntly any military or intelligence service wants to keep its own men safe while carrying out its missions; Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are the ultimate capability with which to manage this. No military or civilian personnel are going to be killed if the delivery vehicle is controlled from the United States. This means that unlike in other methods of attack the UAV can take its time even if it is at risk. In the war in Kosovo NATO air forces had to launch their attacks from 15,000 feet due to worries they would be shot down. [1] Attacking from such a height from a fast moving aeroplane makes missing the target much more likely.  [1] Thomas, Timothy, ‘Kosovo and the Current Myth of Information Superiority’, Parameters, Spring 2000, pp.13-29.

This is a conflict situation, a war, pure and simple. While this is a new kind of conflict; when the opponent is a non-state actor states have to be able to strike at these groups that intend to attack them even when they are sheltering in other states. Such attacks should also not include the state where those groups are sheltering unless that state is supporting that group as was the case in Afghanistan.  Yes the distinction between civilian and combatant is blurred by this conflict but this is something that happens regardless of whether the United States uses UAVs. It is the terrorists themselves who through their horrific attacks by ‘civilians’ on civilian targets that strip away the distinction. The United States has to be able to respond with whatever method is most likely to prevent more of these terrorist attacks.

Getting special forces or allies on the ground is not always an option. In countries like Somalia and Yemen where there have been conflicts between factions the authorities will not always cooperate and even if they do they may not control the territory where the strike team would need to operate. There will also be many times where it is simply too dangerous to try and snatch someone. If that person is a danger they need to be stopped in the quickest way possible; and that will be by the use of the UAV that is already far above monitoring the target.

The use of drones makes the use of force easier to sanction.  Using drones encourages the use of lethal force rather than alternatives. The reason for this is obvious – it is much easier to resort to violence if you know there is no risk to yourself. With the operators thousands of miles away in the United States the only risk of using drones is the loss of equipment. As Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, has said “The term 'targeted killing' is wrong because it suggests little violence has occurred. The collateral damage may be less than aerial bombardment, but because they eliminate the risk to soldiers they can be used more often.” [1]  The use of drones is also politically expedient in a way that otherwise the use of force would not be. Dennis Blair, the former director of national intelligence, points out that the strike campaign is dangerously seductive as it is “low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness… It plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.” [2] The use of force therefore becomes the first choice not the option of last resort. Even those within the U.S. administration such as Secretary of state Clinton have worried about a drones-only approach that ignored other options and does not look at solving the larger problems. [3]  [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Drone strikes threaten 50 years of international law, says UN rapporteur’, guardian.co.uk, 21 June 2012.  [2] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012, p.8  [3] ibid, p.8

The use of drones creates a precedent that other states may use.  The United States is the first state with a large number of drones and other unmanned military vehicles. It is also the first country to use them. This inevitably means that the US is creating the precedent for how they will be used in future. The United States is aware of this potential and President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser John Brennan has stated “Other nations also possess this technology, and many more nations are seeking it, and more will succeed in acquiring it. President Obama and those of us on his national security team are very mindful that as our nation uses this technology, we are establishing precedents that other nations may follow, and not all of those nations may — and not all of them will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting human life, including innocent civilians.” [1] This is exactly the problem; do we really want to live in a world where any country can carry out targeted killings of people who are in another nation? Such a world would have the ever present risk of a covert conflict becoming a much more open shooting war.  [1] McNeal, Greg, ‘Is the U.S. Setting Precedents in its Drone Wars’, Forbes, 6 June 2012.

Using drones blurs the distinction between war and peace.  The use of drones further blurs the already worryingly indistinct line between a state of war and a state of peace. The drone attacks are taking place in countries where the United States does not have any legal authority. The United States is not officially at war with Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia, yet has launched hundreds of attacks on these countries and their citizens. The assumption is that a state can be at war with a non-state actor such as a terrorist group and therefore is free to target them wherever this group may be found. This means that the US is prosecuting a war in which only it thinks it is at war while sovereign countries like Pakistan are targeted despite believing they are at peace. It is the use of drones that makes it easy to circumvent sovereignty and attack targets on another country’s soil so creating the ambiguity.  Equally worryingly is the blurring of the distinction between civilian and combatant. Firstly the U.S. has decided to define any adult male in the target area as a terrorist when many are most likely nothing of the sort. [1] Secondly the Geneva conventions and their 1977 additions at their heart have the assumption that civilians cannot engage in a war – they are innocent bystanders. This however has been changed by the use of drones; it is a civilian agency, the CIA, which controls the drones and pulls the trigger. This makes the CIA combatants so breaking the obligation not to engage as soldiers. This means that U.S. civilians lose their protected status and the U.S. can’t complain if U.S. citizens are targeted in retaliation as the terrorists can no longer distinguish between those who are targeting them and those who are not. [2]  [1] Hammond, Jeremy R., ‘The Immoral Case for Drones’, Foreign Policy Journal, 16 July 2012.  [2] Hallinan, Conn, ‘CIA’s Drone Wars Blurs Distinction Between Military and Civilian Combatants’, Foreign Policy In Focus, 6 October 2011.

The use of drones means shoot to kill is the only option.  Using drones cuts down the options on the ground. A drone can only keep circling or go in for the attack; their only option is to kill a target or let them escape. Using ground forces; either your own, or in this case the Pakistani or Yemeni military, provides the third option of capturing the target. This is ethically a much better position for the United States to be in as it means that the terrorists can be given the option to surrender rather than simply being killed. This in turn would provide the benefit of allowing a trial helping to show the justice of the operation. Moreover these captured militants would likely be valuable intelligence assets who could be questioned which may well lead the intelligence services to other terrorists.  Finally using drones is a very aggressive and provocative stance as it prevents any possibility of a peaceful resolution. The usage of drones immediately eliminates the possibility of negotiation because drones are remote from their operators. This means that drones are unlikely to be useful in the many situations that could be helped by any form of contact.

Any other nation seeking to take a precedent from the use of drones would have to be involved in a conflict against a terrorist organisation that poses a credible, clear, and present danger and not be able to fight those terrorists by other means. The situation in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia is in many ways unique in that these are states that have either failed or are near failure. As a result the sovereign government cannot be relied to combat terrorists on their own soil.

It is absolutely not the case that UAVs will mean unnecessary attacks that would not otherwise be made; all the targets are checked by a large number of national security experts and the attacks are signed off by the President himself. The attacks are therefore taken very seriously by the administration. Moreover that the attacks are low cost is exactly what we want – the capability to strike our enemies without losses to ourselves or any collateral damage should be prized not shunned.

This again assumes that there is no additional harm attached to the perpetrating of such a crime by an individual who holds these ideas, which there demonstrably is (though the inflicting of terror on one specific community). Moreover hate crimes themselves are a violation of the right to freedom of speech; a person does have the right to express themselves, but not in a way that would prevent others from exercising their own rights.  A hate crime is the ultimate attempt to limit another's freedom of expression. A hate crime is an attempt to silence the very idea that a particular person has the right to exist or to live a particular lifestyle. Therefore, in order to uphold the first amendment, hate crime enhancements are not only just, but are in fact necessary.

Hate crime enhancements are an attack on free speech  Hate crimes are crimes that are based on an idea that the perpetrator had prior to the crime. The crime itself is no different from any other crime except that it is punished more harshly. Why is this so? Because we are punishing an idea. All forms of violent crime, whether they are murders, rapes, or beatings are an expression of hatred toward another human being.  To add more punishment to a crime because it represents a particular kind of hate (an idea) is to unfairly distinguish between different violent acts and trivialize those violent acts that do not appear to be motivated by prejudice hate. This is unjust because the idea itself does not cause harm, and is in fact legal in most cases (with the exception of direct incitement to violence), as racist or prejudiced statements and ideas are not illegal in most western liberal democracies.  We allow extreme and prejudiced ideas to be legal because we recognise the value of free speech and open discourse in debating and discussing ideas, so as to best allow for progress in human thought. Hate crime enhancements constitute an attack on this as they make an individual liable for harsher punishments for his actions if he holds certain views, and thus the law unfairly discriminates against these particular viewpoints and not against others, and so hate crime enhancements are unjust.

In almost every case where hate crimes are committed, the communities involved already perceive themselves as distinct and opposed, mostly because they already believe that their communities have been sundered by structural inequalities and hate-motivated crimes. Simply ignoring hate crimes will not make these communities stop perceiving them. Rather, it could lead to some communities feeling that their concerns and grievances are not being properly addressed, and lead to more inter-community violence as they seek to ensure 'justice' is done by their own hands.

Hate crime enhancements unfairly punish equal offences differently  Hate crime enhancements are unjust because they respond to two equal results (i.e. assault vs. racial mugging) with different punishments. We need to judge solely on the concrete actions of the aggressor in order to prevent punishments from being based on arbitrary judgements as to an offender’s “intent”, which can be very difficult to prove. Otherwise “intent” may be supposed or argued in cases where it did not exist, leading to perverse sentencing whereby a crime is punished more harshly despite the true absence of intent. There is a danger of unjustly branding someone as bigoted and punishing them excessively, e.g. for their involvement in a bar fight where the victim coincidentally belonged to a minority group.  Juries might also be willing to make the logical leap that, because the aggressor was proved to hold bigoted views in general towards his victim's ethnic group, these views must have motivated his actions in this individual incident, despite the absence of any evidence linking the specific brawl in a bar to the aggressor's views. Therefore it is unjust to punish two crimes with equal effects differently on the highly subjective basis of “intent”, and thus hate crime enhancements are unjust.

This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups.  Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killing without intent to kill) and murder (killing with intent to kill), or when deciding whether a murder was premeditated or not. There is no reason to suppose intent cannot also be judged in possible hate crime cases.

Hate crime enhancements cause inter-community tensions  By defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labelling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.(1) These effects spread beyond the hate crimes themselves.  By prosecuting high-profile cases of white hate crimes against blacks, for example, it encourages blacks to see themselves as part of a distinct community different from the white community and whose relations are marked by crimes committed by one against the other. This is especially true when one community seems to perpetrate more hate crime (or at least more convictions thereof are secured) against another community than visa-versa.  An analysis of hate crime date from the USA examining how hate crimes against whites are viewed with respect to hate crimes against blacks has hypothesised that the prevailing view in the minds of the public is that the crime that whites are most likely to commit against blacks is a hate crime, and that it is hard for most Americans to envision a white person committing a crime against a black person for a different reason. The only white people who commit crimes against black people, goes the public belief, are racially prejudiced white extremists, and in contrast the very idea of hate crimes committed against whites is met with scepticism and disbelief.(2)  There have been several high-profile cases in the USA where some individuals have argued actual hate crimes against whites were not treated as such as a consequence of such public disbelief.(3) This can lead to an unjust situation where hate crime enhancements are (or are perceived as being) only applied “against” one community by another, despite hate crimes actually being committed by individuals within both communities against other individuals. Therefore hate crime enhancements are unjust.

Victims of violence may be prone to accusing their assailant of hate-motivated crimes. Victims frequently seek revenge, and hate crime laws create a very easy avenue for doing so. Thus hate crime enhancements may serve to fuel the fires of inter-community tensions as people perceive them as being used to exact communal vengeance.

Much of this symbolism and “meaning” attributed to hate crimes is deeply subjective and open to (mis)interpretation, especially in a politicized environment where hatred against one group is perceived as being the “usual” motivation behind any crime by any individual from another community against that group, and where the idea of hatred motivating a crime against another community by a different individual (based on his own background) is treated with scepticism.

Hate crime enhancements help prevent hate crimes  The additional punishment given to hate crimes under enhancements can help deter people who hold hateful views from acting on them, as they fear going to prison for any amount of time, and so any additional punishment affects their risk calculation before they commit a hate crime.  Moreover, increased punishments help prevent those who have perpetrated hate crimes from re-offending through rehabilitation in prison. In cases of crimes motivated by deep hatred, rehabilitation may require increased time and increased effort in order to provide criminals with the correct focus and concentration, and a longer sentence is necessary for this to happen.  Hate is not an essential human trait, we are not born hating people, it is a learned factor that can be unlearned when correctly rehabilitated. Therefore hate crime enhancements are just because they help prevent hate crimes and help prevent hate crime recidivism.

Hate crime enhancements can help emphasize tolerance and inter-community relations  Hate crime laws can teach society that hatred is highly condemnable and mould society into a streak away from racism, sexism, etc. Most governments have already taken this turn with the advent of segregation laws, discrimination laws, etc. To simply leave these issues unaddressed would be to make many communities, especially minority communities, feel that their grievances were ignored and that the state allowed discrimination and violence against them. Such feelings would further polarize communities against each other and make racial tensions and further hate crimes more likely.  Therefore hate crime enhancements should be maintained as a way for the state to send a message that it desires tolerance and will not allow crimes based on prejudice to stand un-addressed.

Hate crimes uniquely harm through terror  Hate crimes should be given a more severe penalty because the harm done to the victim and society is greater. Given that the intent of hate crimes is more malicious than simple premeditative murder; it is just to enhance hate crime laws to reflect stronger punishment. Hate crimes don't merely victimize the individual upon whom violence is inflicted, they also victimize a community or minority group that the hate crime was intended to terrorize. This is why hate crimes frequently include highly public acts such as lynchings in town squares, dragging hate crime victims behind cars along streets inhabited by certain communities, and graffiti on significant buildings -they are intended to send a message.  Hate crime-delivered messages limit the freedom of expression and group association of the victim community, thus violating their liberties. For this reason, hate crimes have more victims than other crimes, and subsequently deserver greater punishment. Moreover, as hate crimes are generally perpetrated against minority groups, and because these minority groups are always in a state of social disenfranchisement; it could be argued that hate crime enhancements are the state's way of attempting to arbitrate equality to minorities by compensating them with laws that will better favour their interests, thus forcibly "balancing the scale" of social equity.

It isn't necessarily true that hate crime enhancements really do deter hate crimes or help fight recidivism. Those committing hate crimes would face significant deterrents (in the form of legal sanctions, including prison time) for the crimes they commit even without the enhancements, so it seems unlikely that the addition of a few more years on their sentence, for example, would make a large difference to them when considering committing a crime. Moreover most hate crimes are based on irrational hatred and prejudice, and thus are unlikely to be rationally considered in a risk analysis as this argument supposes. In terms of rehabilitation, it should be noted that prisons are frequently places of racial and sectarian tension, with violent prison gangs built on ethnic and other identities, and thus hardly seem the place to counteract such prejudices.(4)

Just as some people have difficulty remembering so many passwords, so some people have difficulty remembering where they misplaced their belongings. This motion offers no solution if somebody should lose their identity card; given that it may be used to have access to a bank account, act as a travel card or simply be used to grant general access to the bearer, how could they possibly survive if they lost it? It is reasonable to assume that a biometric identity card might take as long or longer than a passport (which contains some biometric data) to be replaced. Given that in the UK it takes three weeks to receive a new passport if you lose it [1] and can cost between £77.50 and £112.50, this is simply too expensive and too slow for the average citizen to be able to continue with their daily life. A week without access to daily necessities such as your own bank account is too long to wait.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11

Identity cards confer advantages on their users  The average person is faced with numerous requisitions for identification every day, whether trying to access their own bank account, prove their age or prove their address. The identity card could easily incorporate all of this information to become one convenient for of identification and save the user the hassle of carrying so many documents around with them. Given that ‘the average person now has to remember five passwords, five PIN numbers, two number plates, three security ID numbers and three bank account numbers just to get through everyday life’ [1] , there is evidently a need for a single, concise form of identification. Moreover, it would help them to identify the people they have to interact with. There have been numerous cases of criminals posing as company officials such as gas workers in order to gain access to somebody’s home and steal from them [2] [3] . These identity cards would particularly help vulnerable citizens who are the most at risk of this kind of injustice. For this reason these cards should be compulsory, they would not be much use as identification if not everyone had one that could be checked by anybody.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11

Many illegal immigrants already take steps to avoid official identification. For example, they frequently take jobs which pay cash-in-hand [1] so that they do not have to set up and authorise a bank account, or have a social security number. There is not reason why this would not continue. Moreover, this measure simply provides more fuel for injustice. These is already a problem of police officers targeting minority groups for ‘stop-and-search- checks [2] ; under this motion, this injustice would be amplified under the guise of checking for illegal immigrants. This measure is contradictory to the notion of democracy.  [1] BBC. ‘The British illegal immigrants’. Published 02/02/2005. Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] BBC. ‘Police stop and search powers ‘target minorities’. Published 15/03/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

Only those who are guilty have anything to fear from systems that monitor and confirm identities  Law-abiding citizens who have not and do not intend to commit any crimes should not have a problem with this motion. Carrying a single card is not a huge burden to an individual. Rather they can reap the benefits of convenience to them personally, alongside the added security benefit to their whole nation which will help to keep them safe. As it is to be issued to everyone there will not even be the inconvenience of having to spend a long time applying for the card as it is in the government’s interest to make it as simple as possible with mobile offices taking the relevant biometrics where the people live so as to have the least impact on individual’s lives as possible.

Identity cards improve public safety  Identity cards could prove a key instrument to combat crime, terrorism and fraud. Given that terrorists have used fake passports to cross borders in the past [1] , a sophisticated identity card, possibly containing specific biometric information which cannot be easily faked, could be crucial in preventing terrorist acts in the future. In cases where the police were suspicious, they could rapidly check the identities of many people near a crime scene, which would make their investigation much swifter and more effective. The CBI also believes that ‘the creation of a single source of identity data’ [2] in the form of biometric identity cards would also decrease identity fraud. Given that identity fraud currently costs the UK £2.7 billion per year [3] , Canada over 10 million Canadian dollars per year [4] , and in America identity fraud relating to credit cards alone costs around $8.6 billion per year [5] , this is obviously a serious problem under the status quo. These crimes would be much more difficult if biometric data was required for financial transactions and other activities such as leaving or entering a country; identity cards are the best way forwards. The value of ID cards in combating terrorism and crime is much reduced if not everyone has them as the guilty would be less likely to want to get such cards unless they could somehow fake them.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [5] Accessed from  on 10/09/11

Many countries – including America [1] and Britain [2] - already use biometric chips in passports to reinforce proof of identity when crossing national borders. If this data does not work in this case, especially since security has increased hugely since 9/11 [3] , there is no evidence to support the idea that it would suddenly be improved if this chip was in an identity card instead of an official national passport. Moreover, the biometric information on these cards has already been proved faulty. Experts have demonstrated that they could copy the biometric information provided on identity cards ‘in minutes’ [4] . Identity cards are unnecessary and will not help to prevent the crimes mentioned.  [1] The Economist. ‘Have chip, will travel.’ Published 17/07/2009. Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accesssed from  on 10/09/11  [4] The Times. ‘ “Fakeproof” e-passport is cloned in minutes.’ Published 06/08/2008. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

It is perfectly legitimate for an innocent citizen to oppose identity cards on the grounds of how they threaten to alter society. The oppressive measure of gaining and essentially holding to ransom everybody’s intimate personal details and biometric data is hardly a soft measure; it is radical and may completely change the way in which society functions. Moreover, the fear that their card will be lost or stolen [1] , or that their information could be hacked and used by somebody else, is more than ample reason to fear or oppose the introduction of identity cards.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

It’s perfectly fine to acknowledge that medical emergencies require fast action – but that’s the exact reason why we use medical alert bracelets [1] . We already have a simply, non-intrusive way of ensuring that somebody who suffers from an illness such as epilepsy or diabetes can be quickly identified – without the need for an expensive and illiberal measure such as identity cards. Moreover, in the need to contact a relative, why not simply use their mobile number? Even if mobile umbers were now required by the government at all times, this is still far less intrusive than the scheme which proposition proposes.  [ 1 Accessed from  on 10/09/11

Identity cards can assist in the efficient monitoring of immigration  Illegal immigration is an enormous problem in Western nations. The UK estimates that there are more that one million illegal immigrants living in Britain [1] , likely around 2.2 million [2] . For America, this number could be as high as 11 million [3] . Identity cards would mean that, even if illegal immigrants did succeed in crossing the border, they would most likely be found out because they could not pass routine security checks required on an everyday basis because they would not have been issued an identity card. Given that illegal immigration is frequently linked to international crime such as trafficking [4] , this is clearly a problem which we need to address in a new way.  [1] The Times. ‘UK home to 1m illegal immigrants.’ Published 25/04/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [2] The Times. ‘UK home to 1m illegal immigrants.’ Published 25/04/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [3] The New York Times. ‘Number of illegal immigrants in US fell, study says.’ Published 01/09/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [4] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

Identity cards can be used to locate individuals who are in danger  As biometric identity cards would be able to store medical data, they could be instrumental in saving somebody’s life. For example, if somebody suddenly suffered an epileptic fit, it would be much faster for medical staff to find out their illness and medical history no matter where there medical records are held as everyone’s records would be linked to their ID card [1] , allowing them to be treated faster and more efficiently. It would also be easier to contact a friend or relative if they knew the last place where they had used their identity card, allowing faster unity of family in a medical emergency.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11

While these crimes are obviously a problem, it doesn’t mean that other crimes which can be challenged by this scheme should be allowed to continue. Identity cards would at least make it more difficult for fraud to occur, which in cases of petty criminals would provide an active deterrent for them to try it in the first place.

Governments already have the majority of this information through passport applications [1] , social security numbers [2] and so on, without enormous objections by the public. Moreover, many have called for increased security since the rise of terrorist attacks [3] and comply with increased security at places like airports. This isn’t pre-emptively condemning people for criminal activity; it is, like all other security checks, a routine check to enhance the safety of the general population. There is not reason not to identify with that as a common aim.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

An identity card scheme is open to subversion and abuse  Demanding identity cards has already been shown as a way for police officers and officials to harass minority groups by singling them out for questioning and searches [1] . This motion would simply serve as a thinly-veiled excuse for more intrusive searches which the law would not otherwise allow. This motion could also lead police to believe that those with a criminal record on their identity cards who just happen to be near a crime scene when a crime happens must be involved. This would lead to an unfair perversion of justice as those individuals are seen as the ‘usual suspects’, perhaps blinding the police eye to the real culprits if they did not previously have a criminal record.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11

The scheme would cause inconvenience and public discontent  The more information which is incorporated into identity cards, the greater the problems if they are misplaced or stolen. You would be ‘required to report the theft at a police station’ [1] rather than being able to cancel by phone, because the only way to prove that you are the owner of the card would be to have your biological information – like your fingerprints - scanned [2] . Moreover, if your details were stolen online and used without your knowledge, the ‘illusion of security’ [3] surrounding the cards would make it very difficult to probe that it was not in fact you who was using the card. Jerry Fishenden of Microsoft also pointed out that ‘if core biometric details such as your fingerprints are compromised, it is not going to be possible to provide you with new ones’ [4] . It is also unreasonable to expect someone to carry this card on them at all times, particularly if police or other authorities are able to stop and search on demand. Overall, the introduction of biometric identity card would create enormous problems for the everyday user if the slightest thing went wrong.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [4] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

The scheme does not prevent forgery or identity theft  The entire premise of national security and crime prevention falls when biometric identity cards are in fact incredibly easy to falsify. Microchips have already been forged in a matter of minutes in an experiment to determine their security [1] , and biometric information can be gained remotely by computer through ‘cracking’, ‘sniffing’ and ‘key-logging’ [2] . Moreover, common crimes which would not require any kind of identification to be committed – vehicle theft, burglary, criminal damage, common assault, mugging, rape and anti-social behaviour [3] – would not be combated at all by this measure. Given that hackers have managed to penetrate even the highest-security sites such as the CIA database [4] , there is not only a danger that individual cards would be hacked, but that the greater database of information could be hacked. There is no such thing as an impenetrable security system. We would be far better off using the money which would potentially be funnelled into identity cards to increase computer security and police presence.  [1] The Times. ‘ “Fakeproof” e-passport is cloned in minutes.’ Published on 06/08/2008. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [4] The Telegraph. ‘CIA website hacked by Lulz Security’. Published on 16/06/2011. Accessed from  on 10/09/11

This motion represents an unacceptable intrusion into individual liberty  Introducing identity cards, and particularly biometric identity cards, would create a ‘Big Brother’ state where each individual is constantly being watched and monitored by the government. An identity card could potentially monitor the movements of each citizen, particularly if it had to be swiped to gain entry to buildings. Moreover, requiring the biometric information of each individual defies the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Under the status quo in the UK, biometric information is only taken during the process of creating a criminal record [1] - in short, we only take biometric data after somebody has been convicted of a crime. This motion presumes that everybody is or will become a criminal. This is obviously a huge injustice to the millions of innocent, honest and law-abiding citizens who would have their data pre-emptively taken. The need to carry this card at all times will only agitate the current problems of prejudicial stop-and-search programmes which already demonstrate bias against racial and ethnic minority groups [2] . Using such an extreme measure without due cause – as most nations are currently in peacetime – is an enormous overreaction and infringes upon individual rights.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11

This point alludes to a potentially tiny minority of incidents. It is likely that most people, realising the importance of their card, would not lose it. In cases where it is used properly, it could be an enormous benefit to the user and increase their convenience.

If anything, this is a reason to introduce better police training, not to abandon the concept of identity cards altogether. An unfortunate fact is that immigrants, who often come from poor backgrounds or have low levels of education, are more statistically likely to be involved in crime [1] . This ‘disproportionate’ [2] level of crime among immigrants provides a reason for the seemingly disproportionate targeting of minority groups by police authorities.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

Obviously the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan was an atrocity, it may have been aimed at a particular group, Buddhists, but it is hard to see how their destruction was crime against humanity because of this. It may have come as a grave harm and insult to Buddhists around the world, however none can be said to have been physically harmed in any meaningful way that would constitute a crime against humanity. The oppression during the Chinese Cultural Revolution may be a better example for the proposition, however even in this case it is hard to compare the crime of destroying old Chinese art and monuments, to the mass killing and imprisonment of Chinese civilians during the same period!

The desecration and destruction of cultural property is often discriminatory and attacks peoples’ identity.  Items and sites of cultural heritage are often destroyed for discriminatory and oppressive reasons. The Maoist onslaught on all “old” aspects of Chinese culture is a prime example while the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2001 is another recent example. These were violent, ideologically driven attacks on the part of the state against segments of that states own society. The Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban simply because they were not part of the Islamic society they were trying to create. Such explicitly discriminatory attacks are particularly harmful to cultures that are the victims of the attacks for two reasons. Firstly because the cultural property in question has increased cultural, religious or historical value for them, and secondly because such discriminatory acts attack the very identity of people part of that cultural group. The international community has a duty to protect cultural groups (especially minority groups) from discrimination. The international community in the form of the United Nations General Assembly has recognised attacks on religious sites as being discrimination based upon belief.[1] Moreover, the ICTY treated discriminatory attacks against cultural property during the break-up of Yugoslavia, as a crime against humanity. Once again, therefore, international precedent facilitates the prosecution of those responsible of those responsible for the desecration or destruction of cultural property.  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief’, 19 December 2006, Resolution 61/161,

The kinds of people or groups that attack and destroy sites of cultural heritage are not likely to care much about international law. If anything, making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would further radicalise extremist groups. One only has to look at the proposition’s example of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas to see this point. The Taliban ordered their destruction in direct defiance of international law, but what’s more, they did it as a direct response and retaliation to sanctions imposed upon them by the international community for hosting and fostering terrorist training camps. [1] A similar sort of retaliation may occur if threats were to be made explicitly regarding the treatment of cultural property. This would then put more precious cultural property in danger.  In respect to the example of US forces in Iraq, their actions would not actually fall under crimes against humanity even under this proposition anyway. Setting up a base in an archaeological site would not be a crime against humanity, while small scale damage would not either, so it is unclear what effect the proposition will have.  [1] Francioni, Francesco and Lanzerini, Federico: “The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law”, EJIL (2003), Vol. 14 No. 4, 619–651, Oxford Journals,

Our world cultural heritage is extremely important and its destruction would constitute a crime against humanity.  Cultural property is important for many reasons. In this argument, its significance as part of our world cultural heritage will be assessed, while in the second argument, its local significance is examined.  Sites of cultural heritage often carry a large degree of aesthetic value. Renowned World Heritage sites like the Coliseum in Rome or the Pyramids of Giza or the Forbidden City in Beijing are truly stunning and constitute a masterpiece of architecture and a celebration of what the human mind and human culture are capable of. Their stunning beauty alone is sufficient to warrant their protection. However cultural property is more than just aesthetically valuable – they tell a story of human existence. Everything that makes up our society (our moral and aesthetic values, our language, our traditions, our way of life etc.) derives from our ancestors. Cultural property – be it in the form of archaeological sites, monuments or texts and art, provide our only means of connecting with our past. This is invaluable because of the enormous potential for understanding different cultures around the world and how they interact and often conjoin with each other. It offers opportunities for us to learn from the past and forge a better future. Recent atrocities such as the looting of museums in Bagdad and the damage caused to parts of ancient Babylon during the recent Iraq War are hugely harmful to the international community. The loss of part of our world heritage is even greater when one realises that the harms do not only affect our present day society, but all of future humanity.  The far-reaching and global nature of this harm is sufficient for it to be considered a crime against humanity. Indeed, ‘international practice in this ﬁeld indicates deliberate extensive destruction of cultural heritage may be included among international crimes’. [1] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), for example, ‘places the destruction of buildings dedicated to religion, or of historical and artistic monuments among war crimes (that are part of the broader concept of crimina juris gentium , or crimes against the peace and the security of mankind’. [2] It is therefore evident that despite the lack of a global mechanism (such as the ICC) that currently condemns the destruction of cultural property as crimes against humanity, international precedent with the ICTY suggests it would be perfectly reasonable to do so.  [1] Francioni, Francesco and Lanzerini, Federico: “The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law”, EJIL (2003), Vol. 14 No. 4, 619–651, Oxford Journals,   [2] ibid

The proposition are not contentious in their claims that our world cultural heritage is valuable. However it is not true that if an item or site of cultural heritage is destroyed, it ceases to have any educational value. If the Taj Mahal were destroyed, of course it would be a great loss in terms of aesthetic value, but its footprint in the world would still exist in the form of the myriad of photographs and academic literature on it. The Dodo may be extinct, but we have sufficient academic records to still have in depth knowledge of how it lived, what it looked like etc. It is evident that the proposition are exaggerating the harms that would result from the destruction of cultural property.  Regarding the ICTY, the precedent it sets is not the one identified by the proposition. Rather than supporting the prosecution of destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity by the ICC, it suggests that such issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis. This is the case with the ICTY which was set up specifically to deal with crimes committed during the breakup-war of Yugoslavia. This is particularly important with respect to the protection of cultural heritage, because the issues vary immensely in each situation. The looting of museums in Yugoslavia is a very different crime in nature and motive to that committed by the Taliban in their destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and the damage caused to ancient Babylon by US forces in Iraq. Damage to cultural property should be looked on a case by case basis; it should not fall under a blanket-protection of crimes against humanity by the ICC.

Making destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would ensure it is protected.  Were the desecration and destruction of items and sites of cultural heritage to be an internationally recognised crime against humanity, people would be more reluctant in causing either intended or collateral damage (in a conflict) to them. Under the status quo, UNESCO conventions alone are insufficient to protect cultural property. Firstly, it provides insufficient protection, since even high-value cultural property under “enhanced protection” can be legally targeted in a conflict, if it is being used by opposition forces. Moreover, the current conventions lack sufficient deterrents to back-up its protective measures. For example, US forces set up military bases in and around ancient Babylon during the Iraq war and even used parts of the ancient site to make sandbags. This constitutes a violation of the UNESCO conventions, because US forces actively caused damage to the cultural property and also, in locating their forces there, made the site of ancient Babylon a legitimate military target for opposing forces. [1] US forces were not concerned with potentially damaging cultural property or going against UNESCO conventions, simply because there were insufficient penalties in place to deter them from doing so. By treating the destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity, rather than simply a violation of UNESCO conventions, the protection of cultural heritage is seen as an increased moral imperative. Making such crimes punishable by the ICC alongside crimes like genocide would add a deterrent factor and make it less likely people would deliberately destroy cultural property.  [1] CENTCOM Historical/ Cultural Advisory Group: “The Impact of War on Iraq’s Cultural Heritage: Operation Iraqi Freedom”, accessed 20/9/12,

Firstly, it is not true that human beings are not harmed with the destruction of cultural property. When committed on a systematic and large scale as was seen in China during the 1960s, such attacks are very harmful. The harm comes more from the motivation and symbolism of the acts of desecration and destruction, rather than from the acts themselves. This is because such acts are committed in a highly discriminatory manner. They attack peoples’ culture, their beliefs, their traditions and their very identity and brand them as illegitimate and often as enemies of the state. This is a form of oppression could certainly class as serious “mental injury” which the ICC holds as a criterion for an act to be a crime against humanity.  Furthermore, the fact that the prosecution of such crimes does not under the status quo fall under the duties of the ICC is not a reason for why this should not be changed to include them within their duties. The kind of crimes the proposition has been talking about are sufficiently serious and sufficiently harmful to humanity as a whole such that they should be classified as crimes against humanity and they should be prosecuted by the ICC.

Making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity is mainly targeted at the wanton destruction of sites of immense value or the systematic destruction on a gross scale, such as that witnessed in the 1960s in China. For the majority of cases, the current UNESCO conventions regarding the protection of cultural property in times of conflict would apply. It is not as though insurgents would be able to hide inside any mosque or museum or ancient site and be totally untouchable.  It is true, however, that situations are conceivable where military necessity would normally dictate an attack on a high value site or object of cultural heritage, but the proposed legislation would not allow. This is not as peculiar as the opposition suggest. International law has created a vast number of limits on warfare that could potentially be used to gain a vital strategic advantage. There are existing limits on what constitute legitimate military targets (civilian populations are not, for example), and with respect to the kind of weapons that can be used (chemical weapons, cluster bombs etc. are banned). Given the immense cultural value of certain sites and objects, they deserve to receive special protection, even in times of war.

Military objectives are more important than that of protecting cultural property.  Ultimately the debate between conservation of cultural heritage and the need to secure a military advantage in times of conflict, comes down to a comparison of two different kinds of goods. One the one hand we have cultural goods that are beneficial for aesthetic and educational purposes, and on the other we have more tangible goods that are often sough through military endeavours. When the latter are particularly pressing and important goods, such as the need to prevent genocide, or distribute famine relief or defend one’s security, these benefits far outweigh the benefits of preserving our world cultural heritage. Although it is regrettable that cultural property of significant value may be damaged, it is incomparable to the damage caused by mass killing of individuals or mass curtailing of human rights. The safeguarding of basic human rights such as the right to life, the right to be free from fear, enslavement or torture etc. is a prerequisite for one to be able to appreciate and learn from items, sites and monuments of high cultural and historical value. For these reasons, military and humanitarian objectives must come first, ahead of the need to safeguard cultural property.

The protection of cultural property is not within the scope of the ICC.  Though it is true the international Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes and investigates crimes against humanity, the destruction and desecration of cultural property cannot be categorised as a crime against humanity. This is quite simply because human beings are not directly harmed when cultural property like ancient monuments or old scripts are destroyed. According to the ICC, the following would consist of crimes against humanity: ‘Murder, extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of population; imprisonment; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds; enforced disappearance of persons; the crime of apartheid; other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury’ [1]. The common factor with all these crimes is that they are committed as part of a ‘widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population’. [2] Thus, it is evident that crimes against humanity possess a very real human element to them. This is simply because the ICC and the international community recognise that the most serious crimes that fall under the category of crimes against humanity are crimes of this nature that violently and systematically attack the wellbeing of civilians on a gross scale. The destruction or damage to any property, be it homes, government buildings, or sites of cultural heritage may well be a crime and a heinous act, but cannot come under the category of crimes against humanity.  [1] ICC website: “What are crimes against humanity?”, accessed 20/9/12,   [2] ibid

Making destroying cultural heritage a crime against humanity would create severe strategic disadvantages for our armed forces.  The current UNESCO conventions are correct in allowing for the possibility of a waiver on our international duty to protect cultural property should a case of military urgency arise. The Proposition argue for the implementation of overly-rigid international legislation. Although, of course, world cultural heritage should be protected, it is short-sighted to not even allow the possibility of military necessity to outweigh our duty to protect high-value cultural property. The UNESCO conventions already dictate that one can only be justified in attacking or targeting a site of cultural heritage if ‘there is no feasible alternative available to obtain a similar military advantage’ [1] Therefore, the proposition are only making a difference to cases where there is no feasible alternative available. This could prove disastrous and create a significant limitation on the capacity of a state’s armed forces.  The danger becomes increasingly apparent when one considers that it is highly unlikely that extremist opposing forces and insurgents like the Taliban will adhere to such international law. This is particularly crucial given that the majority of wars fought now by the west are against insurgencies. Such opposing forces will disregard the new international law and endeavour to exploit this to gain a strategic advantage over Western forces. Insurgents may deliberately choose to hide, locate their base or just pass through sites of high cultural value to ensure their safety from western airstrikes and attacks. Allowing this to take place would severely hamper the ability of the west to fight against insurgencies (an already incredibly difficult task in itself). For example in 2000 Lashkar-e-Toiba militants attacked the Red Fort, which was at the time was in part a barracks for the Indian army, killing three in a shootout within the fort. [2] The Red Fort is itself today a world heritage site; would this mean that were a similar attack to happen the Indian security services could do nothing to counter the attack? [3]  [1] UNESCO, “Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage”, 17 October 2003, accessed 20/9/12,   [2] BBC News, ‘Police hunt Red Fort raiders’, 23 December 2000,   [3] UNESCO, “Red Fort Complex”,

The opposition present us with a false dichotomy here. It is not true that we have to make a choice between saving lives and protecting cultural property. The hypothetical situation where a site of high cultural and historical value would have to be destroyed in order to provide famine relief or prevent genocide seems slightly far-fetched.  However, even if such a choice had to be made, we should still ensure that the destruction of cultural property was a crime against humanity. It is important to set an international precedent for rules of conduct during warfare in order to minimise harms on a large scale, despite the possibility of small, minority cases where going against that law would be beneficial. This is the case, for example, with the laws about targeting civilians in warfare. In order to safeguard the precedent, the law must apply to all situations despite the fact that in certain cases a war could be won more easily by targeting civilians.

The Lubanga case took 6 years to reach a verdict owing to problems with the reliability of testimony and the sheer number of witnesses and victims involved in the proceedings. [1]  Although the Prosecutor sought a harsher sentence, these problems with the weight of evidence and difficulties ascertaining the number of child soldiers required the Trial Chamber to impose a more modest sentence. [2]  Therefore, even if the Lubanga conviction might not have a strongly deterrent effect by itself, the ICC is pursuing many other cases and it is these constant and cumulative investigations that deter others from committing similar crimes.  [1] Kammer, "Deconstructing Lubanga"  [2] Human Rights Brief

In the decade since its formation, the ICC has only one successful conviction  Since becoming operational in March 2003 the ICC has only had one case resulting in a conviction and it is currently being appealed. Despite being found guilty of the war crime of recruiting and forcing child soldiers to fight and kill, Thomas Lubanga was sentenced to just 14 years imprisonment. Lubanga was arrested and sent to the Court in March 2006. This single ICC conviction and the light sentence imposed are hardly sufficient to deter other warlords from using child soldiers. Six years later, in the same country where Lubanga’s crimes occurred, thousands of child soldiers are being recruited by various armed groups. [1]  [1] UN News, "Child recruitment remains endemic."

Precisely because many rank and file perpetrators are easily controlled or manipulated by group leaders, their criminal responsibility is diminished. While Article 26 of the Rome Statute prevents prosecution of those under 18 years of age, this is designed to prevent injustices towards those who are often themselves victims of those in command. Article 33 specifically rejects the ‘Nuremberg defence’ that following orders absolves a person from criminal responsibility. But in keeping with International Humanitarian Law (Rule 155 of Customary IHL), child soldiers should not be prosecuted for crimes committed under severe coercion by leaders. Prosecuting those responsible for that coercion is the most powerful deterrent. [1]  [1] IRIN News, "Should child soldiers be prosecuted for their crimes?"

The ICC lacks the power to ensure arrests  While the ICC has the power to issue arrest warrants, it does not have the coercive powers to ensure that those warrants are followed. Despite the fact that States that are parties to the Rome Statute are obliged to co-operate with the directions of the Court, there have been many instances where such States have failed to pursue those indicted. Cases that have been referred to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council allows the Court to extend its jurisdiction to include UN member States that are not parties to the Rome Statute. This enabled the ICC to issue an international warrant for the arrest of Sudan’s President Al-Bashir. Yet several of these countries obliged to arrest him have refused when the opportunities have arisen. [1]  [1] Rothe &amp; Collins, pp.198-9

The fact that the Sudanese president has been able to travel freely to several countries without being arrested does not indicate that he or other would-be criminals are undeterred by the threat. Though the African Union has strongly advised its member states to ignore the arrest warrant and most have obliged, more recently Malawi and Kenya prevented Al-Bashir from attending summits. Even when Nigeria allowed his attendance at an AU summit last year, Al-Bashir fled within a day of arriving, after local human rights groups filed a court action.  The Democratic Republic of Congo has surrendered several suspects to the ICC and this was enough to induce another suspect to surrender. [1]  [1] Roth, "Africa Attacks the International Criminal Court."

As the ICC intentionally limits its prosecutions to group leaders, many of those who actually commit atrocities need have no fear of prosecution  By prosecuting only those leaders deemed ‘most responsible’ for the crimes in question, the ICC is effectively allowing lower-ranked perpetrators to commit crimes with impunity. These rank and file troops generally have little awareness or understanding of international criminal laws. Furthermore, just as local domestic laws fail to deter offenders who often commit crimes with little thought of being punished, distant ICC threats are even less likely to deter those whose actions are easily manipulated and controlled by militia leaders. Child soldiers, in particular, have often been drugged before going into combat. [1]  [1] Mullins &amp; Rothe, pp.782-4

Many of those 122 States Parties have repeatedly shown their reluctance to co-operate with the ICC. Among the African Union states, only Botswana has shown its complete commitment to the Rome Statute. It appears that even South Africa may ultimately be more supportive of the AU than the ICC. [1]  [1] Miruthi , p.4

The actions by Columbia and Sri Lanka do not alter the fact that, as noted earlier, the recruitment of child soldiers in Africa and elsewhere is still endemic in 2013.  And while the Lord’s Resistance Army and its leader Joseph Kony have indeed been muted, that is largely due to the initiative of the U.S. government which has itself refused to ratify the ICC’s Statute. [1]  [1] Schomerus, Allen and Vlassenroot

Potential prosecution by the ICC encourages local authorities to improve their own judicial systems.  As an international court of ‘last resort’, the ICC’s very existence serves as a constant reminder of the failings of national and regional governments to effectively curtail crimes against humanity in all their forms. Therefore, the Court exerts a strong deterrent effect by implicitly challenging the adequacy of those governments whose judicial systems allow such crimes to be committed with impunity. Seeking to avoid such international embarrassment has itself been enough to motivate many countries to both join the ICC Assembly and aim to improve their own domestic judicial systems. A clear example of this direct effect was the Kenyan government’s judicial and electoral reforms that followed from the ICC’s indictments over the post-election violence in 2007 which made the judiciary and election commission constitutionally much more independent. [1]  [1] Kimenyi

The ICC’s widely endorsed authority extends its deterrent effects.  The ICC’s investigative and prosecutorial powers are endorsed by 122 States Parties to the Rome Statute. This broad reach and agreement not only provides a strong disincentive for individuals and groups who would attempt to evade prosecution, but also has the effect of deterring states that might otherwise ignore the Court’s authority. Furthermore, even non-member states have recognised the importance of co-operating with the Court’s investigations. In 2013, one of the most wanted war criminals, Bosco Ntaganda was forced to surrender to the ICC while hiding in Rwanda. Though a non-member state, “Rwanda's aid-dependent economy was damaged by the allegations of links to Mr Ntaganda's rebels.” [1]  [1] The Economist

The ICC’s investigations have already deterred potential crimes.  There is compelling evidence that the ICC’s past or current investigations have caused potential perpetrators as well as those already indicted, to abandon their plans. For example, as the ICC’s first Prosecutor noted, even before the Court had convicted Thomas Lubanga for the recruitment of child soldiers, its African investigations were enough to prompt responses in Columbia and Sri Lanka, resulting in children being released. [1] At the same time, there has been a notable decrease in crimes by those already under investigation, such as the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. [2]  [1] ICC Prosecutor's Address to Council on Foreign Relations , p.9  [2] Bosco , p.176

Even if Kenya’s recent reforms were motivated by the ICC’s indictments, the 2013 elections were still marked by violence which “as of February 2013, had claimed more than 477 lives and displaced another 118,000 people.” [1]  Despite many African governments’ initial enthusiasm for the ICC, the African Union has since openly challenged the Court’s investigations and Kenyan authorities have been doing their utmost to obstruct the ICC’s investigations. [2]  [1] Human Rights Watch  [2] Evenson

Although prisoners may associate closely with other criminals within jail, many more offenders were introduced to crime outside prison. A deprived social background, a family life disrupted by domestic violence and family members with histories of criminal behaviour can all lead an individual to become involved with crime.  For many young men, prison can become a sanctuary from links with gangs or a chaotic and damaging home life. Once placed within the regulated, disciplined environment of the prison, they can be introduced to the essential skills and educational opportunities that they may have been denied in the outside world.  Prison can give an individual the opportunity to develop the practical and psychological skills they require to escape social alienation. Many prisons in Europe, the UK and the States achieve this objective. US prisons may also operate special units that offer help and protection to offenders who want to leave gangs.  Under-staffing and a poor understanding of inmates’ needs are arguments for reform of the prison system, not arguments against incarceration itself. Where these issues are addressed, rehabilitation programmes have had many successes. Once political prejudices about building and funding rehabilitation oriented prisons are overcome, the benefits of penal supervision will become more accessible.

Prisons create criminals  The prison environment is harmful to many offenders. Consider the risk of developing a drug or alcohol addiction while incarcerated in the UK (15% of the inmates of one of the UK’s largest jails tested positive for drugs in 2006) [i] ; the risk of being subjected to sexual violence in an US prison (217,000 prisoners were subjected to sexual violence in American prisons in 2008) [ii] ; the rise in gang motivated violence and killings within prisons on both sides of the Atlantic.  Prison brings together individuals with a wide range of social and behavioural problems that incline them towards deviance and violence. These individuals are placed in closed conditions with restricted access to productive activities. In many western nations, a lack of funding and staff means that most prisoners have little to fill their time, and may be confined to their cells for up to twenty three hours a day. The privations of prison make prisoners more, rather than less likely to engage in violent or exploitative behaviour. Prisoners in overcrowded, understaffed jails are more likely to develop mental illnesses and less likely to have such conditions diagnosed and treated. The brutality of their surroundings makes prisoners more likely to seek the protection and comradeship offered by gangs or the comfort of intoxicants.  Furthermore, the shame and isolation associated with incarceration cause prisoner’s non-criminal social networks to decay. Relationships with partners or spouses may break down. Contact with children may be limited. Families may shun the offender, leaving him with a social circle comprised mainly of fellow inmates. These associations can prove toxic, leading offenders to validate each other’s behaviour and share knowledge about criminal activities.  Finally, the stigma of criminality extends to employment. Businesses may be unwilling to employ those with criminal records, limiting ex-offenders’ opportunities for social reintegration.  [i] “Inspector finds gangs and high level of violence in jail”, The Guardian, 11 July 2006,   [ii] “Combating rape in prisons”, The Economist, May 5 2011,

As noted above, the consequences of non-violent crimes can be just as damaging as those of violent crimes. More over, non-violent criminals can also present an immediate danger to society.  The cost of constructing a prison is outweighed by the benefit of preventing individuals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation programmes are not a panacea – they are not instantly or reliably effective. Even if an individual refuses to engage with any rehabilitative activities in prison, they are still restrained from engaging in further criminal activity.  Consider the senior members of organised criminal syndicates. These individuals may only be involved in using deceptive accounting or front-companies to conceal the activities of their colleagues, but by doing so they enable and encourage multiple violent offences.  Similarly, drug dealers may create conditions in which social deprivation and family break-down flourish. As noted both above and on side proposition, these same conditions can cause others to turn to criminality. In this instance, drugs dealers can present a danger to their communities, and an obstacle to the rehabilitation of addicts. Arguably, the most effective solution to this particular form of criminal behaviour is the removal of the dealer from that community.

Proportionality  A recent study conducted among prisoners in Florida found that from 1997 to 2010 the proportion of new inmates who had committed violent crimes (collating both state and federal prisons statistics) fell by 28% [i] . Meanwhile, the number of first time prisoners who had committed non-violent offences rose by 189% [ii] .  It is argued that imprisoning individuals found to be guilty of non-violent crimes is a disproportionate response to their actions and does not serve the objectives of criminal sentencing set out above.  Criminal sentences must deliver a punishment in proportion to the crime an offender has committed. A disproportionate sentence- using the death penalty to punish theft, for instance- is less likely to be perceived as a fair or rational response to criminal behaviour. An offender who is punished excessively is more likely to see himself as the victim of injustice, and less likely to consider the impact of his own conduct. A law abiding individual who that fears that jaywalking may result in jail time will have no confidence in the criminal justice system, and may begin seeking other sources of security.  There are many alternatives to penal sentences available to magistrates and judges. Using fines and curfews to restrict financial and personal liberty, alongside restorative forms of punishment such as community service, can provide a much more efficient way of condemning an individual’s criminal behaviour.  [i] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, July 22 2010,   [ii] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, July 22 2010,

The victims of non-violent offences may suffer as much as the victims of violent offences. A large scale financial fraud, such as that perpetrated by Robert Maxwell or Bernard Madhoff, may deprive thousands of individuals of their savings and pensions, condemning them to a life of poverty. A petty drugs dealer may be supplying a habit that drives an addict to steal and attack others in order to find money.  Moreover, fraud, deception and drug dealing draw on the same predatory, cynical and exploitative attitudes that motivate violent theft, organised crime and violent rape. An individual who has committed only non-violent offences is not necessarily in a better position to appreciate the harm that violence may do, or to understand that others may suffer as a result of his actions.  It may be proportional to hand down a severe prison sentence to a “white collar” criminal, who has abused a position of trust or wealth for personal gain. Such crimes are aggravated by the fact that their perpetrators have often led privileged, secure lives, free from the deprivation and poverty that drives most criminals. Confidence in the justice system may be harmed if it is felt that those of professional standing or a high social class are subjected to softer punishments.

It is unrealistic to expect the police to act as the sole deterrent to criminal behaviour. The majority of police work concerns the detection rather than the prevention of crime. Only a massive and unfeasible expansion of police numbers and powers could provide a real deterrent to criminality.  The purpose of deterrence is to reduce the likelihood of damaging behaviour without dramatically raising the cost of enforcing the law. Deterrence relies on individuals acting in a rational manner and being able to regulate their own behaviour. Property crime often results from the offender performing a rational balancing of his likely gains against the likely costs of incarceration. Limiting the use of prison sentences means that calculating offenders will be much more likely to engage in property crime.  Finally, the proposition is unable to deal with the threat posed by habitual and compulsive petty criminals. The actions of such individuals often straddle the boundary between outright criminality and anti-social behaviour. Their offences may never be severe enough to attract a penal sentence, but it is the continuous and repeated nature of their criminal acts that causes harm. Once again, the best response to such conduct is the forcible segregation of the offender inside a prison.

Incarceration is expensive, rehabilitation is not  Many of the rehabilitation and intervention schemes made available in prison are replicated in community settings by social services and charities. The cost of delivering these programmes in prison originates from the concept of prison itself. The expense of building, equipping, staffing and monitoring a prison vastly outweighs the cost of rehabilitative activities. Research conducted by Steve Aos has shown that rehabilitative programs designed to reduce crime can be cost-effective [i] .  Prisons should be used only where the imperative to protect society from criminal behaviour cannot be met by the imperative to rehabilitate. A minority of offenders will be incorrigibly violent and uncontrollable, but under the status quo, these dangerous offenders not represent the majority of the prison population (see statistics above).  The yearly cost of incarcerating a young offender in the UK is now £140,000, almost three times the annual fee charged by an elite public school [ii] . Diverting this money to intervention programmes delivered to families, in homes and in schools would avoid the harms of incarceration (described above), while retaining the benefit of rehabilitation. The focus should therefore be prevention and early intervention rather than punishment.  [i] Aos, S., The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, May 2001,   [ii] “Punishing Costs” The New Economics Foundation, 2010, p18

Deterrence is a myth  The deterrent effect of prison is uniformly overstated. It is popularly thought that the indignity and strictness of the prison environment will discourage criminal behaviour. Further, exposure to the harsh realities of prison is thought to discourage former inmates from re-offending. These assumptions do not reflect most offenders’ reasoning, nor do they reflect the contexts in which most criminal behaviour occurs. Punishment of the type offered by prisons doesn’t meet the criteria for reinforcement of behaviour that one would associate with behaviour change; the punishment happens long after the behaviour, and is therefore futile [i] .  Firstly, it should be noted that among many inmates, especially young men, criminal actions, including public order offences, assault and petty theft, are carried out on impulse. Impulsive behaviour is often influenced by alcohol and peer pressure. Under these circumstances, deterrence is ineffective.  Secondly, empirical evidence indicates that it is the likelihood of being caught performing a criminal act, rather than the sentence for that crime, that deters potential offenders. If a potential offender believes he is more likely to be caught and convicted, he is less likely to engage in criminal behaviour. Meta-analyses such as the Cambridge Study on Deterrence [ii] have shown that the severity of a sentence only has a marginal effect on an offender’s decision to break the law.  In the light of these findings, deterrence can be seen as a matter of policing and detection, rather than a set of misleading assumptions based on an over-simplification of rational-actor theory.  [i] Andrews, D.A. &amp; Bonta, J., “Rehabilitating Criminal Justice and Policy” in Psychology, Public Policy and Law (2010, Vol. 16, No.1). Page 42  [ii] “Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: an analysis of recent research”, von Hirsch, A, and others

A modern liberal state’s duty is to pursue policies and promote values that will have a real and lasting impact on its citizen’s lives. The resolution is such a policy. The opposition’s argument has been tried and failed; in the US, ‘increasing punitive measures have failed to reduce criminal recidivism and instead have led to a rapidly growing correctional system that has strained government budgets’ [i] .  Pandering to populist thinking in the name of maintaining confidence in a particular government is a short-term strategy. It is an approach designed to win elections rather than bring about social change. The most effective way for a government to fulfil its obligation to protect its citizens is to reduce deviance effectively and efficiently, even if that change has to come at the expense of political capital.  The penal system operating under the status quo brutalises individuals and entrenches criminality in communities in the name of law and order.  [i] Andrews, D.A. &amp; Bonta, J., “Rehabilitating Criminal Justice and Policy” in Psychology, Public Policy and Law (2010, Vol. 16, No.1). Page 39

The opposition argument assumes that punishment must be proportional only to the suffering caused to the victim of a particular crime. Opposition state that for a sentence to be truly proportionate, it must reflect the subjective responses of the victim. This analysis fails to acknowledge that the definition of proportionality extends beyond the victim.  The four objectives of criminal sentencing are complimentary, not mutually exclusive. The aspect of a sentence that seeks to punish should be proportionate to offender’s crime, but in addition, it must not obstruct the functioning of the other objectives of sentencing.  A burglary may be upsetting for the victim, and incarceration of the burglar may seem a proportionate response. However, when that sentence is weighed against the imperative to rehabilitate the burglar, we discover that rehabilitation in prison would be less effective than rehab in a community setting. When custodial punishment is weighed against the imperative to protect the public, we discover that non-violent criminals who have been incarcerated are more likely to engage in violent crime following their release. The greater cost of incarceration- to the criminal and to the efficacy of the rehabilitative process- renders the sentence disproportionate.  The comparative popularity of imprisonment has distorted our understanding of which criminals it is most suited to.

Rehabilitation can only succeed in prison  Rehabilitation programmes are not a panacea – nor are they instantly or reliably effective. The risk of an individual committing crime can only be reduced by long-term engagement with such schemes.  Under these circumstances, the best location in which to rehabilitate offender is prison. Prison serves, in some cases, to separate prisoners from poverty and desperation, and to help them access training and education that they may have failed to engage with previously. Prison can also quarantine offenders from the influence of gangs and other sub-cultures that may compete with the positive behaviours fostered by rehabilitation. This is particularly the case for high risk offenders.  It seems ridiculous to assume that dramatic changes in an individual’s behaviour can be brought about without a correspondingly dramatic change in their environment and lifestyle. Criminality frequently develops as a survival strategy within hostile or chaotic social environments.  For many crimes, family may also be the root cause. Problematic relationship with relatives can further hinder the rehabilative process. How can we still expect family members to help facilitate the rehabilative process when they may be the reason reason why the offender committed crimes.  If there are minimal restraints put on an offender’s freedom while he rehabilitates, it will be easier for him to avoid complying with rehabilitation programmes. It will also be easier for the offender to avoid complying with other, more punitive measures, such as fines and community service orders.  As a last resort, a prison term prevents offenders who refuse to engage with rehabilitation from committing crimes for the length of their sentence. Given that a UK home office survey conduct in 2000 found that, on average, offenders committed 140 crimes a year, even a brief sentence represents a significant disruption of criminal activity [i] .  [i] Civitas, Fighting Crime: Are Public Policies Working?, February 2010, p.1,

Incarceration has symbolic value  A custodial sentence has strong symbolic value, for offenders, for victims and for society as a whole.  Exclusion from society and confiscation of freedoms that the state would normally protect at any cost is a powerful message, one that can be understood easily by both white collar fraudsters and semi-literate muggers. There are few more effective ways of communicating society’s disapproval and indicating the boundaries of its tolerance.  For all side proposition’s talk of long term consequences and proportionality, there remain a significant number of offenders and potential offenders who would perceive the resolution as a weakness to be exploited. We give up the symbol of incarceration at the cost of emboldening criminals.  Confidence in the state is founded on the state’s ability to protect its citizens and their property from physical harm. This is something on which all but the most extreme ends of the political spectrum would agree. Even if the state is no longer willing to wield violence against a criminal minority in protection of a law abiding majority, it should still be prepared to project the power that contemporary constitutional settlements have allowed it to retain. If it does not, the state risks being accused of forgetting its core duties in favour of more abstract notions of “harm”.

The false distinction between “violent” and “non-violent” crime  Distinctions between violent and non-violent offences are not useful when deciding which offenders should be imprisoned and which should receive more lenient, rehabilitative sentences. The severity of a crime can only be defined by its context and consequences, not by semi-arbitrary labels such as violent and non-violent.  All forms of criminality, and not just violent crimes, can have disturbing and traumatic consequences. The effect of a robbery on the physical health and psychological stability of an elderly person can be as pronounced as the effects of a violent assault on a healthy young man.  It is disingenuous to claim that the nature of a criminal act can be separated from that act’s effects on a victim. As the widely known common law maxim states, a victim should be taken as he is found. A reasonable adult citizen will not be excused from responsibility for what he knew to be a harmful criminal act simply because he did not foresee the extent or type of harm he would do.  A judicial system that takes the concept of proportionality seriously should be free to decide that the consequences of a robbery committed against an impoverished, frail widow should result in a more severe sentence than a teenager’s impulsive attempt to shop-lift alcohol.  Similarly, the outcome of a wide ranging financial fraud is likely to be more harmful than the outcome of a fist fight between two drunken football fans.  Judges are allowed to exercise discretion so that they can adapt the broad rules and objectives of sentencing to the nuances of each case brought before them. The context and consequences of criminal activity should inform sentencing decisions, not an artificially narrow definition of “violence”.

Families and other social networks can play an important role in supporting and encouraging an offender as they rehabilitate. Wives, husbands and children can effectively monitor the behaviour of an offender when trained staff are unavailable. Given that the imprisonment of an adult family member is emotionally traumatic and financially damaging, families have a strong incentive to ensure that rehabilitation is successful.  Disruptive family environments are also catered for by the proposition resolution. Where family breakdown is a cause of criminality, social workers and rehabilitation specialists will be able to “treat” the family alongside the offender. Underlying drug or alcohol addictions can be addressed. ‘Therapeutic programs’, as they are termed, enable offenders to be rehabilitated by and within the community in a ‘living-learning situation’ [i] .  Prison on the other hand is an unsupportive environment where offenders are blamed for their behaviour and sometimes coerced into rehabilitation programs [ii] . In a prison context, an offender would be treated in isolation, without the opportunity to address underlying familial issues that might cause reoffending. Prison can be iatrogenic (increase risk) by removing offenders from their source of social support, families, jobs and accommodation; rehabilitation is more likely to be effective when it is used in conjunction with those factors, not apart from them. Furthermore, the available evidence suggests that prison staff hold ‘rather unsympathetic’ attitudes towards prisoners [iii] , inferring a culture unfavourable to effective rehabilitation.  Although an offender may be prevented from committing crime for the duration of a prison sentence, this does not represent a significant advantage over the proposed resolution. For the reasons set out above, a prisoner released from a custodial sentence is likely to be incentivised to engage in crime (due to a lack of employment opportunities and social isolation), and will commit more serious types of crime.  [i] Day, A., Casey, S., Vess, J. &amp; Huisy, G., “Assessing the Social Climate of Prisons”, February 2, 2011 from Australia Institute of Criminology, Page 8/Page 32  [ii] Day A. &amp; Ward T., “Offender Rehabilitation as a Value-Laden Process” in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (June 2010: Vol 54. N.3) Page 300  [iii] Day A. &amp; Ward T., “Offender Rehabilitation as a Value-Laden Process” in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (June 2010: Vol 54. N.3) Page 294

There is no moral duty to respect the humanity of terrorists. Terrorists themselves do not respect human rights. By attacking civilians, they breach the terms of the Geneva Conventions and international human rights law. They do not deserve to be protected by the laws of war because they do not behave like a military organisation. If they do not comply with the laws of war there is no reason why they should enjoy the benefits of the Geneva Conventions when they are detained.

The moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity, which the Geneva Convention embodies, must be retained  Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we have a moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity. There are certain acts, such as torture, to which no individual should be subjected, regardless of their own behaviour. The Geneva Convention is about universal respect for human dignity (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1949), not merely for those who show it in return. Civilised nations can and should be expected to act in a humane manner, regardless of the barbarity of their adversaries. Only by acting in such a manner can states prove the superiority of their own humanity.

Poor treatment is not a significant recruitment tool: whilst some people may be encouraged to join terrorist groups as a result of such behaviour, those who are outraged by human rights abuses in this context should be equally concerned about the violation of human rights which occurs when a terrorist detonates a bomb, or flies into a building, killing large numbers of innocent civilians. The ideology invoked exists independently of the way in which suspects are treated and indoctrination with such beliefs is the real tool in the recruitment process.

The United Nations can punish those states who refuse to subject its prisoners of war to the Geneva Conventions  The United Nations, as the institution that formed and maintains the Geneva Conventions and other restrictions on warfare, is able to use its structures to punish states that do not adhere to its protocols. The International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute of 1998, is able to prosecute those specific persons who are charged with war crimes. Such defendants, if convicted, can be ordered to pay the victims. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice is able to bring cases against specific states that are clearly identified as having broken the protocols of war. As such, the United Nations is both legally and institutionally capable of ensuring that the dictates of the Geneva Conventions are upheld, specifically the right of a combatant captured in a conflict zone to be granted prisoner of war status. While this would provide a degree of protection for captured terrorists, it also means that terrorist organizations are subject to standards of conduct in war. Making them subject to the Geneva Conventions would uphold an incentive of restraint which might sometimes influence their conduct.

Terrorists are engaged in war, which much remain subject to the Geneva Conventions lest it become unrestrained  Terrorists are engaged in a war like any other: they unite as a political actor to undertake military action in favour of a specific cause. The fact that they do not represent one individual nation and that they are not at war with a specific list of states does not undermine this: Al Qaeda, for example, has clear goals including eliminating American influence within Muslim nations, destroying Israel and re-establishing the Caliphate (Blanchard, 2007). The fact that we may not view these causes as worthy or legitimate is irrelevant: we do not assess the merits or legitimacy of a conflict between states before deciding whether to apply the Geneva Convention. It should therefore apply equally to soldiers and terrorists. The Geneva Conventions were formed to ensure that future wars would not result in the barbarity and wanton violence that mired World War II; to deny it to terrorists would risk the undermining of norms that have developed to restrain warfare. If we don’t treat terrorists as prisoners of war therefore, we risk a return to the barbarity of warfare in the first half of the 20th century.

Terrorists are not engaged in a war. Their actions are aimed at destruction of civil society and of nations across the globe. The Geneva Conventions exist to control wars between nations in a way which respects human dignity and minimises long-term harm. Wars between nations have a foreseeable end, and the Convention is an important means of aiding reconciliation and cooperation in the future: it is harder to build a relationship with a state which has brutally tortured your soldiers upon capture. However, a war against terrorists will often have no end: it is inconceivable, for example, either that Al Qaeda will successfully achieve the reestablishment of the Caliphate or that the West will quash all terrorist activity. Reconciliation and future cooperation are meaningless here.

The United Nation has the potential to punish parties that do not abide by its protocols, including the Geneva Conventions. However, its ability to do so is limited even when it comes to states since that power is itself granted by its member states. For example, the International Criminal Court is only able to bring cases which the Security Council approves. Therefore, the contemporary targets of terrorists, most notably the United States and the United Kingdom, are inevitably going to veto any proposition to persecute themselves for violating the Geneva Conventions. The circular process of asking a state whether it will approve the prosecution of itself betrays the absurdity of the United Nations as an institution enforcing the protocols of war. As for the behaviour of terrorist groups, their members are subject to prosecution for actions equivalent to war crimes whether or not they are subject to the Geneva Conventions.

Harsh interrogation is indeed necessary, due in part to the unique efficacy of harsh interrogation in dealing with the new threat. The interrogation of a terrorist is qualitatively different to that of a soldier, due to the nature of terrorist attacks and the importance of information in their prevention. Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, argues that there is no other way for the CIA to have acquired information from them, ‘given their character and given their commitment to what it is they do’ (Martinez, 2009). The effectiveness of harsh interrogation may vary, but an absolute prohibition based on the few exceptions would be too high a price to pay. Protecting civilian lives must come before maintaining any moral high ground.

Poor treatment of terrorists affirms terrorist ideology and provides a recruitment tool, therefore the Geneva Conventions must be applied to prevent this.  Poor treatment affirms terrorist ideology: regardless of what is morally right, it would be beneficial to treat terrorists in the ways prescribed by the Convention. Terrorist ideology is often predicated on the behaviour of those countries against which it is targeted. Treating captured terrorists or terror suspects in a way that ignores their human dignity only reinforces negative perceptions of the West and encourages the radicalization of the youth (McCarthy, 2007). In addition, such behaviour can be used to justify terrorist actions to less radicalised members of certain communitie

Harsh interrogation is not necessarily an effective tool for extracting valuable information.  Harsh interrogation of captives has not been shown to be effective (White, 2007). Those who are prepared to die to advance their cause are unlikely to yield information, no matter how much they are threatened or tortured. Where captives do provide information, they often state simply what they think that the interrogators want to hear, rather than anything that is true (Mazzetti, 2007). In addition, given the cellular nature of many terrorist organisations, those captured often have very little useful information to begin with. Even if they have been involved in a plot, they may only have information about a very small part of that plot. Furthermore, winning the trust of prisoners can lead to more effective information than the use of torture.

Special interrogation methods are not necessary to combat the terrorist threat. It is always easy to imagine extra lengths that states could conceivably go to in order to protect their soldiers or civilians. However the ambition of the Geneva Conventions in the wake of World War II was to establish limits. The ‘unlawful combatant’ legal loophole created by the United States threatens to erode the restraint on warfare built up over half a century. The high-profile case of waterboarding involving Al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah casts serious doubt on any claim that such methods are effective, and by extension, necessary in combating the terrorist threat. Water-boarded 83 times in one month, Zubaydah’s treatment demonstrates that the absence of the constraints of the Geneva Conventions is a slippery slope to the use of wanton, sadistic violence with no justifiable end (Shane, 2009). Though Zubaydah’s interrogation is believed to have been fruitful in terms of intelligence gathered, there is little reason to believe ordinary interrogation methods would not have been similarly successful over time.

The re-definition of terrorists as unlawful combatants threatens to encourage the use of the evolution of war as an excuse for human rights abuses. The refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions allows states to use tactics such as indefinite detention without trial and enhanced interrogation techniques such as water-boarding, which are seen by many as a form of torture (UN General Assembly, 1984). These practices are cruel and significantly harm the physical and psychological wellbeing of detainees. Even if these techniques were effective in the war on terror, they should not be practiced because they are a violation of both the laws of war and international human rights law (ICRC, 1948). Moreover, under Protocol 1 (1977) Additional to the Geneva Conventions, non-state forces engaged in wars aiming at self-determination are permitted to operate without use of uniforms or carrying arms openly (except during combat and while visibly deploying immediate prior to attack).

With no hope of reciprocity, adherence to the Geneva Conventions would undermine the fight against terrorism  There is no moral duty to respect the dignity of terrorists. States should do whatever possible to protect their own citizens. The Geneva Convention is about reciprocity: it is in the interest of our own citizens to treat enemy combatants in a humane manner so that if our soldiers are caught they will receive similar treatment. There can be no guarantee of reciprocity from ‘terrorists’ as a whole, or even specific terrorist groups given the cellular nature of the organisations and the disparate nature of the command structures. Furthermore, terrorists specifically use poor treatment of hostages as a tool in their campaign. Given this, it is in the interests of our own citizens to use whatever means possible to fight terrorism; compliance with the Geneva Convention undermines this.

There are other means by which to protect the rights of terrorists without needing to apply the Geneva Conventions  Under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war can be detained for the duration of hostilities, and are only entitled to return home at the end of the war (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1949). Given the open-ended nature of the war on terror, it is very likely that treating terrorist detainees as POWs will mean they are never released. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the Geneva Conventions protect human rights any better than existing domestic law or policy. In democracies, the accountability of elected politicians and judicial review by independent judges can instead be trusted to ensure that detainees are not abused or mistreated.

Special interrogation methods are necessary in order to combat the terrorist threat  The war on terror is unlike any other war and so different tactics are necessary in order to win. There is no point maintaining a moral high ground where this leads to more civilian deaths. The Geneva Conventions put barriers in the way of winning the war on terror because tactics such as indefinite detention are necessary. For example, Israel’s practice of targeted killing of terrorists was restricted by the Israeli Supreme Court on the grounds that it did not comply with the Geneva Conventions (The Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. The Government of Israel, 2006). Often there is no other way to combat terrorists and the Geneva Conventions restrict tactics that save hundreds of lives. Governments would also not be able to gain as much intelligence if they had to adhere to the Geneva Conventions when interrogating terrorists. It is dangerous to put the west at an operational disadvantage in the war on terror just to maintain a moral high ground.

Terrorists are not lawful combatants, therefore they not do not acquire prisoner of war status  Prisoner of war status is only granted to those who legally and morally deserve its protections. Therefore, those who wish to seek the protection of the Geneva Conventions, the laws of war, have a duty to distinguish themselves from the civilian population (Detter, 2007, p.1063). Terrorists who absolve themselves of this responsibility in the pursuit of wanton violence, who flagrantly ignore the laws of war, cannot thereafter appeal to its protection once captured. Such a norm is required in order to preserve the sanctity of the Geneva Conventions, including the immunity of civilians, and prevent the encouragement of using civilians as means to ends. Terrorists who operate outside of the law and attempt to thereafter use it to their advantage should be denied that opportunity. Attempts to permit the use of non-uniformed soldiers in Protocol 1 lack authority as several key states are not party to it (including the USA and Israel).

The Geneva Conventions provide the only fair, impartial and strong mechanism for protecting the human rights of detainees in the war on terror. Applying the Geneva Conventions would allow the Red Cross to inspect prisons where detainees are held (Anonymous, 2002). Breaches of the Geneva Conventions also give rise to State Responsibility, as seen in the USA and Israeli courts’ supervision of the treatment of terrorists and terror suspects. Individuals can also be held criminally responsible for breaches of the Geneva Conventions, for example the Charles Taylor trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the trial of Radovan Karadzic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Dworkin, 2003). The Geneva Conventions are therefore a useful way of ensuring that states respect human rights, rather than simply promising to treat detainees well as a matter of policy.

Treating terrorists with respect for their human rights allows those fighting the war on terror to take the moral high ground. By failing to comply with the Geneva Conventions, countries such as the USA are no better than the terrorist groups that they are fighting. The objects of war have changed, states no longer seek territory purely through force but by cultivating popular support, ‘hearts and minds’ (Kilcullen, 2009). The values that the West stands for are exactly what terrorists are attacking and the West needs to show that it can win the war on terror while still respecting fundamental values such as the rule of law and human rights. Applying the Geneva Conventions is therefore a vital part of winning the war on terror, regardless of whether the terrorists choose to apply them.

Hate speech can encourage dialogue and be positive. Allowing hate speech provides an opportunity to combat and change the views of those who are promoting hatred. In the long term this will lead to a reduction in violence through helping air and then solve the underlying causes.  (See Op Argument 1)

Reduced dialogue  While hate speech is a form of expression, it is not one that encourages dialogue. By promoting hatred based on immutable personal characteristics it is by definition anti-dialogue. Hate speech does not contribute anything; it merely provides a justification for violence and discrimination. Extreme messages, be they in words or through symbols, deter moderates from voicing their opinions, either because they do not want to legitimize the message or out of fear of reprisals. This reduces the net dialogue on university campuses and injures the quality of the dialogue that remains.

The need for interaction is all the more reason to ensure that all ideas are in the marketplace. This way, the veracity of all ideas are questioned. For example, if someone brings bigoted ideas with them as a freshman, perhaps because these ideas were prevalent in the community they grew up in, if they cannot express these ideas and be challenged they may never attempt to integrate. Instead, they will gravitate to those who share their ideas and remain isolated.

Danger to students  Hate speech poses a clear danger to students and other members of the campus community. Often, the hatred is directed towards minority groups that are easily identifiable based on skin colour, clothing, or behaviour. Because these minorities are easy to identify, they can be targeted by those swayed by the speaker’s message. Every hate crime is a tragedy and an attack against the principles of WLDs. Even when the message doesn’t provoke violence, it can have a deep emotional harm on members of the targeted community. As such, the government has a duty to intervene to ensure that individuals are safe. [1]  [1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24.

The government’s primary duty is to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. Censoring speech is a clear attack on the right to free expression. Governments can use the criminal code to ensure people are protected. Acts that physically harm people or directly encourage others to use violence are already illegal and these laws can be enforced without violating an individual’s constitutional rights. [1]  [1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24.

There is the potential for massive harm should universities become places where individuals continuously need to contain their thoughts and ideas for fear of sanction. It is far easier to actively promote open dialogue and tolerance as this will lead to more diversity.

Allowing Hate Speech Discourages diversity  Members of groups that find themselves the targets of hate speech will be less likely to attend universities where they feel targeted. As a result, those campuses will become less diverse which will decrease the most effective deterrent of hateful ideas: understanding through interaction. Less Muslim, gay, Jewish, etc. students on campus is exactly what those promoting hatred are trying to achieve. Less students of the targeted group makes them easier to target because there are less people speaking out against the hate speech. A downward spiral is created that, if not checked, can drastically reduce campus diversity which is a massive harm to social integration and social harmony. Speech codes or other censorship sends a signal to minorities that they are welcome in the university. [1]  [1] Seaman, Julie, ‘Hate Speech and Identity Politics’, Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 36:99,  p.107

Discourages education of minorities  When individuals feel that they will be targeted at a university based on who they are, they are less likely to attend that university either out of fear they will be discriminated against or because they believe that they will not be allowed to express themselves freely without being discriminated against or assaulted. No group should be discouraged from attaining higher education because of immutable personal characteristics. Tertiary education is at the heart of social mobility and self-actualization. Even if no attack ever takes place, because hate speech can create an atmosphere which deters members of society from attending university the state is justified in banning it.

As stated, hate speech can have significant harm on certain individuals’ abilities to attend university and engage in campus life. Their rights to education must balanced against any potential harms that may befall someone who has to think twice before saying something hateful about a member of their university community.

It is wrong that obnoxious and hateful views should be given an airing and individuals left to their own devices to decide if those views are right or wrong. Accepting that these views can be voiced on campus and opponents of these views can make their own case implies that these views have equal standing; which is not the case, while there may be freedom of speech there is not freedom to hurt one and other. It is wrong to suggest that hateful ideas will spread faster if banned as if they are not banned those who are preaching such ideas have greater access to others so have more opportunity to persuade

Universities are bastions of free expression  Historically, universities have been centres of free speech and expression. The idea of tenure for professors was developed to ensure academic freedom both for teachers and students. [1] Censorship of any type of expression is a direct assault on the principles of a university. As Oliver Wendell Holmes commented, "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." Free speech on campus is responsible for producing, or at least fostering many of the progressive ideas of the 20th century even though these ideas were threatening and caused emotion distress to many people.  [1] American Association of University Professors (AAUP), ‘1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure’, 1940,

Freedom of expression is a political right  Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitutions of all WLDs because it is a necessary political check on the government. For example article 10 in the European Convention on Human Rights [1] and The First Amendment in the United States. [2] The protection of this right is most severely tested when the ideas are abhorrent to our morality but when one person is denied their freedom, it is a harm to everyone’s freedom.  [1] ‘Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’, June 2010,   [2] ‘Amendment I’, Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute,

Freedom of expression is a means to education  Students need to be able to take chances and express unpopular ideas in order to maximize their personal growth and development. Speech codes, even ones designed to only censor hate speech, have a chilling effect on all speech as students become afraid to say anything that is not politically correct. For example a student at California Polytechnic State University underwent a day long disciplinary hearing for posting a flyer publicising a talk “It’s O.K. to Leave the Plantation”. [1] It would not be surprising if students are less willing to organise such events after such a dressing down. Students also need to learn to respond to ideas they don’t like because even if censorship of hate speech is effectively controlled on campus, it still exists in the outside world. Students will only be able to maximize their ability to ask questions, state opinions, and respond to ideas on a free campus.  [1] Berger, Joseph, “Film Portrays Stifling of Speech, but One College’s Struggle Reflects a Nuanced Reality” New York Times, June 27, 2007. Retrieved 2011-08-24.

The marketplace of ideas  The truth can only emerge from competition between various ideas in free, transparent discourse. To silence any idea is to remove ideas from the marketplace thus reducing the individual’s ability to use his/her reason and intellect to arrive at a conclusion. [1] Silencing ideas also creates separate marketplaces thereby reducing the legitimacy of both and making it easier for someone espousing hate speech to use censorship as a justification for not engaging their ideas in open debate. When this happens, it becomes more likely that individuals who feel alienated from main stream society will find meaning in the hateful ideas which have also been excluded from the mainstream. This is very similar to the concept of the free market in economics where the freer the market the better off everyone is. [2]  [1] Wikipedia, “Marketplace of Ideas”,  Retrieved 2011-08-23.  [2] Lee, Steven P., ‘Hate Speech in the Marketplace of Ideas’, D. Golash (ed.), Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World, 2010,  p.15

All rights have to be balanced. Universities have a duty to ensure that everyone is protected and if one person’s right to free speech is infringing on another person’s right to safe access to education in a non-hostile environment then it is just to slightly infringe the first party’s right rather than entirely eliminate the second party’s right.

Whatever value the expression of hate speech has can be discussed in classrooms where the ideas can be discussed in their social context rather than promulgated from a platform. Banning hate speech will not transform universities into factories of rote learning or crush a progressive atmosphere. Hate speech isn’t about affirming rights, it is about limiting rights. There is no analogy here to the feminist or gay rights movements.

It is better that people be afraid of what is really happening than to be blissfully ignorant and thus vulnerable. Crime can be frightening, but people need to know about it so they can prepare themselves to deal with it. Furthermore, if violence is growing within communities, there may well be a need for better policing, so calling for such provisions is not necessarily just treating the symptoms of social illness, but rather is holding society together and maintaining necessary order. [1] Fear may cause people to do irrational things, but so too can ignorance.  [1] Jones, Stephen. Understanding Violent Crime. London: Open University Press. 2000.

Reporting generates a constant iteration of fear in the public, and precipitates a ratchet effect toward crime  Constant reporting on violent crime makes people more fearful. This not a deliberate effort on the part of the media to keep people afraid, but rather is a corrosive negative externality; violence sells, so media provides, resulting in the scaring of audiences. The result of the media’s reporting on violent crimes is a constant iteration of fear, which makes people wary of each other, and of the world. [1] Furthermore, such reporting creates a feeling in people of other individuals and groups most often reported as committing crimes as being “other” from themselves. For example, reporting on extensive crimes in inner-city areas in the United States has caused middle class suburbanites to develop wariness toward African-Americans, who are constantly reported in the media as criminals. This is socially destructive in the extreme. The heightened senses of insecurity people feel leads to vigilance in excess. This is bad for people’s rationality. All these problems yield very negative social consequences.  The constant reporting on violence leads to people demanding immediate law enforcement, and politicians quick to oblige, which leads to a ratchet effect, a precipitous increase in punishments for crimes. This results in a severe misallocation of resources; first in terms of irrationally high spending on extra policing, and second in terms of the excessive allocation of resources and authority to the state to solve the problems of crime through force. This is observed, for example, in the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, which was acclaimed in a state of fear after 9/11, and which gave extensive, even draconian powers to the state in the name of security. The media fuels this hysteria. Without its influence, cooler heads can prevail. The end result of all this is a treating of symptoms rather than the cause. Putting more police on the streets, and getting tough on crime fail to address underlying issues, which are often poverty and the social ills arising from it. [2] Citizens and governments should instead face the actual problem instead of choosing flashy option.  [1] Rogers, Tom. “Towards an Analytical Framework on Fear of Crime and its Relationship to Print Media Reportage”. University of Sheffield.   [2] Amy, Douglas J. “More Government Does Not Mean Less Freedom”. Government is Good. 2007,

Some journalists and media outlets are despicable in the way they treat people. Preying upon victims and their families is absolutely wrong, but a ban is not the way to solve this problem as it would simply move the media frenzy to whenever the ban on a case is removed and the details become public. Instead better regulation of the press is needed in such emotional cases in order to make sure that the media is respectful of families and also to make sure that those accused are seen to be innocent until proven guilty.

Reporting on violent crimes compromises the integrity and fairness of law  Judges and juries have to be neutral when they preside in court, and no bias can enter the court’s discourse and deliberation if justice is to be done. This is especially true of violent crime, for two reasons. First, in such cases, the court is dealing with people’s lives, as violent crime convictions yield high sentences, and the court’s decisions often have a lasting effect on the physical wellbeing of both victims and perpetrators of such crimes. Second, the visceral nature of violent crime naturally causes an emotive response from people hearing about it, which can cause them to act less rationally. [1]  Opinion is thus more easily colored in deliberations over violent crime than with any other kind. In light of these facts it is necessary to analyze the behavior of the media when it reports on violent crimes. The media is a commercial enterprise. It prioritizes sales over truth, and always wants to sell the good story and to get the scoop. For this reason the media relishes the opportunity to sell the “blood and guts” of violent crime to its audience. Furthermore, the race to get stories first causes reporters and media outlets to jump to conclusions, which can result in the vilification of suspects who are in fact innocent. The media sensationalizes the extent of crime through its extreme emphasis on the violence; it builds its stories on moving imagery, emotive language, and by focusing on victims and their families. At the same time the media seeks to portray itself as being of the highest journalistic quality. [2]  This behavior on the part of the media is tremendously bad for the legal process. The media circus surrounding violent crime necessarily affects potential jurors, judges, lawyers, and the general public. This has been observed on many occasions; for example, after the OJ Simpson trial some jurors admitted that the pressure generated by the media added significantly to the difficulties of deliberation. The inescapable consequence of the media reporting on violent crimes is that people cannot help internalizing the public opinion when it stands against a person on trial. Thus court judgments in the presence of a media circus must be held suspect. By restricting reporting on violent crime, however, the pressure can be relieved and the legal process can function justly.  [1] Tyagi, Himanshu. “Emotional Responses Usually Take Over Rational Responses in Decision-Making”. RxPG News. 16 February 2007,   [2] Lee, Martin and Norman Solomon. Unreliable Sources. New York: Lyle Stuart. 1990.

Law should be just and unbiased. That is not a controversial position. However, it seems difficult to imagine that reporting on violent crimes has so tremendous an effect on the public that judges and jurors cannot be unbiased in their deliberations. Rather, the process of jury selection as it stands is designed to guarantee that there is no bias with both prosecution and defence being allowed to examine and object to a juror. Furthermore, most reporting on violent crime is about simple facts rather than any attempt to influence opinion on specific crimes. This is the essence of what news is, people have a right to know what is going on in their society, even if what is going on is brutally violent.

Terrorists and serial killers make up a tiny proportion of murders and violent criminals in Western countries. In the United Kingdom for example there have been less deaths due to terrorism between 2000 and 2010 than due to bee stings. [1] As a result the very few copycat attacks are not really the issue at all when the question of reporting on violent crimes in the media is under discussion. Talk about these rarities serves only to distract people from the reality that most violent crime is not so bizarre as these cases. [2] Rather, the need to report on violent crime stands for all the violent crimes committed in every society, and fears of terrorists and serial killers can do little to challenge that need.  [1] Anderson, David, ‘The Terrorism acts in 2011’ Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, June 2012,   [2] Morton, Robert. “Serial Murder”. National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. 2005.

The state owes a duty of protection to victims, victims’ families, and those accused of committing crimes  Victims of violent crimes and their families face an emotional and vulnerable time in the wake of such crimes. People need time to recover, or mourn. The media’s fixation on violent crimes subjects these vulnerable people to the assault of reporters. In fact, there exists a perverse incentive for the media to badger families until they break down, as tears sell. Such exploitation must be stopped, and the best way to do that is to deny the media the ability to report on such things. The media does not care about hurting feelings, and bad behavior on the part of reporters never hurts readership of media outlets, as is indicative of such tabloids as the National Enquirer. Outlets can always deflect any backlash that might occur for their excesses by cutting loose “rogue reporters”.  Furthermore, families and victims usually do not want the media's, and the nation’s eyes upon them. Rather they tend to seek support from family and community, not the faceless masses. [1] People generally want to mourn in their own way. They may not want to become part of a media-driven narrative, and certainly not to become symbols for a new social crusade to reform communities. Removing violent reporting removes these perverse incentives to irritate victims and families, and instead leads to more respectful and considerate treatment.  As for those accused of crimes, it can be hard for someone acquitted after a trial or accusation to get on with life. Some people may find themselves roundly accused by the media and public, even portrayed as monster, making it very hard to move on, even when their names are officially cleared. This is completely contrary to how the legal system should function, where acquittal is meant to deliver absolution. Allowing the media to construct narratives of guilt in the absence of evidence undermines the very fabric of justice. The media’s incessant coverage of violent crimes and its alacrity to make accusations and jump to conclusions can destroy someone’s life, more than even having to stand trial does. Justice must prevail and be fair to those to whom it judges in court, and this can only be done by not allowing the media to turn the mob against people even after their names are cleared.  [1] Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. “Victims and the Media”. 2011,

The contagion effect of reporting on violence leads to increased impetus for terrorist attacks and serial killings  The media has been consistently demonstrated through empirical evidence to aid in the exacerbation of premeditated violence. There is an observable contagion effect, as the media serves to spread the virus of violence. Studies have shown that the greater the level of media coverage, the shorter the lag time between initial crime and emulations of them. In the case of terrorism, there is a demonstrable clustering effect. The 1970s embassy takeovers in Middle East, for example, show how media coverage can encourage terrorists to emulate past actions that gained attention in the past. [1] People see success of certain kinds of attacks and seek to repeat them. For example, the successes of Fatah in Israel led to the formation of the German Red Army Faction that would be responsible for many terrorist activities.  In the case of serial killers and mass murders, the media generates the “hot death story” of the moment, leading to an observable clustering effect, much as occurs with terrorism. For example, the Virginia Tech shooter cited the Columbine shooters as his inspiration. Serials killers are often attention-seeking individuals who crave media attention, which they are obligingly given. An example of this is the Unabomber, who ramped up his parcel-bombing campaign as a result of the media attention given to Timothy McVeigh’s mass murder in Oklahoma City. The media not reporting on violent crimes means eliminating the problem of emulation, and stops feeding killers’ pathologies.  [1] Nacos, Brigitte. “Revisiting the Contagion Hypothesis: Terrorism, News Coverage, and Copycat Attacks”. Perspectives on Terrorism 3(3). 2009.

Political will to affect change in areas riddled with violent crime is not generated by media reporting on the violence. Rather, the way the media reports, prioritizing the sensational, blood and guts, aspects of crimes, results in frightened voters clamoring for something to be done. This usually just results in more policing and more draconian sentencing laws. Neither of which solve the underlying problems of poverty and poor provision of essential state services. Rather, they serve merely as stand-ins for real action, resulting in no efforts to genuinely reclaim troubled communities. By excluding media reporting on the most visceral goings on in these areas, namely violent crimes, politicians and the people affected can enter into rational dialogue that is not perverted by media sensationalism.

It is not necessary for people to know the extent of criminal activity in order to be able to take precautions, everyone regardless of whether they know the amount of crime in an area should take what precautions against being attacked that they can. For example they should stick to walking on well-lit streets at night. Local groups on the other hand do not need to be informed by the newspapers if there is crime in the area, they will already know because they live there how safe the area is. The police will certainly give residents the information if there is a threat to them even if they are not giving that information to the media.

To not promote the truth of events is contrary to the duty, and to the right of free speech, of a responsible media  The media has two jobs; first, it has a duty to report on what people care about, and second, it has a duty to report on things that seriously influence society. Muzzling the media’s ability to disseminate information by preventing reporting on violent crimes can only do harm to society. The media has a fundamental duty to report on anything that may influence the lives of the citizens it reaches. This is particularly true of the state-run media, which is meant to be free of political influence and is not as dependent upon ad revenues and thus not as prone to sensationalist reporting. Beyond its duty to inform, the media, like all bodies and individuals in society have a right to freedom of speech. This must extend to the right to report on things that are ugly and that frighten people. It is better that people be informed of the truth by a free media and be terrified than to leave people without knowledge of the real seriousness of criminality. Fundamentally, the right to freedom of speech and of expression must be protected. If the media should give way on the issue of violent crimes it loses all credibility as a genuine font of truth. [1] To protect the basic rights of citizens, the right of the media to report on violent crimes must be upheld.  [1] PUCL Bulletin. “Freedom of the Press”. People’s Union for Civil Liberties. July 1982.

The mainstream media is essential for the accurate reporting of information; without it reporting on violent crimes, they would simply be reported by less accountable, less accurate freelance reporters and blogs  The media is regularly accused of being sensationalist and of hyping up the extent and gruesomeness of violent crimes. In some cases this may be true, but the media generally reports facts in a sober and informative, if also exciting, way. Without the mainstream media, however, news about violent crimes will still spread. The news will be disseminated within local communities and across the Internet via email and blogs. The result is lessening of journalistic quality, as bloggers are not bound by any exacting requirements in terms of the need for factual bases of stories. [1] The mainstream media provides a largely credible source of news that new media still lacks. In the absence of mainstream reporting, especially on such a hot button issue as violent crime, will only serve to spread disinformation, leading people to draw inaccurate conclusions and make decisions based on inaccurate knowledge.  [1] Rouse, Darren. “Is New Media a Threat to Journalism?”. ProBlogger. 15 October 2007,

The media’s reporting and investigating acts as a check on the behavior of the justice system  The state often does not want to deal with serious social issues in politically disenfranchised areas, where crime rates tend to be higher and the populations poorer This is because such areas cannot be counted on for electoral support as they often have low turnout rates and can be too complicated to be worth dealing with from a political perspective. Without the media, no one will report on criminal activity in these areas, meaning there will be no political will to reform them. This gives the police the opportunity to abrogate their responsibility to these communities.  In the absence of media reporting, authorities would also be able to hide the true extent of crime in misleading statistics. For example, police in parts of the United States have been caught publishing deliberately false crime statistics, often understating levels of violent crime in poorer communities. [1] The media has served to uncover the truth of these police abuses of the facts. Only with a free media can people truly be informed about what is happening in society, and that extends to information about violent crimes.  [1] Thompson, Steve and Tanya Eiserer. “Experts: Dallas Undercount of Assaults Builds ‘Artificial Image’”. Dallas Morning News. 15 December 2009.

It is necessary for people to understand the extent of criminal activity in order for them to coordinate an effective response  People have a right to know, for the sake of their own safety, about violent crimes being committed. Otherwise they will be unable to prepare themselves adequately for the possibility of being attacked. However people cannot make rational decisions about how to react and respond to violence in society if they do not have an accurate picture of not only the frequency of crime, but also their nature. Everyone should take necessary precautions to prevent themselves being victims of crime, as part of this they should know what areas are for example safe to walk through at night. If there is little or no reporting of where and when crime occurs the public will not have this necessary knowledge to keep themselves safe. Local groups will also be less able to protect their neighborhoods. For example in Pimlico, London, local groups have set up patrols in order to deal with an increase in muggings, if these muggings were not reported such local action would not have been possible. [1]  [1] Davenport, Justin, and Moore-Bridger, Benedict, ‘Vigilante patrols set up to beat Pimlico prowlers’, London Evening Standard, 8 December 2011,

Bans and restrictions on the old media would equally affect the ‘new’ media of the internet age. Bloggers could just as easily be taken to court for their reporting as conventional journalists so the news would still be restricted. While individuals may still report crimes this would become limited to the local area where people do have a genuine interest in the crime rather than it being reported nationally.

There is no such thing as these two duties that the opposition asserts for the media. The media is a business like any other, because its business is information and news it will report on violent crime as it is something that the people care about so will purchase news about it, but it does not have a duty to do such reporting. Similarly there is no duty to report on things that influence the lives of the citizens of the state, again the media does so but only because it sells. Indeed large amounts of media do not report things that are either things that most people care about or things that seriously influence society. There are lots of magazines and newspapers on things like hobbies, such as toy models, but it is absurd to suggest that this is what most people care about or that the issues that affect toy model hobbyists influence the rest of society. It would be equally absurd to suggest that such a magazine or newspaper should have a section devoted to violent crime because that is what is important.

Prison is the harshest possible way to prevent the offender from continuing to bully. As the crimes were committed online the offender can be cut off from the internet, or simply banned from the sites where he was committing the offence.

Jail prevents continued harassment  Part of the point of time detained in jail is to prevent the offender from reoffending while inside. Being in jail prevents the offender from continuing to engage in cyberbullying by denying unsupervised access to the internet or telephones. It is the most reliable way to prevent reoffending for the duration of the sentence.

Punishment does not have to be the complete loss of freedom that is prison. The loss of freedom as punishment should be interpreted more broadly than not being able to move from a particular location. Losing the freedom to use the internet or social networks can be as much punishment when these are activities that the offender enjoys.

Cyberbullying ruins lives just like any other bullying; age of the culprit does not matter  Punishment must fit the crime. Cyberbullying by a young person can be just as damaging to a victim as a similar crime by someone older. As a result should be equally punished. When cyberbullying has ruined someone’s life, and possibly led them to commit suicide, there were 9 teenage suicides as a result of bullying on Ask.fm in 2012 alone, [1] then not only the victims but their loved ones lives have been ruined as a result of the offender’s actions. Such a consequence deserves jail time to pay for the actions.  [1] Broderick, Ryan, ‘9 Teenage Suicides In The Last Year Were Linked To Cyber-Bullying On Social Network Ask.fm’, BuzzFeedNews, 11 September 2013,

Sentencing a criminal should not just be about punishing them for the magnitude of the result of the crime. Instead it should be about reformation and reintegrating the offender so that they can continue their life in future without engaging in any crime. While cyberbullies bear much responsibility for what they have done when the victim commits suicide it was not a direct action by the offender.

Prison is punishment  While rehabilitation and prevention are important parts of sentencing there also needs to be punishment. There being a punishment, is necessary to ensure there is a deterrence to prevent the offender reoffending, and to prevent others carrying out the same crime. This applies equally to young offenders as to older criminals.

The other options are much less likely to be effective at stopping the bullying from taking place than jail time. 58% of ASBOs handed out between 2000 and 2013 were breached. 43% were breached more than once. [1]  [1] Home Office, ‘Anti-social behaviour order statistics: England and Wales 2013 key findings’, gov.uk, 18 September 2014,

Many children under the age of 18 both know the consequences of their actions and know that bullying, whether on or offline, is wrong. We cannot simply let these people get away with little punishment simply because they are under 18. If they have a lower mental age then there is already the possibility of the defence pleading diminished responsibility.

Should not damage a normal childhood with jail  Putting young offenders in jail does not work, it increases not decreases crime. Going to jail makes children more likely to offend again with young offenders 67% more likely to be in jail again by 25 than those young offenders who did not go to prison. At the same time they are 13 percentage points less likely to finish high school. [1] These statistics shows the damage that jail has on a young life; instead of completing high school and eventually getting a job jail usually means those who have spent time before continue on a self destructive criminal path.  [1] Beauchamp, Zack, ‘Study: Throwing Kids in Jail Makes Crime Worse, Ruins Lives’, ThinkProgress, 17 June 2013,

There are other options besides jail  Jail or time in a Young offenders institute is an extreme reaction to a problem that can be solved by other measures. As an online crime the offender could be denied access to the internet or a mobile for a set period. Cutting off access would not only physically prevent reoffending but would have a similar ‘denial of liberty’ to jail. There have been suggestions that there should be internet ASBOs (Anti Social Behaviour Orders) to block people from particular sites in response to racism online, this would be similar. [1] Any other option would be cheaper than prison which costs on average £38,000 per prisoner per year in the UK. [2]  [1] Syal, Rajeev, ‘Punish hate crime on social media with internet asbos, say MPs’, The Guardian, 9 February 2015,   [2] Ruskin, John, ‘Why has prison emerged as a prominent form of punishment for most crime and what are its functions in relation to wider society?’, Internet Journal of Criminology, 2011,  , p.3

Children should not be sent to jail  Children under 18 should not be sent to jail. Children are considered less responsible for their crimes and the age of criminal responsibility is arbitrary with some countries having much higher ages than others; in the UK it is 10 however in some such as many Latin American countries it is as high as 18. [1] Children are often not able to understand the full damage of their actions or why it is wrong. This is not something that comes at a set age but is a slow change. As such children at younger ages should not be punished to the same extent as adults.  [1] ‘Defense of infancy’, Wikipedia, checked 29 April 2016,

The key here is to provide the educational opportunities and care inside a young offenders’ institute that they would be engaging in outside. This will allow learning and development to continue as normal while still providing punishment. The UK has from 2014 been increasing learning to 24 hours a week [1] – very close to what many British secondary schools provide.  [1] Fazaeli, Toni, ‘Securing education for young offenders – learning first, detention second’, FE Week, 24 January 2014,

The ICC has itself said that “No country in the world has a right to ask the ICC to prosecute certain people” and highlighted that even after ratification “only the court’s prosecutor can decide whether there is sufficient ground for conducting an investigation”. Once ratified Ukraine may ask, but the ICC is not bound to prosecute him because of the request. [1]  [1] ITAR-TASS, ‘Ukraine not able to prosecute Yanukovych through International Criminal Court’, en.itar-tass.com, 26 February 2014,

Would mean Ukraine signing up to the ICC  Having the ICC prosecute Yanukovych currently faces a major difficulty; Ukraine has not ratified the Rome statute. [1] It is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court. Technically this means the parliament can’t ask for ICC prosecution as there is no State Party to refer the situation to the prosecutor. [2] Clearly there is an easy solution to this; Ukraine should ratify the statute. This would have the benefit of reaffirming international criminal law, showing that it can be beneficial in a crisis, and increasing it as an accepted norm.  [1] ICC, ‘The States Parties to the Rome Statute’, icc.cpi.int, accessed 28/2/2014,   [2] Rome Statute, Article 14

There is little evidence that Yanukovych still has much support anywhere in Ukraine. However an ICC trial could simply inflame the other side; those who have overthrown Yanukovych are likely to want a trial to take place as soon as possible (which may be a long time off considering he is in Russia) and want it to take place in the Ukraine. The ICC would almost certainly be willing to give in to popular opinion; previously in Libya the prosecutor did not act when it was clear that public opinion did not want an international trial of Saif Gadaffi. [1]  [1] Kersten, 2014,

Yanukovych committed crimes against humanity  Even before most of the violence by riot police in February some experts were suggesting that Yanukovych had committed crimes against humanity – crimes committed by a state against a civilian population. Professor Alexander J Motyl argued “The Yanukovych regime may already be guilty of “imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law” and “persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender … or other grounds.”” [1] Now at the very least murder can be added to that count.  [1] Moryl, 2014,

Simply committing murder, or imprisonment, or persecution is not enough to make a crime a crime against humanity. It must be “widespread or systematic”. A great many states are involved in individual killings or unjust imprisonments so there has to be a threshold for ICC intervention. Unfortunately this is undefined so it will be up to the prosecutor to decide whether these crimes meet that threshold. [1]  [1] Kersten, 2014,

International help would be available to ensure an impartial trial in the Ukraine. The OSCE has offered “an OSCE role as impartial witness and guarantor to the implementation of concrete steps agreed between the parties” which could also extend to any trial. [1] With other international organisations involved in gathering evidence and providing legal assistance there could be certainty of an impartial trial without having to go to the ICC.  [1] Burkhalter, Didier, ‘OSCE Chair-in-Office welcomes Ukraine agreement’, osce.org, 21 February 2014,

Would prevent division  Justice is about the past. But when prosecuting someone there also needs to be a thought for the present and the future of the country. In the case of prosecuting Yanukovych there could be serious consequences as he had support in one half of the country. Ukraine is a divided country with many in the East considering themselves to not be Ukrainian, and certainly look to Moscow not the EU. [1] The new administration has already abolish a law that made Russian a second language in the country so infringing the rights of many in the East. [2] Trying a former leader in Kiev would be similarly provocative to those who believe Yanukovych is still the legitimate president, or even those who may not agree with Yanukovych but dislike the westward movement even more. While it would be unlikely to cause conflict on its own the action would certainly be an aggravating factor if other actions against the east of the country are being taken.  [1] Jamison, Alastair, ‘Can Ukraine Avoid an East-West Split and Bloody Civil War?’, NBCnews, 26 February 2014,   [2] RT, ‘Canceled language law in Ukraine sparks concern among Russian and EU diplomats’, RT.com, 27 February 2014,

The Ukrainian justice system is broken  Justice for Yanukovych should be international simply because it would be a much better guarantor of a fair trial. The Ukrainian justice system is unfortunately corrupt, and at the behest of prosecutors; it has an amazing conviction rate of 99.8%. This is because judges are they are only appointed for five years then the government confirms tenure if it believes they have been voting the right way. Yulia Tymoshenko, an opponent of Yanukovych, was imprisoned for making a deal with President Putin to ensure gas supplies – something that was a humanitarian necessity to ensure Russia did not freeze Ukraine into submission. [1]  [1] Robertson, Geoffrey, ‘Yulia Tymoshenko's trial was a travesty of justice’, The Guardian, 23 February 2014,

The Ukraine is perfectly at liberty to decide that it wants its former president to be tried at the ICC rather than at home. The crimes may have taken place in Ukraine but the reasoning behind the need for the ICC is that some crimes – including crimes against humanity – are so great that they are the responsibility of all, they affect other nations. The Ukrainian people would see justice done just as well by it being carried out in The Hague as in Kiev.

Even if the former President cannot be prosecuted at the ICC for his corruption there can still be investigations into his wealth, his assets can be frozen and the money found repatriated to Ukraine without specifically indicting him for corruption. Switzerland has already said that it is freezing any of Yanukovych’s assets in the country while the EU is considering an inquiry into his embezzlement. [1] Clearly there will be action taken against corruption even as Yanukovych is being tried for other more serious crimes.  [1] Fraher, John, ‘Yanukovych to Appear in Russia Tomorrow as Swiss Freeze Assets’, Bloomberg, 27 February 2014,

Does Yanukovych really qualify for the ICC?  It is questionable whether Yanukovych’s crimes, as abhorrent as they may be, really qualify for the ICC. It is clear that he does not qualify for three of the four crimes the ICC charges; genocide, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (this is for attacking other states not your own people). This leaves crimes against humanity. Crimes against humanity can include murder when “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population” [1] so the ICC will need to decide whether less than 100 dead is widespread and grave enough to justify the charge – and this is something that is up to the prosecutor. [2] Moreover as yet we don’t know if Yanukovych himself was directly responsible for ordering attacks on the protesters in the last couple of days before the fall of his government.  [1] States Parties, ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, icc-cpi.int, A/CONF.183/9 17 July 1998,  , Article 7  [2] Kersten, 2014,

The ICC is slow  has resulted in a conviction is against Thomas Lubanga – the trial took eight years from arrest to conviction. [1] The option of trying Yanukovych in the Ukraine with outside help in the process is therefore a better idea. The Council of Europe’s Secretary General has already offered “legal… expertise… by the International Advisory Panel (IAP), which will oversee investigations into recent acts of violence. I expect the IAP to start its work in Ukraine as early as next week.” [2] The OSCE too will help “efforts to establish facts on acts of violence and human rights violations.” [3] Clearly the Ukraine would be in a good position to provide a free and fair trial for its former president that could bring justice much faster than the ICC while also showing justice being done in the right place.  [1] Open Society Foundations Justice Initiative, ‘background’, lubangatrial.org,   [2] Jagland, Thorbjørn, ‘Secretary General Jagland welcomes the Agreement on the Settlement of the Crisis in Ukraine’, coe.int, 21 February 2014,   [3] Burkhalter, 2014,

Should be tried at home  The ICC recognises that a case is inadmissible where “The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it”. [1] The state of which Yanukovych is a national, and where the crimes took place has precedence. Ukraine therefore has first right to try Yanukovych, indeed the ICC will only act if Ukraine is unwilling or unable to do so itself. As the crimes he is alleged to have committed took place entirely in Ukraine, over Ukrainian issues he should be tried in Ukraine. This would allow the Ukrainian people to see justice done themselves rather than relying on others to do it for them.  [1] States Parties, ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, icc-cpi.int, A/CONF.183/9 17 July 1998,  , Article 17

Could not be tried for all his crimes  The International Criminal Court only tries a few international crimes. This means that other crimes that Yanukovych has committed that are not covered by ‘international criminal law’ cannot be prosecuted at the ICC. It is possible that not all the charges of violence against protesters may count as the crimes against humanity that the court can charge. Equally Yanukovych’s financial crimes cannot be prosecuted at the ICC. It was already known that Yanukovych became very rich as a result of corruption during his time as president but it is only now beginning to become clear how much corruption there was. Yatsenyuk the new Prime Minister “Over $20bn of gold reserve were embezzled. They took $37bn of loans that disappeared. Around $70bn was moved to offshore accounts from Ukraine's financial system in the last three years” with much of that money finding likely finding its way to Yanukovych or his friends. [1] Considering the hole in Ukraine’s finances it would be far better to pursue these crimes.  [1] Walker, Shaun, and Grytsenko, Oksana, ‘Ukraine’s new leaders begin search for missing billions’, The Guardian, 27 February 2014,

Slow might potentially be beneficial in this instance. It would mean that there is time for the worst of the scars of the protest, crackdown and change in power to heal so reducing the chance of any instability or violence when the outcome – whichever way it goes – is announced.

Clearly whether Yanukovych was directly responsible for the deaths and injuries by ordering assaults is something the prosecutor will need to investigate. It is likely that Yanukovych authorised attacks, there have already been leaks that he was planning to go much further with a large military “antiterrorist” operation to break up the protesters. [1] It seems almost certain that one of the three that the parliament voted to send to the ICC will be responsible for the deaths. It would be far better that the ICC were to be the one who decided who is directly responsible for what than an interim administration that has every reason to dislike Yanukovych and therefore influence the charges.  [1] Robins-Early, Nick, ‘Ukraine’s President Yanukovych Planned Crackdown As He Fled Documents Show’, The Huffington Post, 25 February 2014,

It is not true that the human rights situation for women is deteriorating. The Social Institutions and Gender Index has found between 2009 and 2012 there has generally been improvement for example “The number of countries with speciﬁc legislation to combat domestic violence  has more than doubled from 21 in 2009 to 53 in 2012”. Women rights can be improved through the United Nations. This has the legitimacy to convince governments to change their policies and liberalize them. Also, the power of the United Nations comes form the number of countries involved, adding besides the EU, the powerful US, China, Russia, and South Africa etc. More than that, the UN has a lot of experience in dealing with these kind of cases. A perfect example is the economic and diplomatic sanctions imposed on the South African government in order to convince them to leave behind the apartheid regime. Moreover one of the reasons for the United Nations is the promotion of universal human rights, and this applies to women as well as anyone else; there are 187 states that are a party to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.  SIGI, '2012 SIGI', OECD, 2012,   Reddy, Enuga S., ‘The United Nations: Partner in the Struggle against Apartheid’, un.org,   United Nations, ‘Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’, United Nations Treaty Collection, Status at 9 October 2013,

Asylum is the only way to protect women  The European Union is not able to protect women in other countries that are not a part of the union. Countries that have legislation discriminating against women are clearly not listening to European urgings on human rights. They will not respond to these urgings social and cultural traditions are deeply ingrained and only slowly change. Where women are seen as second-tier citizens it is seen as a natural part of the society can barely walk to the corner of the street without the consent of their husband. Moreover, the situation in countries with legislated discrimination against women is not improving, in countries which were previously secular there is increasingly a challenge from Islamism as in Libya and Egypt during the 'Arab Spring'. Moreover the influence of the European Union is declining; it has always been primarily financial, through aid which is declining, and through investment which, at least in the MENA, region has reversed as a result of those same revolutions. By granting asylum we can help them escape a legal system that clearly is against them and replace it with a European Union legal system that grants them those rights they never had.  Kausch, Kristina, 'If Europe is to preserve influence in the Middle East and North Africa, it must move on from technocratic policies towards more flexible cooperation.' LSE European politics and Policy, 21 December 2012,

With regards to a life threatening situation under which women might face severe consequences upon their return, it should be noted that the European Union will not send someone back if it is believed their life is at risk if they are sent back. They will not be forced to leave the country even if asylum is not granted as they will be granted humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain which will allow them to remain until the threat is lifted. If the country in question wishes to return the asylum seeker then it will take steps to negotiate with the asylum seeker's country of origin in order to obtain guarantees that the asylum seeker will not be harmed upon their return.  UNHCR, ‘The Facts: Asylum in the UK’, unhcr.org.uk, June 2013,

We would allow discriminated women to reach their full potential  Women who are constantly threatened by their husbands or who are in societies where they are considered to represent less than a man will most certainly lack ambition to achieve their full potential – or even if they do have the ambition will be restrained from fulfilling it. When you live under a system that considers you inferior to the other gender and denies you opportunities on the basis of gender – sometimes including education the individual is clearly never going to have a chance to make their life worthwhile for its own sake. They won’t be able to take up jobs that will have an impact on the world, they won’t control their own economic circumstances as their husband is the only breadwinner, and they will be denied the opportunity to express their ideas and views. By giving them asylum in a place where women and men are treated equally, we give them the opportunity to do whatever they wanted to do before. Besides the security that they will gain, they will be able to go to school or get a job more easily than in their native country. There is no reason for which we don’t want these women to be a part of our European cultural identity. It is shameful to give this opportunity only to your citizens when women from countries that discriminate against them might be able to contribute so much more than they are able to under their circumstances in their native country.

The EU needs to help those suffering from human rights abuses  Everyone is equal. Women who live under legal system that permits discrimination against them are being denied of basic human rights whether this is the right to vote, to a fair trial, or bodily integrity. Sharia Law, for example, clearly denies them human rights like equality before the law, a basic human need according to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." Under Sharia a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s and she gets half the inheritance of her male siblings. Second of all, bodily integrity is affected when women are stoned to death or beaten by their husbands without them even being punished. The importance of self-determination and autonomy are neglected in Saudi Arabia where women are not allowed to drive or go alone in public. Female genital mutilation, which causes bleeding, infections and infertility, and is almost always done without the girl's consent, is a big problem in many African countries. Asylum given by the EU shall be the only way for these women to leave the system that persecutes them and be able to have their human needs respected and therefore creating a healthier, safer and better environment.  Kaitlin, ‘Women’s Rights Under Islamic Law’, Inside Islam: Dialogues &amp; Debates, 25 November 2008,   Pizano, Pedro, ‘Where Driving Is a Crime and Speaking About It Leads to Death Threats’, Huffington Post, 6 June 2012,   United Nations, ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, un.org, 10 December 2948,   World Health Organisation,’ Female genital mutilation’, WHO Fact sheet, no.241, February 2013,   Mahmoud, Nahla, ‘Here is why Sharia Law has no place in Britain or elsewhere’, National Secular Society, 6 February 2013,

The EU is responsible for its own citizens and not for those that live in other countries or regions. Its burden is to protect human rights for European citizens and not for the entire world. At the moment, because of the economic crisis and austerity measures imposed, all the EU attention should be focused on delivering basic human rights (in terms of basic necessities such as food, shelter and employment) for people in Greece, Spain, Italy and other countries in distress. The burden lies here because the government of a country serves the people of that country and as a union each country accepts some of the burden for others in that union. Others that are outwith that union are not giving any direct benefits for the European Union and therefore should they not be our focus. Any more egregious violations of human rights in these countries would already be sufficient cause for granting asylum without a further offer presented to women who are discriminated against.  Douglas-Scott, Sionaidh, ‘The European union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon’, Human Rights Law Review, Vol.11, No.4, 2011,

Rather than being selfish and wanting for these women only to be able to achieve their full potential in the European Union, we should consider doing something in order to change the way they are treated at home. Most women are not able to run away from home, or travel hundreds of miles in order to get into Europe to apply for asylum and have this opportunity for development. Even if they were the EU could not take every woman in. The European Union needs to look at the bigger picture and encourage those countries that discriminate against women to become much more liberal in their attitudes to women. This can be done by aid, sanctions, and diplomacy. The EU simply needs to persuade these countries of the massive loss they are sustaining by not allowing half of their population to realize their potential.

The image of the European Union, even on human rights, does not result from how they treat the foreign citizens of some distant country but more on how they treat their own citizens. As with any nation or union of countries the EU’s primary responsibility is to fulfill its duties towards its own citizens. More than that, the social balance and economic stability are much more important factors in the European Union’s image abroad than how the union is treating women in faraway countries. So if we decide to talk about image, granting asylum will not improve nor damage the unions. On the other hand, its duty is to protect the European citizens and many things can still be done in this direction. There is no reason in wanting to help people abroad when you can do so much for your own.

The status quo involves sending women back to the threat of persecution  Sometimes, women who are persecuted by their government end up running from their country just to be sent back from the EU when their asylum application is rejected. Under the current legal system, the problems of women from countries that implement Sharia Law and other forms of discrimination are often not considered sufficient grounds for asylum. This is because refugees are only considered to be refugees ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’, so it does not include persecution for gender. The consequences can be of two kinds. The first and the worst is sending them back home where to face harsh punishment for trying to leave. This was the case with two women who applied for asylum in Great Britain in 1997 and were denied this right even though they faced death by stoning upon return.  Even if the women are not sent home immediately due to a prolonged appeals process they are left in detention centers, in uncomfortable conditions and unable to get a job or do anything while they wait. Those who are denied entry are left with nothing only a long depressing wait to be returned to the horrible conditions from which they thought they had escaped.  Cleaver, Olivia F., ‘Women Who Defy Social Norms: Female Refugees Who Flee Islamic States and Their Fight to Fit into American Immigration Law’, Rutgers Journal of Law &amp; Religion,   Women for Refugee Women, ‘Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK’, refugeewomen.com, 2012,   The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, ‘Convention and Protocol relating to the status of refugees’, unhcr.org, 1951,  p.14

The EU’s reputation can only benefit from a strong policy on women’s rights  There is a moral obligation for such a powerful and diverse group of nations to protect not only their own citizens but also people in desperate need all around the world. All the countries in the EU have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and therefore stand behind its principles. As the world biggest economic power the EU is fully capable of doing so. The Union is wealthy enough that it can take in the extra migrants that would occur as a result of taking in women from countries where they face discriminatory legislation.  The European Union’s international image is not based on its military might but upon its economy and on being upstanding in its promotion of a human rights agenda. Granting asylum to women that live under discriminatory legal system reinforces this image of being concerned for human rights. The European Union has signed up to the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by which signatories “agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women” while the convention is calling for the elimination of discrimination internally it is fully in the spirit of the convention to undertake actions that encourage others to fulfill the Convention. By being willing to grant asylum to women from countries that have not lived up to the standards of the convention – which includes “To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination against women” – the European Union will put pressure on these regimes, helping to highlight their unequal systems.  ‘Article 2’, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, UN Women, 1979,

No violence or incitement to violence can be justified by changes in legislation. It is not a cultural attack of any kind towards the Islamic religion or a certain culture. We must acknowledge that even the Quran clearly states, “Both men and women should be equal”. Implementing such a measure is simply highlighting that these nations are not living up to their obligations and applying rights that they themselves have accepted are universal by signing up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a reminder that every country has the duty to respect its citizens and offer equal opportunities disregarding sex, religion, skin color etc. The intention of the European Union is simple and clear: you have to respect the international law and common sense. Furthermore with the example of South Park there is a fundamental difference in that portraying Mohammed is a fundamental attack on a religion where encouraging equality for women is simply encouraging change in a country’s legislation. The latter is considerably less inflammatory.

At a first glance this might be true but let’s take a deeper view upon these societies. The example of Saudi Arabia where women are slowly being given the vote is true but this is not much of a gain in a country where the parliament has almost no power. In a culture where it is normal that they require the approval of their husband or father in order to be able to vote or do anything the result is simply another vote for the man. More than that, in countries like Saudi Arabia, basic rights like the right of movement are denied to women who cannot get a driving license. That there is progress in some areas does not mean that there is no reason for a policy of welcoming women asylum seekers. Far from it, such a policy would increase the pressure on these countries to step up their reforms. We should also remember that progress can go into reverse – thus the trend towards more governments that are less secular in the Middle East should be a worrying reminder of why the EU needs to let these women in.  Goss, Crystal, ’10 of the World’s Worst Countries to Live in as a Woman’, Take Part, 20 August 2012,   Shane, Daniel, ‘Saudi in new crackdown on female drivers’, Arabian Business.com, 25 August 2013,

The response will be to impose more control over the movement of women.  While it is cliché that every action has an equal and opposite reaction in this case the reaction is likely to be bad. If the European Union wants to open up to women from countries that discriminate against women then the clear recourse for those countries is to make sure their women can’t leave. More government and family control will mean more rights will be infringed and leaving the country will be impossible even for tourism. If men are worried about their wives claiming asylum when on holiday why would they give them the opportunity? The state could respond by taking away, or regulating the possibility for women to leave the country. If in the present day, where the EU is not offering asylum, countries in the Middle East and Africa have the certainty that women will come back after their visa expires, this certainty will no longer be in place after we approve the motion. It is in no interest for national governments to lose population and therefore they will act towards infringing this right and many others to keep women at home.

Allowing women asylum will damage feminist movements  In order to drive social change, these regions need women who are open-minded and want to be part of feminist movements. By giving them the “easy way-out”, social change will be delayed in countries with a legal system that discriminate against women. Females will have two options. First of all, they can leave the country and come in the European Union where the situation is already better. Second, they can choose to remain in their national country and fight for their rights. It is only human to take the easy way out. Movements for women’s rights will therefore lose many of those who want to change something and are willing to take action and as a result a lot of power. Those who migrate will be those who are more independent, more willing to do something to change their situation. Their energies will be directed outwards to leaving their home rather than to improving their situation where they are which would help millions of other women as well as themselves. This is the case with emigration more generally those who leave are those who are more entrepreneurial and are more likely to be leaders – in the United States 18% of small businesses were owned by immigrants, higher than the 13% share of the total population that are immigrants. As such movements for women’s rights will not only be deprived of numbers, but they will lose the leadership of the women who would be most likely to push for change.  Editorial, ‘Immigrants and Small Businesses’, The New York Times, 30 June 2012,

Offering asylum for women will be seen as a case of cultural imperialism  Offering asylum to women who live under Sharia Law or other forms of discriminatory systems will be seen as a cultural attack made by the West against Islamic and Africa values. The European Union’s actions will be seen as neo-colonialism meant to influence foreign states population. Ultraconservative Islamic countries are already suspicious of the west of social and cultural issues; this will simply show that they are correct in their concerns. Let’s take the example of South Park, an American comedy TV-Show that portrayed Muhammad as a bear during one of its episodes. A website known for supporting jihad against the West published a warning against the creator, threatening to kill them if they don’t remove the episode. Despite being a cartoon for a western audience it was seen as an attack on Islam. A policy which would appear to be in large part directed at Islamic states would be needlessly inflammatory.  The European Union would be showing that they do not care for the cultural values of others. Instead it would be promoting an imperial notion that western values are superior to those of other cultures. This is then legitimizing any notion that there is some kind of clash of cultures as it draws a line between the European Union and these states, a notion that would then be used by extremists on both sides as a propaganda tool and justification for violence.  Leo, Alex, ‘South Park’s Depiction of Muhammad Censored AGAIN’, Huffington Post, 22 April 2010,

The situation in these countries is improving, no need for a new policy.  Such an extreme measure as granting asylum to all women from these countries is not required as the situation in countries that discriminate against women is improving. Moreover, such an approach might be seen as an attack and make Middle Eastern and African countries react badly. Most of these countries are moving towards a more liberal approach and starting to promote the rights of women and reduce legislated discrimination. They already have an interest in aligning with western conditions in order to increase their international reputation. More than that, people in these societies are becoming more liberal demanding more and more rights as we see in the Arab Spring. In Kuwait, female suffrage has been allowed since 2005, whereas Saudi Arabia permitted women to vote and participate in municipal election from 2011. The right for national election will follow in 2015, with King Abdullah changing his country’s ultraconservative approach. The wind of change has left Europe and is heading toward the Middle East and Africa, promoting social reform and equality between men and women. If practices like female genitalia mutilation were widely used ten years ago, now they are enforced only in tribal parts of Africa, affecting less and less women. In conclusion, there is no need to worry about female that have residence in these countries because they are becoming more liberal and along with that, the whole country is changing. Diplomacy is working, there is no need for a new asylum policy.  Ajami, Fouad, ‘The Arab Spring at One’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2012,   BBC News, ‘Kuwaiti women win right to vote’, BBC News, 17 May 2005,   BBC News, ‘Women in Saudi Arabia to vote and run in elections’, 25 September 2011,   Stewart, Catrina, ‘Saudi women gain vote for the first time’, The Independent, 26 September 2011,

Women will chose to remain in their country because they have a family, a husband, friends and most likely a place to live. Not every woman who is a leader will simply think of helping themselves, many will want to stay and help their country overcome its discrimination. And we should not suggest that those who do go to start a new life in the EU will not benefit the cause of women’s rights at home. They can learn from the example of the state they end up in, learn to lead organisations and mobilise people so that they can be more effective at promoting social change at home.

It is wrong to suggest that the EU should not take an action because some countries might use it as an excuse to clamp down on women’s rights. Europe needs to respond to its own problem that in the Status Quo women who get to the European Union are denied asylum even when they have every reason not to wish to return home. The UK asylum system represents an example of a system that regularly denies women asylum even when they have been persecuted. Second of all, it is absurd to believe that countries like Saudi Arabia or Yemen will definitely close their borders for women to leave as to do so would likely bring retaliation from the EU, these countries if proposing such a move clearly don’t think much of the value of their women so why would they wish to lock them in when to do so will result in less trade. Second refugees are for the most part those fleeing persecution – not those leaving under a passport. Many are already travelling without the permission of their state. If their state revokes their right to leave it will simply demonstrate the appropriateness of the EU letting them in.  Women for Refugee Women, ‘Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK’, refugeewomen.com, 2012,

It is doubtful whether genocide such as this is based on rational calculations. For instance, the diversion of resources into the ‘Final Solution’ was a major reason why Hitler lost the war. In the same way, war criminals are unlikely to be deterred by legal threats such as these; they are driven by a fanatical hatred, not common sense. Furthermore, in wartime situations the immediate threats are so pressing that the hypothetical, long-term prospect of justice won’t affect the actions of lower-ranking officers.

Justice needs to be seen to be done in order to provide a deterrent to others.  An accepted tenet of most justice systems is the achievement of deterrence. Without the prosecution of war crime, its perpetrators have to consider no tangible cost to their actions. This applies to those who claim to have “just followed orders,” who now face a counter-motivation to refuse or defect. In the case of high-level war criminals it becomes effective when they realise they are losing a conflict. If they fear prosecution they are more likely to seek to negotiate rather than going on a final destruction spree. In the final days of the Nazi regime, Himmler stopped committing atrocities and attempted to negotiate peace because he realised his own vulnerability to prosecution. [i]  [i] Allen, Martin, Himmler's Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler.

Firstly, in many instances the victims of war crime want to move on with their lives. Being forced to testify and therefore relive their suffering can be deeply traumatic. Secondly, for victims to achieve catharsis or receive compensation the prosecution has to be successful, which they rarely are. If a prosecution fails to achieve a conviction, an even worse message is sent to the victims of those crimes.

War criminals need to be prosecuted in order to provide justice.  In the instances of small-scale crime we accept that if a community condemns a person’s action, our sense of justice demands that they be punished. However, it is often the case that those who commit the most heinous crimes at the highest levels of responsibility are not prosecuted because of the complexities of the process. For example Slobodan Milošević the former leader of Serbia’s trial took four years and he died before the verdict was given. According to ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte “The death of Slobodan Milosevic deprived victims of justice”. [i] As an international community we have repeatedly pledged to prevent war crimes, in recognition of the fact that they are beyond the scope of local courts. When they occur it is a collective failure to protect, so the responsibility to prosecute and make amends falls with the international community. An admission of our inability to prosecute war crime undermines the decades of work we have done to prevent them.  [i] Online NewsHour, 'Milosevic Death Precedes War Crimes Verdict', PBS, 13 March 2006

The very scale of war crimes means that courts are inadequate vehicles for prevention or punishment. To achieve the international community’s goal of “never again” other methods, like sanctions, diplomatic engagement and the appropriate use of military deterrent and intervention must be employed. These pragmatic methods are unquestionably more effective and more likely to achieve long-term change.

After war, the primary need of the affected community is to regain day-to-day functionality, create prosperity and achieve reconciliation. While a Truth and Reconciliation Commission might help to air grievances with positive purpose, trials only serve to rake up old hatreds and prolong social divisions.

Prosecution provides closure for the victims of war crimes.  The intention of many crimes of war is to destroy and demoralise individuals and communities. As a result, they often cause on-going harm to victims who cannot feel safe in their communities even after the conflict has ended. For victims, prosecuting war criminals has a vital cathartic function in helping them, to some extent, to come to terms with the crimes committed against them and their families. While full compensation is impossible, both the symbolic realisation of justice and the illustration of real commitment to prevention allows people to rebuild their lives to some extent. Failure to prosecute sends victims a message that the attacks on their freedoms were somehow acceptable.

Trials help bring divisions into the open to help heal them.  For post-conflict societies to function, the tensions and divisions of the conflict must be brought out into the open and dealt with in order to be fully put to rest. Those most responsible for war crimes must be brought to justice, those involved in the regime but less culpable must have opportunity to make amends and victims must feel that they have been compensated. This allows compromise and the potential for effective governance. The alternative is to allow undiscussed, simmering hatreds and resentments to persist, which undermine growth and create a risk of further conflict.

Firstly, more prosecutions take place in developing nations because in recent decades more war crimes have been committed in developing nations. Western nations have been equally committed to prosecutions in the former Yugoslavia, in an increasingly prosperous European region. Secondly, although the refusal of the United States to become a signatory to the ICC is problematic, an inability to prosecute every war crime should not prevent us from prosecuting any.

Proving the commission of crimes on this scale beyond reasonable doubt must take a great deal of time and expertise. The end is so important that the cost must be borne. The successes at Nuremburg and the ICTY convictions prove that it is possible to bring war criminals to justice. While the ICC has had limited success, it is a young institution and is likely to streamline its processes and achieve more convictions in the future.

Post-conflict reconciliation  These trials are not always in the best interests of people on the ground in post-conflict societies. Victims may feel great trauma at having to testify and revealing information might inflame tensions. This is particularly true when large numbers of people in the society had connections to the war criminals. For instance, many high-ranking Cambodian businessmen and officials had Khmer Rouge connections [i] and in Rwanda, Hutus make up 85% of the population. Prosecution is intended to allocate blame not to encourage progress and reconciliation. If any official process is necessary, Peace and Reconciliation Commissions are more suitable.  [i] Justice of a Kind, The Economist,

Problems with symbolic justice  There is no such thing as symbolic justice. While full justice is an admirable aspiration, its value is undermined by consistent failure. If prosecutions cannot be completed, the international community is seen as toothless. This undermines its deterrent value and trivialises the trauma of victims, who may feel their suffering is subordinate to esoteric legal principle. Furthermore, the prosecution of war criminals could use up political capital, thereby preventing more effective preventative measures, or real commitment to post-conflict rebuilding.

Double Standard  While proposition may claim that prosecution of war criminals is a moral imperative, the reality is that geo-political factors determine which prosecutions are taken. For example, all of the ICC’s prosecutions have been against African leaders. [i] Furthermore, although the United States is strongly suspected of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is too powerful to be prosecuted. Fair justice should apply equally to everyone. Because it doesn’t, these prosecutions are often seen as Western impositions. This aggravates international tensions and reduces willingness to take any action on war crime in the developing world. For example, the African Union has refused to uphold the ICC’s arrest warrant on Omar Al Bashir. [ii]  [i] Case reports of the ICC   [ii] BBC News, 'Warrant issued for Sudan's leader', 4 March 2009,

The prosecution of war criminals is generally very ineffective.  The scale of crimes being prosecuted cause very slow trials, and a high likelihood of technical acquittals. International Courts rarely have police forces of effective methods of enforcing rulings. The ICC has never achieved a successful conviction, the ICTY has been criticised for inadequate sentencing [i] and the current trials in Cambodia have become mired in court and national politics, to the point that it is expected that no further Khmer Rouge officials will be tried. Given the improbability of success, the cost and trauma of these trials is unjustifiable.  [i] "Ten years in prison for Miroslav Deronjic". The Hague: Sense Agency. March 30, 2004. Retrieved 8 May 2011. "Judge Schomburg however thinks that the punishment is not proportional to the crime and is not within mandate and spirit of this Tribunal. According to him, the crime to which Deronjic pleaded guilty "deserves a sentence of no less than twenty years of imprisonment". In a brief summary of his dissenting opinion that he read after pronouncing the sentence imposed by the majority, Judge Schomburg criticized the prosecution for having limited Deronjic's responsibility in the indictment to "one day and to the village of Glogova." Secondly, Judge Schomburg adds that the "heinous and long-planned crimes committed by a high-ranking perpetrator do not allow for a sentence of only ten years", which in light of his possible early release could mean that the accused would spend only six years and eight months in prison. At the end of his dissenting opinion, Judge Schomburg quoted a statement by one of Deronjic's victims. The victim said that his guilty plea "can heal the wounds" that the Bosniak community in eastern Bosnia still feels - "provided that he is punished adequately". According to the victim, "a mild punishment would not serve any purpose.""

Justice is always aspirational. International law is a work-in-progress and while there is no question that a lot of work remains to be done, abandoning the effort will cause stagnation. While many failed prosecutions may come before International Courts, as commitment to international law strengthens so will the success-levels of prosecutions.

In most instances, victims support the progress of prosecutions and are willing to testify. If many people in the society had connections to criminal regimes then that has to be acknowledged and addressed through official means. If not, the tensions will still exist. Even if they are driven underground, the risk of violent tension re-emerging continues to exist. While Peace and Reconciliation Commissions may be useful in tandem with prosecutions, by themselves they risk appearing as mere talk shops that do not provide either punishment or compensation.

Those who satisfy these demands by citizens are more likely to be voted back into office. It is in their absolute interest to keep their focus on relevant emails or phone talks, as if they don’t do that, there is another person qualified for the job who will.  Secondly, it is clear that in this quest for protecting society, it is in the government’s interest to obey the law. As recent events have proven, the population is allergic to any state agency’s violation of law, especially when it comes to warrantless tapping. They won’t risk breaking the law in the hope they will catch more criminals as they know there would be a society and media backlash. If anything, it is in any politician’s interest to search and investigate if any government agency is conducting such abuses and to reveal it with the resulting plaudits and votes it will bring. A politician will gain much more if it takes a public stance against that agency by imposing tighter controls and inspections rather than secretly supporting it. Let us not forget that it is the people who keep politicians in office.  Thirdly, we must remember that there is a lot of pressure from different NGOs and even whistleblowers that is put on these officials not to make any wrong steps. They know that if the population finds out that they focused on anything else but catching wrong doers, their career is over and there is no coming back.  As a result, we have every reason to believe that the government will maximize its efforts of protecting us, but abusing its powers won’t benefit it on any level.

Warrants are needed to prevent abuse  In the light of the recent NSA events(1) , we must try and see past this curtain of fog the government has put in front of us, trying to make us believe that everything it does, it does for our own good and that in this process the law is being respected to the letter. Unfortunately, if the necessary system of checks-and-balances between the government and the masses or judicial courts is lacking, it will always find ways to abuse its powers and violate our rights. Even with the warrant currently being mandatory when trying to tap one’s phone, we see that Justice Department’s warrantless spying increased 600 percent in decade(2). If the government is currently invading our lives when we have specific laws banning it from doing so, why should we believe that this phenomenon won’t escalate if we scrap those laws?  The government's biggest limitation when actively trying to spy or follow a large group of people was technological; it was difficult - if not impossible - to follow a lot of people for days at a time. But with surveillance tools it’s becoming cheaper and easier, as is proven by the astounding 1.3 million demands for user cell phone data in the last year “seeking text messages, caller locations and other information”(3.) Without the resource limitations that used to discourage the government from tracking you without good reason, the limits on when and how geolocation data can be accessed are unclear. A police department, for example, might not have the resources to follow everyone who lives within a city block for a month, but without clear rules for electronic tracking there is nothing to stop it from requesting every resident's cell phone location history.  Considering these facts, it is clear that, as we live in a time when it would be extremely easy for the government to engage in mass surveillance of the population, we must enforce and harden the current laws for our own protection, rather than abandoning then for good. No matter what, George Orwell’s books should not be perceived as a model for shaping our society.  At the end of the day, without any oversight, it would be extremely easy for the government to abuse this power given to it by electronic surveillance tools, without us ever knowing it. This system is the only thing left that prevents government agencies to violate our rights.  (1) Electronic Frontier Foundation   (2) David Kravets” Justice Department’s Warrantless Spying Increased 600 Percent in Decade”, “Wired” 09.27.12   (3) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation” July 9, 2012

Undeniably, any government needs confidence and trust from the population in order to implement reforms in an efficient way. You need the citizens to be on the same side with the elected officials rather than trying to impede them from doing their job. Despite this, there won’t be any lack of trust as a result of scraping warrants.  In order to prove this fact, one must look at the source that makes the population trust the government. There might be some mistrust in the beginning as a result of the protests that will come as soon as the scrapping occurs, but this won’t last long. In time, as society becomes safer, as terrorist attacks and crimes become scarcer, there government’s good image will return. Results are what people care about. Let us not forget that the biggest blow that a state’s image can receive happens when it is unable to protect its citizens. No matter if we are talking about 9/11, London Metro Bombings or the ones which happened at Domodedovo Airport in Moscow, each and every time the government was held responsible for its failure to prevent the attacks.  If we are to talk about the state’s image and legitimacy, as the numbers of these types of regrettable events will decrease, the influence of the government and the way it is perceived can only rise.

Freedom from government intrusion  One of the most important pillars on which every single western liberal democracy has been founded is freedom. Allowing the government to be able to track and monitor individuals through mobile or internet connections is against everything we, as a western society, stand for.  First of all, it is undisputable that liberty and freedom are indispensable to our society. Every single individual should and must be the master of his own life, he should have the capacity of controlling how much the government or other individuals know about him, the right to private life being the main argument in this dispute.  Secondly, it is clear that phone and internet tracking potentially allow the government to know almost everything about you. Most phones have a GPS incorporated and a lot can be deduced about ones habits by the photos or updates on his social network profile. One who knows all of another’s travels, can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups, basically about every activity you have in your life. Remember this data is extremely precise, as your cell phone sends your location back to cell phone towers every seven seconds—whether you are using your phone or not—potentially giving the authorities a virtual map of where you are 24/7.  Finally, we, as individuals, created this artificial structure, i.e the state, to protect our human rights, but also to protect us from each other. We admitted that some rights can be taken away if there is serious concern about the security of other people. Therefore, it is absolutely normal to allow the government to track and follow certain individuals who are believed to have taken part in criminal activities, but there is no ground on which you can violate the right to privacy of a law-abiding citizen, especially if we are talking about such an intrusive policy. If we did so, it would come as a direct contradiction with the very purpose the state was created.

What is imperative to understand is that principles are never the end result; they are simply the means to an end. We rely on certain principles like the philosophy of liberty and freedom because in general they have positive outcomes on our lives. The question which rises on this point is what principle, protection freedom, brings more benefits to us.  The freedom of no one knowing your whereabouts and the right to privacy may sound good in theory, but the truth is they don’t have any effect on the individual. No matter if my phone is connected to the NSA headquarters or not, my day remains exactly the same and nothing changes. I face the same obstacles and joys and I feel the same emotions, as I am not aware of this tracking. But if we prioritize protection over freedom we see that there is significant change in someone’s life. As the government will stop and prevent more crimes happening by tracing and intercepting calls and e-mail s, the lives of the citizens will be drastically improved. Any stopped crime means that the potential victim of that crime has a dramatic improvement in their safety and quality of life.  In the end, we clearly see that protection must be prioritized over freedom as it has more practical benefits upon the population.

In order to fully understand the impact of such measure would have over the human mind we must take into consideration that generally people have a very complicated and busy life starting from going to work, taking care of your kids, paying the bills and many more.  Maybe this won’t be the case initially, but as time goes by and as you don’t feel any kind of physical effects from being under surveillance, slowly, this feeling of anxiety would fade away. Individuals will reach the conclusion that nobody is tracking them. Or at least they won’t care about it. This takes place because a person is more likely to focus on the things they love, they do or which generally surround them and have a visible effect on their life like their families, jobs or passions rather than on an uncertain possible action performed by a distant actor, especially which isn’t palpable.  Second, even if some people do feel this anxiety and can’t seem to be able to find a way to get rid of it, it would still be a small price to pay in order to have a more protected society. It is better to live your life, albeit with some moments when you feel stressed than not being able to live it at all.

Reducing trust in the state  In a world where state agencies would have the possibility of tracking everyone’s moves without any person knowing it, we would reach a point in which the population lose their trust in their elected officials. The consequences could then be very damaging to democracy. This phenomenon took place right after the NSA leaks, as the confidence in the US government was near record’s low.(1)  First of all, the population would know that the government is spying and tracking their moves, but they wouldn’t know how much. This general lack of information on this matter will create a lot of scepticism relating this process, and inevitably the population will reach the conclusion that the government is conducting massive phone tapping and spying campaigns as no one is checking on them.  Despite potential official document trying to give certain facts regarding this, due to the previous incidents when the state has been releasing little or misleading information, these will have little influence over the population. As a result, trust in the state will suffer a massive blow.  This is extremely problematic, as you want and need the general population to trust and listen to what the government, and more particularly law enforcement agencies, say in a lot of instances. When promoting non-discrimination, gender equality or increased social welfare contributions for the poor, you need the population to see the state as someone who is on the same side with them and someone who they can trust. Unfortunately, the scepticism with which those beneficial government proposals will be received will drastically reduce their impact and the chances of them being implemented. If I do not trust that the government is looking after my own good, but rather in a lot of instances its interests are mutually exclusive with mine, then I would most probably lose my respect towards authority.  When talking about law enforcement agencies, i.e the police, the NSA, etc., it is clear that we have trusted them to protect us and our rights. When it is those very agencies that are conducting these warrantless spying campaigns, it comes as a direct contradiction with their very purpose and thus the impact and the loss of trust is higher on this level.  Moreover, in the long term, the whole electoral process could suffer a lot from this lack of confidence, as individuals aren’t particularly inclined to go to elections any more if they see that no matter what they do, their rights will still be breached.  As you need the population to trust the government, so that its reforms are being met with positivism and not reluctance, you must not portray the government as an intrusive, harmful and ill-willing element of the society.  (1) Harry J Enten ” Polls show Obama's real worry: NSA leaks erode trust in government”, The Guardian, 13 June 2013

Changes in behaviour  Surveillance changes the way we make daily decisions—the same way that a rapidly approaching police car in your rear-view mirror may make you feel nervous even when you are driving completely lawfully. The very existence of a mass surveillance system will negatively influence the behaviour and emotions of a significant majority of the population.  First, surveillance affects emotions and mental performance, as it leads to heightened levels of stress, fatigue and anxiety due to the constant feeling that you are being watched.(1)  Secondly, it creates conformity to social norms. “In a series of classic experiments during the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch showed that conformity is so powerful that individuals will follow the crowd even when the crowd is obviously wrong. A government that engages in mass surveillance cannot claim to value innovation, critical thinking, or originality.”(2)  This is of extreme importance as first of all, it is the state’s duty to create the most peaceful and harmonious environment in which the individual can reach its full potential (this one clearly not being it) and second if we don’t feel free to do things that are perfectly legal because we think someone might think it suspicious or out of character then it is difficult to say we are really free.  (1) M.J. Smith, P. Carayon, K.J. Sanders, S-Y. Lim, D. LeGrande “Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring”, 1992   (2) Chris Chambers ” NSA and GCHQ: the flawed psychology of government mass surveillance”, The Guardian, 26 August 2013

It is clear that the population has high demands and high expectations from the government, but that is because it should do. It is clear that every time the state fails to protect us, every time it breaks the law and every time it violates our constitutional rights, the state needs to be held to account. But that doesn’t mean the state’s job is impossible and unfeasible simply that it needs to learn and improve from its mistakes, and the only way this will happen is if it is open and transparent about its systems.  In addition, crime has fallen in the western world, governments can and do both protect the civilians and respect their rights at the same time. Such a system requires warrants and check and balances on government. The population may sway in terms of its demands but this is mostly driven by events; when there is a large terrorist attack there is a response, when government goes too far again the people will respond. This ensures that the government strikes the right balance.

It may be true that we gave the state the burden and the duty to protect us and it is a very high-ranking priority. But this doesn’t justify sacrificing day-to-day freedom just for the state to fulfil its duty a little bit more.  We cannot say that the state can do whatever it wants as long as it does that for the safety of our safety. On that logic, it would be OK for the government to have a bodyguard stand next to us without our consent for every single minute of our lives, as that way, we would be more protected. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2012 and held that police need a warrant to attach at GPS device to a car.(1) One cannot say specifically what the main purpose of the state is, as it’s rather a combination of protecting us and serving us. As it is the population who controls the government and not vice-versa, it must be up to them to decide where to draw the line between security and privacy.  What we see on this level is that by engaging in these sorts of operations, the government is not fulfilling its purpose as there are a lot of harmful effects that the citizens would feel if large scale tapping will take place. Maybe some people don’t mind being spied on, but there is a significant majority of people who do. This constant feeling that you are followed translates into fear, anxiety, restlessness or stress. In turn, these emotions affect your day to day life prohibiting you from enjoying it. So on this level, the state is failing at its purpose to improve the lives of the mass population.  (1) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation” July 9, 2012

A safer country  On this point, there are two levels on which a government which isn’t forced to obtain warrants protects the population better. In 2011 violent crime went up for the first time since 1993 data collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in telephone surveys showed a 22 percent increase in assaults so something clearly needs to be done to stop violent crime.(1)  First of all, let’s not imagine that there are people hired by the government who will listen to every single word of every single conversation and that every email will be read word for word. In this type of situation, the police uses special software designed to identify certain key words like “murder”, “Al Qaeda”, etc as well as more subtle combinations which could possibly be a clue towards finding certain criminals. If someone is talking or emailing about certain wanted criminals belonging to military militias or terrorist organizations, I would want to know what they were talking about. Now, we have the possibility of doing that, as, last year, for instance, the FBI requested help to develop a social-media mining application for monitoring "bad actors or groups".(2) The problem is the initial search needs to be general to find these individuals in the general mass of the world’s population.  This is an efficient way of discovering new previously-unknown criminals. In the past, there would have been no way of ever discovering these individuals and they would continue to be a threat to innocent civilians.  Secondly, this improved government control over phones and the internet would be an immense deterrent. It would prevent people from engaging in planned crime as the chances of them getting caught are drastically improved. Deterrence relies on the criminal knowing that they are likely to be caught, knowing your communications are monitored will make people believe they are more likely to be caught. So, not only will the police be able to catch active criminals but will prevent other persons from engaging in this type of actions.  (1) Terry Frieden ” U.S. violent crime up for first time in years”, CNN ,October 17, 2012   (2) Ryan Gallagher ”Software that tracks people on social media created by defence firm”, The Guardian, 10 February 2013

Warrants are ineffective  One of the main reasons for scraping the warrant-system is because of its ineffectiveness. This system of checks-and-balances was created in order to prevent the government from over monitoring the population, but unfortunately, lately, they have just become another administrative and bureaucratic step in achieving that surveillance.  If we look at the statistics which revolve around the FISA court, the one which emitted warrants for the NSA, we see that it “has rejected .03 percent of all government surveillance requests”(1). This is absolutely preposterous, as one cannot reasonably assume that no abusive requests were submitted. As a result, even if there was a so-called preventive purpose of warrants, they are far from achieving it.  (1) Erika Eichelberger “FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance Requests” Mon Jun. 10, 2013

The public can’t decide what they want  Sadly, we reached a point in our desperate quest for perfection where the population, through its mutually exclusive demands, has ended up putting the government between a rock and an anvil. The population then blames the government for not being able to fulfill these demands, when actually we are at fault.  We demand our government protects us from terrorists, criminal organizations and in general people who want to harm us. If it fails to do this job, we blame it and throw dirt at it for being inefficient. But what we see is that although the state has the power to launch a full campaign against wrong-doers through electronic surveillance means, we deny him the possibility of doing that. If, by chance, the government is breaking this law when trying to stop and prevent crimes from happening, like in the example of the NSA, again we launch meaningless offenses and start accusing state agencies for being too intrusive. This fickleness is shown by polling; in 2010 47% of Americans thought that anti-terror programs had not gone far enough to protect the country, three years later that figure had dropped to 35% while those thinking the programs restrict liberties had risen from 32% to 47% with little change in how much was actually being done.(1)  (1) “Few See Adequate Limits on NSA Surveillance Program” July 26, 2013

Purpose of the state  We as individuals created the state in order to protect and improve our lives. We gave it the burden of improving our lives from multiple points of view, economically, socially, environmentally, etc. But before these, in order for one to benefit from this advantages that the state brings, he must be alive, therefore the main burden and purpose of the state is the protection of its citizens’ lives. As a result, when judging a principle, one must mainly look if it is helping or preventing the state from reaching its ultimate purpose.  As a result, it is legitimate to risk sacrificing your right to private life in order for better protection. The existence of mandatory warrants can bring, as an advantage, only a vague feeling of safety and happiness, as there is no real harm for you if someone is tapping your phone, as long as you are a law-abiding citizen.  On the other hand a world in which the government wouldn’t be forced to obtain warrants would be much safer for the individuals, as the government would be able to intercept and trace more criminals. If one life is saved by this policy, it will be worth it!

It is absolutely clear that there exists a need for a system to keep the government in check. We can’t just stand and do nothing, while hoping for the best. There are two reasons why it is justified to keep the warrants.  It is cases like this that shift opinion and force Government to reverse course. As a result everyone, including FISA and other courts will be much more careful, even with no new laws when scrutinising warrants as nobody is willing to risk another scandal happening.  Secondly, this is an argument for tightening up the warrant system not against warrants themselves. It there is such a problem, let’s make warrants harder to obtain with more scrutiny before they are granted, along with more punitive punishments for abuse, more controls and a higher number of inspections. If so few warrants are being rejected there clearly needs to be more done to prevent the government from abusing its powers.

It is obvious that warrantless tracking of citizens is not the only way to fight crime. There are other ways which do not negatively impact the citizens to such an extent.  When talking exclusively about protection, the government could have better trained police officers, harsher laws in other to deter criminals from committing infractions, improved gun control regulations and a more efficient judicial system. There a lot of alternatives to this, as the elected officials must understand that they need to choose a path which does not hurt the population.  Moreover, if we look at statistics (1), in most of the western world, the crime rate has been decreasing. Slowly but surely, crimes are falling and our societies are becoming safer and safer. Thus, not only we have other ways of fighting crime, but crime is becoming less of a problem, so do we really need new intrusive measures to deal with it?  (1) Eurostat Statistics,

For every expert who advocates the use of intercept evidence there is another who fiercely warns against it, particularly those who are experts in law [1] . Despite the use of wiretapping in the USA, many people advocate against intercept evidence by pointing out its past failures [2] and questionable authorisation [3] [4] . In the UK, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have voiced concerns that wire-tapping would expose the methods used by intelligence services [5] . This is not purely a debate about whether wire-tapping works, but whether it is in line with the legal principles held by those countries and states who currently do not allow it to be used in court. Just because it could be used does not make it legitimate – in fact, there is often heavy criticism against wiretapping within the legal profession itself [6] [7] .  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11  [4]  , accessed 30/08/11  [5]  , accessed 30/08/11  [6]  , accessed 30/08/11  [7]  , accessed 30/08/11

Intercepted evidence could be incredibly useful for both prosecution and defence cases in many trials.  Intercept evidence offers the opportunity to speed up court trials and stop wasting time and money by providing information which could lead to a faster, more accurate verdict. Other western democracies who use wire-tap evidence believe that is has or will help to achieve criminal convictions [1] [2] [3] , which demonstrates popular support for it as an effective and swift method of justice. Given that the UK has allowed wire-tapping in some specific cases [4] , it seems to be that it is not the principle of intercept evidence itself which is viewed as unacceptable by these countries, but perhaps a need to set up a formalised system of the conditions when and where intercept evidence can be used. David Bickford, the former chief legal adviser to MI5, has stated ‘I know we have lost cases as a result of not using such evidence’ [5] and other experts have called for the wide use of intercept evidence in court [6] . Allowing the use of intercept evidence in the first place may well ensure that wire-taps are better carried out in a standardised, regulated manner  [1] In Sweden:  , accessed 30/08/11  [2] Widely in the USA:  , accessed 30/08/11  [3] In Australia:  , accessed 30/08/11  [4]  , accessed 30/08/11  [5]  , accessed 30/08/11  [6]  , accessed 30/08/11

The more obvious solution to this problem (from the opposition’s view) would be to maintain a clear policy where no intercept evidence is admissible in court. However, this particular case becomes an anomaly for good reason. Individual countries – in this case Britain – cannot dictate whether foreign intelligence services – the Dutch – choose to reveal their intelligence-gathering methods or not. In this case, the crossover between national policies on information intelligence [1] led to this anomaly.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11

Wiretapping is a highly effective method which helps to prevent serious crime and secure convictions for criminals.  Wiretapping helps to make society safer; we have the opportunity to prevent serious crime and to uphold the principle of prosecution in the justice system [1] by catching criminals and convicting them. For example, in the UK in 2003, intercepts led to the seizure of 26 tonnes of drugs and also detected wide-scale fraud and money laundering, resulting in 1680 arrests [2] . Without this evidence, these criminals may have escaped the justice system and remained free in society to commit other crimes. It is nonsensical to reject evidence which clearly implicates this individuals who would otherwise be released without charge. As the threat of terrorism escalates and had already damaged many countries [3] [4] [5] [6] , refusal to use this evidence in court puts the public at serious risk and fails to act in the defence of the country in question. For example, if the Norwegian authorities had kept closer tabs on information passed through eBay, they might well have been able to apprehend Anders Breivik before he committed the massacre on Utoya island [7] . Wiretapping is unique in the variety of information it can provide; it can show locations [8] , times [9] , the relationships between those involved [10] and even record specific details of conspiracies [11] . Accordingly, it can also be used to prove the innocence of somebody who might otherwise be wrongly accused or even wrongly imprisoned [12] [13] . The obvious benefits to this motion demand that intercept evidence and wiretapping should be held as legitimate evidence in court.  [1] Page 65:  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3] In the UK:   [4] In Norway:  , accessed 30/08/11  [5] In the USA:  , accessed 30/08/11  [6] In Europe and Belgium:  , accessed 30/08/11  [7]  , accessed 30/08/11  [8]  , accessed 30/08/11  [9]  , accessed 30/08/11  [10]  , accessed 30/08/11  [11]  , accessed 30/08/11  [12]  , accessed 30/08/11  [13]  , accessed 30/08/11

If the use of wiretapping and intercept evidence was as simple as proposition makes out, undoubtedly it would be a common tool. However, there are also serious flaws in how this intelligence is gathered and interpreted. For example, a phone call might seem unduly incriminating when taken out of context and heard in a court of law which has already projected suspicions upon a particular individual [1] . Focusing only on one form of communications as is normal when authorisation is given for these interceptions fails to take in the wider picture and continues to be heard without the context [2] . Whether this unfairly incriminates somebody who has not acted in a crime, or falsely ‘proves’ the innocence of somebody who is not in fact innocent, intercept evidence is limited in its scope and as such should not be admissible in court.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11

While intercept evidence may well show links between people, it does not necessarily accurately show what they were doing. In this way, intercepts make good intelligence, but poor evidence. There is no guarantee that intercept evidence will ‘prove’ anything in court rather than simply creating unfounded implications which could actually serve to confuse, rather than clear, the case in question. Until intercept intelligence can prove itself reliable enough to be routinely used as genuine evidence – and it is unclear that it ever will [1] – it certainly should not become an established part of the wider legal system.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11

Countries which do not allow intercept evidence have created a contradictory, rather than transparent, set of legal boundaries.  Britain in particular seems to hold a paradoxical set of values in relation to intercept evidence. For example, British courts have allowed intercept material which has been lawfully obtained by foreign police forces. One notable example of this was the conviction of the Merseyside drugs squad chief Elmore Davies when it was discovered that he had a corrupt relationship with drug baron Curtis Warren [1] . The information which led to his conviction was collected on Dutch mobile phones by the Dutch police force, despite the fact that some of the conversations took place wholly within the UK. However this – bizarrely – was allowed as evidence in a British court [2] , despite the systematic rejection of intercept evidence in other cases. When a country seems to recognise and even capitalise on the potential of intercept evidence in some cases but simultaneously reject it in others, the result is inconsistent legal standards which damage accountability and transparency of the entire state.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11

Intercept evidence deals particularly well with cases of conspiracy and criminal gangs which have a widespread network.  Intercept evidence can be very useful for showing associations between groups of people [1] , which can be incredibly helpful in cases such as conspiracies to link people and events together. It can also expose inconsistencies or falsity in an individual’s alibi [2] or personal character if they deny contact with a certain party where intercept evidence proves that they had communicated [3] . However, under the status quo the defence lawyer may not be authorised to intercept evidence which would prove their client’s innocence [4] . Allowing such techniques would help to equalise the prosecution and defence; after all, the aim of court is not to blindly prosecute the defendant, but to ascertain whether he or she is in fact guilty before any prosecution occurs. Widening the array of tools which can be used by both prosecution and defence helps to encourage a wider view of the case and arrive at a more accurate verdict.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11  [4]  , accessed 30/08/11

More established forms of evidence – even those as sophisticated as DNA testing – also have their weaknesses. Following the death of British student Meredith Kercher, her supposed killer Amanda Knox was imprisoned after DNA evidence proved that Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon (a kitchen knife) while Meredith’s blood was on the blade [1] . However, an appeal has declared that the DNA evidence ‘was so small it should have been considered “inadmissible”’ [2] , and the original forensic team have been branded as incompetent [3] . This is an example of an extremely high-profile case which hinged a conviction on the use of ‘reliable’ DNA evidence, and may potentially be proved wrong – the appeal is currently ongoing. There is no evidence which is utterly, 100% certain; it is always open to interpretation. However, allowing intercept evidence in court gives another chance at finding out the truth. Given that intercept evidence would work in combination with expert cross-examination, there is no proof that intercept evidence cannot be as effective as any other form of evidence – or perhaps even more so.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11

As criminals and terrorists adapt to modern times, so should the law. If the principles of law are responsible for a failure to act which ultimately leads to criminals walking free and crimes being repeatedly committed, then the law has failed to serve the society it was built for [1] . The principles of law are meant to uphold justice [2] , but in this case they become an obstacle to it. Considering that the law in countries like Britain has already acknowledged intercept evidence as a tool in specific cases [3] , it cannot oppose the underlying principle of intercept evidence – rather, the practicalities. This undermines the opposition’s argument that intercept evidence is fundamentally out of joint with legal practice. Problematic practicalities will be better regulated [4] [5] and monitored if this motion is granted, but until then we risk allowing crime to go unhindered because of an imaginary obligation to the past.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  ,, accessed 30/08/11  [4] Regulations in American states:  , accessed 30/08/11  [5] Regulation of wiretapping in Australia:  , accessed 30/08/11

Wiretapping can actually threaten the success of intelligence services in preventing crime and helping to prove criminals guilty.  Regular use of wiretap and intercept evidence poses a danger to the evidence-gathering capabilities of intelligence agencies. There are concerns among experts that terrorists, far from being apprehended, will simply learn new techniques for ‘listening in to calls made over the internet’ [1] and know exactly who and what the intelligence services are monitoring. In this way, they could actually evade intelligence services and the police by using different forms of communication, such as encrypting messages or using disposable mobile phones. Revealing the capabilities of our intelligence agencies could create harms which far outweigh any potential benefits of intercept evidence [2] . This makes intercept evidence self-negating; if it is used, the very revelation of its use will alert criminals to it and make it vulnerable to manipulation and tampering – therefore, the evidence actually becomes less reliable and less effective [3] . Ultimately, it does not provide a tangible benefit.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11

Common authorisation for wiretapping would result in misallocation of resources.  Wiretaps are not only unreliable, but incredibly expensive [1] [2] . Intelligence agents also often find themselves inadvertently listening in on ‘irrelevant, non-incriminating aspects of the target’s life’ [3] which not only breaches the privacy of innocent people but is an obvious waste of time and money for all involved. Given that many countries are considering or have cut their funding for police forces because of the recession [4] [5] [6] , this money could be put to a better use: preventing crime and terrorist activity by a stronger police presence.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11  [4] In the UK:  , accessed 30/08/11  [5] In the USA:  , accessed 30/08/11  [6] In New Zealand:  , accessed 30/08/11

Intercept evidence is simply not reliable enough to be effective evidence in court.  Wiretap evidence is not as reliable as other forms of evidence which we currently have at our disposal, such as DNA evidence which has ‘sent thousands of people to prison and . . . has played a vital role in exonerating men who were falsely convicted’ [1] . Many potential aspects of intercept evidence lack this reliability. Voice analysis, for example, has been shown to be unreliable in exploring messages supposedly spoken by Osama Bin Laden [2] . Video intercept evidence notably failed when a video which purported to show Morgan Tsvangirai (the Zimbabwean opposition leader) conspiring against the government, when in fact he was somewhere else at the time [3] . The poor quality of intercept evidence is a threat within an individual trial, but also more widely; reliance on intercept evidence by prosecutors might lead to more cases collapsing after the evidence is proved unreliable, and wasting time and money for all involved.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11

The controversy which surrounds intercept evidence is far-reaching and very complex.  This debate is not contained within the courtroom but also spans wider principles of legal justice and the rules which uphold democratic law. Even countries which currently allow this evidence, such as certain US states [1] , have noted that it can be difficult to use successfully and without violating past Acts and wider legal principles [2] . Bodies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ argue that revealing the ‘evidence’ necessitates revealing how that evidence was garnered; as such, intercept evidence can compromise the security status of intelligence services and their techniques [3] . This kind of method should be reserved, if used at all, for singular, extreme cases such as terrorist activity where all other possibilities for collecting evidence have truly been exhausted. Finally, wiretapping and intercept evidence has been criticised or deemed illegitimate by many legal professionals [4] [5] . For this kind of evidence to be admissible in court, it needs to follow legal principles which have already been set up. There is little evidence that it can do so.  [1]  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11  [4]  , accessed 30/08/11  [5]  , accessed 30/08/11

If wiretapping and intercept evidence can stop large-scale conspiracies [1] and potentially stop terrorist actions [2] , as it has done and has the potential to do, then price becomes irrelevant. The price of preventing perhaps hundred of people from being harmed in terrorist action should and will always outweigh a financial argument. Wiretapping could in fact lift the burden on over-stretched police forces as they do not have to physically apprehend criminals to attain evidence of their guilt. Wiretapping and intercept evidence is a step towards greater efficiency in our justice system.  [1]  ,, accessed 30/08/11  [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05249.pdf , accessed 30/08/11

This argument is made irrelevant by the fact that the UK and other jurisdictions have rules of evidence which prevent the release of sensitive information from intelligence services [1] . There is no reason why playing a few minutes of recorded conversation in a courtroom automatically means that criminals and terrorists know the exact mechanisms used to record that information. Furthermore, if a trial is being held anyway, then the suspects involved already know that they have been monitored by intelligence services – otherwise they would not have been brought to trial. Similarly, high-risk terrorist cells already protect their communication by using things like encrypted messages [2] and disposable mobile phones [3] . Dangerous criminals and terrorists are already one step ahead of our current justice system; implementing this motion is the only way to have a genuine chance at apprehending them.  [1] The Official Secrets Act of 1989:  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11

Via legal precedent, [1] Habeas Corpus protections extend to foreign nationals detained in the US. Furthermore, to focus solely on the immigration status and purported guilt of suspected terrorists ignore the fact that Habeas Corpus exists to protect us all. Eliminating the rights for “bad people” necessarily eliminates them for the innocent as well.  [1] Supreme Court of the United States, Boumediene v Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008),

Enemy combatants are not US citizens and as such they should not enjoy any protection which a US citizen enjoys under the Constitution.  Unlawful enemy combatants are not US citizens. The only connection they have to the US is the desire to destroy it. As such, they do not fall within the group of people the Constitution is intended to protect. [1]  [1] BBC News, ‘Guantanamo appeal denied’, 12 March 2003,

The current war on terror is not comparable to past wars during which Habeas Corpus was suspended. Both the Civil War and World War II were openly declared wars of limited duration following invasions by hostile forces. The “war on terror” is nebulous and open-ended. In any case, history has harshly judged arbitrary detentions during wartime. Lincoln’s Civil War detentions and Roosevelt’s Japanese internment camps of the 1940s are embarrassing chapters in US national history. The fact that former presidents improperly suspended Habeas Corpus is all the more reason to exercise caution now. Additionally, the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the UK in 1971 arguably strengthened the cause of the IRA, and made it easier for the organisation to recruit members. Western governments should be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past

Restricting Habeas Corpus is necessary in the face of the new and dangerous threat which modern terrorism poses.  Restricting suspected terrorists’ rights to challenge their detention is necessary to ensure that that individual cannot participate in future terrorist activities. The attacks of September 11th constituted a catastrophic and unprecedented attack on US soil, and the measures undertaken by the US at Guantanamo Bay, in holding many terrorist suspects without trial, are necessary to prevent future attacks of that nature. Terror suspects still have recourse to military tribunals, which contain many of the same safeguards as the federal court system

There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.

Habeas Corpus has often been suspended in times of conflict, when it has been deemed necessary.  There is a longstanding tradition of suspending Habeas Corpus protections during times of war and conflict. For example, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. [1] Habeas Corpus was also suspended briefly in the Hawaii during World War II, immediately after the attacks on Pearl Harbour. [2] In the UK, Habeas Corpus was suspended in 1794, after the French declared war on Britain, [3] and in 1817, [4] in order to arrest parliamentary reformers. In 1971 Habeas Corpus was again suspended in the UK in order that IRA suspects could be arrested and detained. [5] 9/11 and other Al Qaeda plots require that Western countries respond in just as determined a way. The war on terror may not follow the rules of traditional warfare, but it is a war nonetheless. These precedents show that, in certain circumstances, the suspension of Habeas Corpus is both necessary and justified.  [1] Lincoln, Abraham, ‘Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus’, teachingamericanhistory.org, 24 September 1862,   [2] Anthony, J. Garner, Hawaii under Army Rule, Stanford University Press, p.5,   [3] Holmberg, Tom, ‘Great Britain: Suspension of Habeas Corpus. 7 May 1794’, The Napoleon Series, July 2002,   [4] ‘Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill’, Hansard, 24 June 1817, vol.36, cc1145-55,   [5] Wilkinson, Paul, Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2006, p.82,

The hatred that terrorists feel for the US and its Allies does not depend on details of their respective legal systems. Their hate stems from our success in building a tolerant, democratic society at odds with their narrow vision of harsh conformity. Their propaganda seeks to radicalise young Muslims across the world not by arcane appeals to Habeas Corpus, but by twisted portrayals of Allied military actions against civilians in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. If the prisoners currently held without trial in Guantanamo Bay were released, they could untold damage to the US and its Allies. The risk of this occurring clearly outweighs the ethical issues concerning the suspension of Habeas Corpus protections.

Global terrorism calls for aggressive responses. We cannot allow our respective nations to be besieged by terrorists while we stand aside and do nothing. Our enemies are well aware of the legal framework in which the US authorities and their Allies operate, and will exploit it wherever possible. Constitutional freedoms are extremely important, but the security and continued existence of our nations must come first. The US and its Allies must make a stand and demonstrate that terrorism will not be tolerated.

Disregarding Habeas Corpus protections sets a dangerous precedent for the treatment of the soldiers and citizens of the US and its Allies when captured by foreign forces.  If the US disregards Habeas Corpus protections, it sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow. If other countries follow suit, the citizens and soldiers of the US and its Allies abroad could also be indefinitely detained and denied legal recourse if captured by foreign forces. This is especially relevant when considering journalists covering foreign conflicts, such as those currently occurring in the Middle East. [1]  [1] Staff reports, ‘USA TODAY writer, 3 other journalists captured in Libya’, USA Today, 8 April 2011,

Suspending Habeas Corpus makes it easier for terrorist organisations to demonise the US and its Allies, and thus to recruit more terrorists in its fight against the West.  By suspending Habeas Corpus, the US is playing into the hands of terrorists and creating more would-be terrorists for the future. Enemies of the West aim to demonstrate that the US is an oppressive state in order to make its model less attractive to others. In particular, they wish to show that America is at war with Muslims in order to radicalise young Muslims both at home and overseas. The US should take heed of the precedent in Northern Ireland, where widespread internment without trial radicalised many Catholic youths in the 1970s and drove them into the arms of the IRA.

Suspending Habeas Corpus undermines the moral high ground of the US and its Allies, and strengthens the cause of the terrorists which these nations are fighting against.  Restrictions on Habeas Corpus undermine the war against terror and put national security further at risk. Giving terrorist suspects the protection of Habeas Corpus legitimises the war against terror by ensuring that US actions against suspected terrorists have a legal basis, and are not in contravention of the rule of law. The moment that the US and its Allies show the rule of law the disrespect that typifies the regimes which the West seeks to overthrow, the fight for ‘hearts and minds’ will be lost. This effect can easily be seen in the results of the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the UK in order to arrest suspected IRA activists in 1971 – rather than suppressing the IRA as intended it increased support for the terrorist organisation. [1]  [1] Wilkinson, Paul, Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2006, p.82,

The necessity of the measures, and the size of the terrorist threat which faces the US, outweighs the possible problems posed in the opposition argument.

Even the best Truth and Reconciliation process can only arrive at a partial version of the truth. This may take so many years that political development is halted while society relives the trauma through commission proceedings.  Truth and reconciliation commissions also impose a particular form of morality upon both their participants and the post conflict society they serve. This moral perspective draws upon specifically Christian traditions of confession, absolution and forgiveness that may be alien to victims and perpetrators alike. Even in an almost completely Christian South Africa, many victims' families rejected the process for this reason; it is even less well suited to other societies and cultures.  It is no coincidence that the truth and reconciliation process is so heavily promoted by European and American think tanks, government and NGOs. It fits into a decidedly Christian niche and presents western donors and aid givers with an image of progress that they can understand an easily approve of. However, without closer ties to the cultural contexts in which past political violence took place, reconciliation commissions run the risk of obstructing political and social reform in the very societies that they are intended to protect.

Truth and reconciliation are more important than retribution following violent and long term conflicts  It is important to uncover the real truth of what happened during periods of violence and/or repression. Uncertainty as to the fate of loved ones, the identity of informants or the motives for certain actions can maintain the grip of a conflict over the minds of its victims for many years [i] . The unreason and capriciousness of certain actions can undermine an individual’s identity and capacity to trust. A victory is supposed to bring rapprochement, reason and stability to a conflict zone – but it is unable to have this effect on individuals without some method of rationalising a conflict [ii] .  This result can only ever be achieved with the cooperation of those responsible; the individuals who had access to relevant documents or even participated in violent acts [iii] . Without this collective revelation of grief and guilt, the families of the victims will never know the truth about their suffering, and so will not be able to mourn them with dignity. The nation must also confront its past so that those who did not commit violence themselves, but who supported violent groups or repressive regimes, even if only passively, can no longer claim, "I did not know" but must acknowledge their part too and commit themselves to building a better society.  [i] National Healing and Reconciliation in Zimbabwe: Challenges and Opportunities. P 9. 2010, Pamela Machakanja.   [ii] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volume one. pp 1, 54-58. 1998, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa.   [iii] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volume one. pp 142-143. 1998, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa.

The reconciliation process provides access to justice in post conflict states  Countries emerging from violent pasts, involving repression, civil war and political violence may attempt to come to terms with their histories in three ways.  Firstly, they can attempt to ignore the past, allowing those guilty of atrocities to go unpunished and perhaps even prosper under the new system. This approach leaves victims' families bitter and communities divided, entrenching resentments and potentially distorted accounts of individuals’ involvement in violent activities. Such a situation makes renewed violence all the more likely.  Secondly, post conflict states can set up war crimes courts (as in the Balkans, Rwanda and Sierra Leone), but these may be seen as victor's justice, or as an imposition by a distant opaque international body. Those threatened by such courts may refuse to lay down their arms, jeopardising any chance of a lasting peace settlement - as with Joseph Kony's long-running rebellion in Northern Uganda.  Finally and often best, they can set up a form of Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This requires the whole country to face up to its past, to acknowledge that violence was done by all parties and that the victims were many, and to seek reconciliation through forgiveness at both personal and national levels.

Terrible crimes deserve appropriate punishments. Ignoring the past may not be a good idea, but war criminals (especially the leaders of violent groups) should be brought to justice in public trials.  This approach is the only way to ensure that dangerous men are not allowed to continue to act in and influence vulnerable societies. Such individuals are often opportunistic, using periods of peace to re-arm and refresh political sympathies, before resuming campaigns of violence. Indeed, the notorious Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony took advantage of peace negotiations initiated in early 2008 to rearm his followers and to forcibly recruit child soldiers for communities in south Sudan and Congo [i] .  Adversarial justice also allows punishment to be proportionate, distinguishing between individuals who planned violence and repression, and those who followed their orders, rather than granting all the same amnesty.  Most importantly, treating communal and political violence as a crime sends a message to other would-be warlords and dictators, both at home and abroad, that justice will not be denied; the easy assumption of amnesties will only encourage future violence.  [i] “Lord’s Resistance Army uses truce to rearm and spread fear in Uganda”, The Times, 16 December 2008.

Financial compensation was only part of the South African Commission's work. Although it has been slow to arrive it is continuing to be distributed. More will be done over time, and the impact of reconciliation on polls is also a long-term process.  The economies of states recovering from war and dictatorship are typically unproductive and undeveloped, so it is unreasonable to expect immediate results in this area. Lengthy war crimes trials deal with only a fraction of the abuses committed, and typically cost tens of millions of dollars (mostly in legal costs, mostly obtained from foreign donors) more than a Truth and Reconciliation process, so they are even harder to justify.

A Truth and Reconciliation process provides a national forum for facing up to the past. It places responsibility for resolving the tensions latent in post conflict scenarios in the hands of the parties to that conflict [i] . The ICC, by contrast, represents an international intrusion into the moral discourses of post conflict societies.  War crimes tribunals for the Balkans and Rwanda have taken years to achieve a very small number of convictions. They can often appear to have been hijacked by international bodies such as NATO or the UN, in an attempt to impose a solution from outside (to salve consciences in the west) without providing a real understanding of the particular circumstances of the individual nation.  [i] “The voice of ‘Prime Evil’”, BBC News Online, 28 October 1998.

Reconciliation can be used to conceal political corruption and patrimony  Truth and Reconciliation commissions are a mask, behind which political bargains can be made that allow the guilty to go free [i] . Power is traded in return for amnesty. People may be required to confess to their crimes (although in South Africa middle-ranking bureaucrats were the main scapegoats, while their political masters mostly escaped close scrutiny), but they will not be punished for them [ii] .  South Africa is a unique exception to the rule that reconciliation commissions do nothing more than legitimatise dealings between equally dubious and unaccountable elites where violence was often committed by agents of the state for purely political reasons, and where the end of repression was negotiated rather than brought about through victory for one side. Elsewhere political and criminal or economic violence are hard to separate (e.g. Sierra Leone, Cambodia), and violence was ended by victory for one party, often with external help (e.g. Sierra Leone, Cambodia, again, but also Rwanda).  [i] “’I cannot betray Kony’ – Museveni”, The Daily Monitor, 16 August 2006,   [ii] Apartheid did not die. 1998, John Pilger, johnpilger.com.

The South African reconciliation commission has proven itself to be ineffective  Frequently cited as the most successful post conflict restorative justice programme in recent history, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process has failed in a number of ways.  Polls show that different races are more polarised after its work, rather than less [i] , so reconciliation seems to be failing [ii] . As the journalist Peter Storey comments, “some have decried the absence of repentance in many amnesty applications [made to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission]. Apart from the fact that this is a further damning judgment on perpetrators, the legislation does not require repentance, only the truth.”  Storey notes that “The issue of amnesty has been… controversial. Some victims’ families challenged these provisions in South Africa’s highest court[s].” [iii]  The South African Reconciliation Commission also promised financial redress for victims and their families, but this has largely failed to appear.  [i] Ubu and the Truth Commission. Director’s note. 2007, Jane Taylor, University of Cape Town press  [ii] “Antonette’s story”, BBC News Online, 29 October 1998.   [iii] “A Different Kind of Justice: Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa”, The Christian Century, 10 September 1997.

International and inter-governmental bodies are better able to secure justice for the victims of war crimes  The United Nations, the ICC and other international bodies have great experience and expertise in dealing with post-conflict situations, including running war crimes trials. They can draw upon the lessons to be learnt from other countries and apply them in partnership with local politicians and lawyers.  The involvement of inter-governmental bodies is important because conflicts are rarely entirely domestic, often spilling over into neighbouring states, as in the Balkans, South-East Asia and West Africa. International courts can also avoid the suspicion of bias and corruption which an entirely national process can suffer.  Post conflict societies are often lack a stable professional class. Access and cooperation with lawyers, clergy and academics is often necessary to ensure that a reconciliation commission can run effectively and can verify the testimony that it hears. The international community can provide skilled individuals of this type.

Compromise is essential to achieving peace and stability after years of conflict. This often has to be negotiated, as in South Africa, and has to survive for long enough for trust to grow. A Truth and Reconciliation process allows for such compromises to be made, favouring no side over another and helping a move to peaceful democratic politics. It does not seek retributive justice but restorative justice, which gives value to the victims of conflict and requires their oppressors to address their sufferings.  The amnesties offered by truth and reconciliation commissions are not easily obtained, but have to be applied for individually, through a complete and truthful disclosure of past crimes. If information is withheld, or the crimes are found not to be politically motivated, then prosecution and punishment are still possible.

There is a fundamental difference between someone’s actions directly resulting in another person’s death and the case of bullying. In the case of manslaughter, the victim never had a choice. The perpetrator is solely responsible for what happened. But some victims of bullying take a decision to kill themselves, while others do not. The bully cannot be held responsible for someone else’s decision and action, only for her own.

The bully's intentions are irrelevant  In criminal law, the establishment of culpability does not always depend on the intentions of the perpetrator. If, during a fight on a train platform, I shove someone and that person falls on the tracks and is killed by a train, I will be guilty of manslaughter, whether I intended to kill the person or not, because the harm caused by my actions is so great [1] . The same applies to bullying. Bullies try to hurt their victims through their actions, either physically or psychologically. Whether the bully intended for the victim to die or not, is irrelevant. The bully’s actions were responsible for the victim taking her own life.  [1] Ashworth, Andrew. Principles of Criminal Law, Chapter 7.5. Oxford University Press. 2009.

We should always focus on stopping the behaviour before it escalates to the point of the victim’s suicide. Bullies should be held to account early on. We shouldn’t wait until someone dies before they are punished. If victims know there will be early intervention, they will be far less likely to even consider suicide. If they know the bullies won’t be punished until after their death, it might even encourage some distraught victims to kill themselves in the hope of exact vengeance on their tormenters. Early intervention is a much better outcome for everyone.

The law should always punish actions that inflict serious harm - whether physical or psychological  Bullying can inflict serious psychological harm on its victims, especially in the case of young people. It leads to low self-esteem, depression, and for some kids it leads to suicide [1] . Bullied children are almost 6 times more likely to think about or attempt suicide [2] . This phenomenon has been termed ‘bullycide’ and the law should recognize it. Many forms of behaviour that result in the death of another person are criminal, from murder to negligence. It is the duty of the law to brand such behaviour as unacceptable, deter future incidents, punish the perpetrators, and offer comfort to victims: in this case, the families of those who lost their life to bullying.  [1] O'Moore, Mona, “Understanding School Bullying: A Guide for Parents &amp; Teachers”, Veritas, 1, Dublin, 2010  [2] Kim YS, Leventhal BL, Koh YJ, Boyce WT “Bullying Increased Suicide Risk: Prospective Study of Korean Adolescents”. Arch Suicide Res. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp15-30. 2009.

The law should only punish people for their own actions, not those of others. It’s fine to punish bullies for their bullying behaviour, if it is against the law. But ‘bullycide’ implies the bully bears individual responsibility for the death of the victim, just like in the case of murder or manslaughter. But the bully did not pull the trigger, the victim did. While the bully may have intended to harm or berate the victim, she made no attempt on the victim’s life, and cannot be treated like a murderer, who intentionally took the life of another.

The laws are inadequate because it is very hard to define bullying. Almost any act or gesture can constitute bullying depending the victim’s subjective experience of it. Criminalizing bullying would lead to criminalizing behaviour that would be considered normal by most standards.

The damage wrought by bullying is cumulative  Bullying is truly dangerous when it becomes persistent. Any one incident of it, while unpleasant, may be entirely tolerable for the victim. But being unrelentingly subjected to this treatment for months on end can make life truly unbearable and lead that person to suicide. In the case of Phoebe Prince, an Irish immigrant who was bullied at her US high school, she was called expletives, threatened, and even hit with a beverage container before she finally took her life [1] . She may have survived any one of those taunts, but it was their cumulative effect that was too much to bear. Conversely, punishing her bullies for any one act will fail to acknowledge the much greater extent of the overall harm. A different, special offence is needed to recognize the magnified level of harm caused by bullying.  [1] Eckholm, Eric; Zezima, Katie. “Documents Detail a Girl’s Final Days of Bullying”. The New York Times. April 8, 2010.

The current legal regime is not able to prevent or adequately punish bullying  Even when bullies are sometimes prosecuted, they are charged with offences that constitute individual components of the bullying behaviour, like harassment, stalking, causing bodily harm [1] , or invasion of privacy [2] . But these offences were not designed with bullying in mind and fail to capture its overall impact and the harm it causes. While bullies may be charged with several of these offenses this will still not capture the kind of harm being done and would not be as effective as a specifically tailored offense. We need laws that recognize that harm and which punish those who inflict it adequately.  [1] Eckholm, Erick. “Two Students Plead Guilty in Bullying of Teenager.” The New York Times. May 4, 2011.   [2] Foderaro, Lisa W. “Private Moment Made Public. Then a fatal Jump.” The New York Times. September 29. 2010.

Of course there will always be ambiguous cases. That is why we have trials, and rights for the defendant. The weight of the evidence presented in court should establish what degree of culpability, if any, the bullies had. If the prosecution does not have a solid case to present, it may even choose not to prosecute. But the law should be in place for those cases where it is needed.

Under this law, bullies would be held accountable for their own actions, not those of the victim. The law wouldn’t have to equate them with murderers, punish them as harshly, or suggest they bear sole and full responsibility for the victim’s death. But it would make it clear they bear some responsibility for the outcome, and that they should be punished for their role. If they are children, they can be prosecuted as juvenile offenders and given less harsh punishments, like community service.

Conduct offence  Defining bullying would be nearly impossible. Spreading rumours, giving someone the silent treatment, inviting all your classmates but one to a party, expressing a religious belief about someone’s sexuality, eye rolling, making faces, these can all be hurtful and perceived as bullying [1] . Yet this is perfectly legal behaviour. Criminalizing bullying would amount to criminalizing these acts. They may be offensive, they may even be hurtful, but these gestures should never, ever constitute criminal behaviour in any society that is concerned with human rights, freedom of speech, and of expression. Throwing someone in prison for spreading rumours or eye rolls might be worthy of a totalitarian state, but not a liberal democracy.  [1] Bolton, José, and Stan Graeve. No Room for Bullies: from the Classroom to Cyberspace. Boys Town Press. 2005.

Bullys are frequently as disturbed and victimised as those they target  According to studies, bullies are often children who are plagued by their own problems: a troubled family situation, feeling of inadequacy, depression, or pressure to fit in [1] . Their bullying behaviour might just be a coping mechanism and a cry for help. These children might need as much support and care as those they bully. Putting them through the harrowing experience of a criminal trial, and potentially throwing them in prison will further damage them. Destroying one young life as retribution for another is a model of justice that should find no place in a compassionate society.  [1] Carroll, Linda. ”Kids with ADHD may be more likely to bully”. MSNBC. 29 January 2008.

Making bullying a legal issues does not incentivise robust enforcement of anti bullying rules by schools  Schools are educational establishments that parents trust to protect and educate their children. Teachers and school administrators are those who should be keeping a watchful eye on the students in their care and intervene before harm comes to them. If bullying occurs at school, then that school has failed in its duties. In fact, in cases where suicides occurred, it has often later come to light that a bullying culture was widely tolerated at the school, and that school staff that knew about it did nothing to prevent it, with tragic results [1] . To prosecute the bullies would shift responsibility from the woeful failure of the adults around them, who should have known better and done more than the children in their care.  [1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 1”. Slate. July 20. 2010.

It is difficult to make a direct, legally sound link between a bully's behaviour and a victim's suicide  Many of the children and adolescents who take their own lives allegedly as a result of bullying have a far more complicated background. Some already struggle with depression, and have unstable family situations that make it hard to turn to their parents for help with their problems. Phoebe Prince, for example, was taking anti-depressants, was devastated by her parents’ divorce, was self harming, and had already attempted suicide after a break up. And that was long before she was allegedly bullied to death [1] . She was a very troubled young woman, and anything could have pushed her over the edge. It would be hard to find the bullies criminally responsible for her death.  [1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 2”. Slate. July 20. 2010.

Bullies are often children, most of them in their teens. However, they are at an age where they do know right from wrong and can, therefore, be held accountable for their actions. Neither their young age nor their own suffering can justify bearing responsibility for someone else’s death. Most criminal justice systems recognize that children are liable for their behaviour, by allowing children as young as 10, in the UK for example, to be charged with criminal offences. Their age and personal situation can, nevertheless, be taken into account in deciding what punishment they should receive (prison, community service, a fine, etc.). And there is no reason why rehabilitation and education cannot be part, or even the focus, of that punishment.

Individuals should only be held responsible for the consequences of their own actions  In any free and democratic society, criminal law should only hold people accountable for the things they do, not for the actions of others. We are all autonomous, moral agents who make decisions and have to live with their consequences and the consequences of our actions. While it might be justified to punish bullies for their bullying behavior, if it breaks the law, we cannot hold them accountable for another person’s decision to commit suicide.

Prosecutions of bullies responsible for suicides, and improved safety in schools are not mutually exclusive goals. Programmes need to be set up that stop bullying early on, give victims support, and people to turn to when they are in need. Schools and their administrators can and should also be held accountable to their boards, and the community. But in those cases where tragedies still happen in spite of such measures, the culprits should be held to account.

We criminalize behaviour when it is truly harmful. Especially when it is so harmful that it leads to someone losing her life. Eye rolling and gossip are not harmful enough to be criminal offences. Nor would they be under this law. What would become a criminal offence would be the sustained and prolonged torment of another person to the point of pushing her to committing suicide, whatever forms that torment takes, whether it’s gay slurs, or physical threats and insults. It has also long been established that there are limits to the freedom of speech or expression we enjoy, if that can result in the direct harm of others. For example, we don’t allow people to incite violence against others.

Market mechanisms are inappropriate for the exchange of some goods, such as children, medically needed bodily substances or organs, and sex. These are precious goods, and we should not allow citizens to alienate these goods for payment. Instead, the terms of alienation should protect the critical interests of all involved.  While sexual relationships serve legitimate needs, it does not follow that we should be able to purchase them. Having children serves legitimate needs, but we do not think that people should be able to buy children. Buying sex robs the provider of dignity and the right to sexual autonomy. Moreover, people are not entitled to some goods simply because they have money. If we allow money to determine who can have children, donated organs, or sexual intimacy, then this will lead to unfair distributions. Market mechanisms may eclipse other forms of exchange, and deprive those without significant wealth of the means to happiness.

Markets in sexual services can serve legitimate needs  While many societies have attempted to restrict sex to marriage, few (if any) have succeeded. In contemporary, secular liberal societies, adults are no longer punished for pursuing sex outside of marriage. Many adults find non-marital sex satisfying, healthy, and fulfilling, whether it occurs in the context of an ongoing romantic relationship, a casual friendship, or a market exchange. While many people will never seek the services of a sex worker, those who do are often seeking sensual comfort, companionship, entertainment, and fantasy fulfilment. While the latter goods are often obtainable in non-market relationships, some people prefer the convenience and efficiency of market mechanisms for securing these goods.  In a liberal society, individuals are free to pursue their own vision of happiness, as long as they respect the moral and civil rights of others. Markets that provide sexual services enable some individuals to secure goods essential to their happiness. Those who provide services to these individuals can do so in a manner that respects their rights and dignity, if the markets are legal and well regulated.

No person would sell sex unless they were desperate. To have sex with someone for reasons other than sexual attraction, desire, and affection is repulsive to any sane and mentally competent adult.  People who sell sex are not exercising sexual autonomy, but are giving up their right to sexual autonomy in order to support themselves and their families. Instead of legalizing sex markets, societies should provide other means of employment and a basic standard of living to all members, so that no one has to resort to prostitution to survive.

Legalization would free up resources that could be devoted to eliminating sex trafficking  Some markets in sex should be blocked. Markets that involve child labor, forced labor or sex, and forced migration and detention, should be stopped and those who organize and profit from such markets should be prosecuted. As with any service, it is critically important that no one is forced to work or to continue working, either through the threat of harm or through fraud and deception. It is also critically important that children are protected from sexual predators, and are excluded from all aspects of sex businesses. Forced labor and child sexual abuse involve violations of basic human rights that all societies are expected to protect.  Voluntary, adult sex work is significantly different from trafficking, and law enforcers need to distinguish market exchanges involving consensual sex among adults from market exchanges involving forced sex among adults or involving minors. By legalizing voluntary, adult sex work, law enforcers and rights protectors could focus their efforts on eliminating markets that involve the sexual abuse of adults or children. Additionally, clients of sex business would have the choice of patronizing legal business, and therefore would be less likely to patronize inadvertently a business that relies on forced or child labor.

Prohibition does more harm than good  Criminalizing the acts of selling and buying sexual services does not protect those who sell or buy such services, but rather pushes these activities underground. While market exchanges of sexual services involve some risk-taking, the risks are increased and compounded when such markets are prohibited. When selling and buying sex is illegal, those participating in these exchanges cannot, or simply do not, seek the protection of the law when their rights are violated. Because crimes against sex workers or their clients are often unreported, and when reported often not investigated, predators and rights violators can take advantage of others without fear of arrest and punishment. Moreover, because criminalization forces sex work into remote and invisible corners of society, sellers and buyers are less able to insure their safety and protection. For these reasons, laws criminalizing sex markets amplify the risks sellers and buyers face when they participate in sex market transactions.  The main purpose of criminalizing sex markets is to protect those who enter such markets from harm. Yet the harms of paying or accepting money for a good that can be legally exchanged for free are far less than the harms that result from the rights violations that often occur (robbery, battery, sexual assault, murder) when sex markets are pushed underground.

The fact that prohibition cannot prevent prostitution is not an argument against prohibition. We have laws prohibiting murder, and yet murders happen. Our laws deter some murders and they express our society’s moral outrage regarding murder.  Similarly, laws prohibiting prostitution deter some prostitution and express our society’s moral condemnation of sex for hire. These laws do not create harms, rather prostitution itself creates harms, by robbing those who participate of self-respect, and contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. It is inevitable that laws prohibiting prostitution will make it riskier to engage in prostitution, as this is the purpose of such laws: to provide disincentives to those who might otherwise engage in this activity.

While some sex market transactions are more consensual than others, all sex markets treat people like objects to be used and exploited by others. Sex should not be turned into work or a business from which some people profit, even when the labor is allegedly voluntary.  Moreover, it is not evident that the proliferation of legal sex businesses would involve the proliferation of sex businesses that acted ethically and responsibly. If sex businesses could operate in a more lax and permissive environment, many abuses would go undetected. Because of the already noxious aspects of this industry, abuses such as fraud, deception, and coercion are intolerable.

Legalizing prostitution would unleash forces that exploit vulnerable women and men for profit. People with the means to buy sexual access to others would be able to exploit those who are poor, young, or inexperienced. By legalizing prostitution, society endorses impersonal and promiscuous sexual relations that damage individuals and families.  The resources we allocate to protect vulnerable citizens from sexual exploitation, and to uphold the values of sexual commitment, loyalty, and responsibility, are well spent, and the foundation of a healthy social order.

Markets in sexual services can respect sexual autonomy  Sexual autonomy means being able to control when, where, and with whom one has sexual relations. It also means that, at any moment, one may withdraw from a sexual relationship or encounter.  Spouses, lovers, and also strangers have the right to sexual autonomy. If an adult chooses to engage in sex with other adults who offer material benefits, her right to sexual autonomy is respected as long as she has control over when, where, and with which clients she has sexual relations, and as long as she is mentally competent and is allowed to terminate the agreement at any time.  If markets in sex were to become legal, the rights of providers (and clients) to sexual autonomy would need to be respected. This means that sex workers would maintain the right to refuse service to any customer, and to discontinue service or employment at any time and for any reason. Like other workers, sexual service providers would have the right to a safe and healthy work place. Workers who are drug dependent, or otherwise incompetent or highly vulnerable in the work place, would need to be provided treatment and time off work until they were capable of protecting themselves and others.

Legalization has benefits for society  Removing criminal penalties from the sale or purchase of sexual services, and regulating sex markets so that they protect participants and non-involved third parties, would be socially beneficial. In particular, sex enterprises and businesses could be made safer for workers, clients, and the communities in which they operated. By allowing sex businesses to operate openly, providers, clients, and business owners can become law-abiding, productive citizens, who contribute to their communities. Sex businesses and workers would pay taxes, and other licensing fees. Business owners would be expected to comply with standard business laws and regulations. Moreover, the government could enact special regulations appropriate to this industry, such as age restrictions on workers and clients, and mandatory condom use.  The resources that are currently allocated to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate sex workers and clients could be reallocated for better uses. For example, these resources could be used to better address the sexual abuse of minors, sexual assault, substance abuse, mental health problems, and the many public and individual needs that go unmet.

In market sexual transactions, each party pursues the satisfaction of her/his desires. The service provider is typically pursuing her desire for income, while the client is typically pursuing his desire for sensual enjoyment and intimate companionship. As long as each party respects the terms of the exchange, they are treating each other as beings with ends of their own, and therefore morally.

Sex exchanged for money may not have the same value and meaning as sex exchanged as a gift among lovers. Yet, it does not follow from this that paid sex is without value. The value of paid sex is clearly subjective, and may be derived from its ability to provide sensual pleasure, sex education, and relief from stress, boredom, or loneliness. It may be less meaningful and enjoyable than sex with a romantic companion, but when the latter is not an option, paid sex may be an acceptable substitute. Since people have different expectations from paid sex than non-market romantic sex, they are not likely to suffer emotional and psychological damage from the former.  Individuals who are not in monogamous relationships, and who have multiple sexual partners must take special precautions to protect their physical health, whether money is exchanged or not. Sex work does not pose additional health risks that are not otherwise faced by sexually active but non-monogamous individuals. There are precautions that all sexually active people can take to protect their health, such as rigorous condom use and regular health exams. Moreover, societies can promote education about STDs and how they are transmitted and detected, so that all sexually active individuals can learn how protect themselves.  Markets in sex do not in themselves precipitate harms or pose a public health threat, rather ignorance about sex and STDs, and barriers to health care and prophylactics such as condoms, are responsible for the harms of sex.

Markets in sexual services undermine the values of commitment and loyalty  Sexual relationships involve crossing ordinary social boundaries that exist between people, and exposing aspects of ourselves that normally remain private. This aspect of sexual relationships renders the parties vulnerable emotionally and socially, and therefore sexual partners often extract commitments from each other of sexual fidelity and exclusivity. These commitments allow people to engage in sexual relationships while treating each other with decency and respect.  Markets are public and involve exchanges among strangers. In markets, goods are exchanged with the highest bidders and not with those to whom we are committed and loyal. For this reason, markets in sex undermine the ideals of sexual commitment, loyalty, or exclusivity, which makes decent and respectful sexual relationships possible. Markets are for exchanging shoes and cars, or services that we can separate from ourselves without leaving us emotionally and socially vulnerable or exposed. Sexual relationships require commitments of fidelity and exclusivity so we don’t lose part of ourselves in the exchange.

Markets in sex would corrupt non-market sexual relations, turning women and girls into commodities  Markets in sex are shaped by values that differ from non-market sexual relationships. Market sexual transactions are not structured by the ideals of fidelity and exclusivity between social intimates, but rather by the ends of profit maximization and mutual benefit among strangers. The goods exchanged in a market are interchangeable with other goods, in ways that maximize profit and mutual benefit. When these goods include sexual services, the sexual services of one provider will be interchangeable with those of another.  The position of seller or buyer in a particular market is often determined by one’s gender, class, race, and nationality. In sex markets, sellers are typically female, and buyers are typically male. Race, class, and other social hierarchies also shape one’s position in a sex market. Because the sellers in sex markets are often people who are disadvantaged by their gender, class, race, or nationality, the existence of markets in their sexual services will promote the idea that the sexual capacities of women (and other disadvantaged groups) are goods that are interchangeable and exploitable. The idea that the sexual capacities of women (and girls) can be accessed as market goods or commodities will shape attitudes toward women and girls who do not enter sex markets as providers. In this way, the values that structure markets in sex will spill over into non-market sexual relationships, and lead men to regard women as replaceable goods rather than unique human subjects.

Moral sex requires more than informed consent, and society should uphold moral values  Moral sex requires treating others not merely as a means to our own ends, but as beings with ends of their own. This means that we are morally required to consider the needs of our sexual partners and not only our own selfish desires. In market sexual transactions, the client merely pursues the satisfaction of his own desires, and therefore treats the service provider as a means to his own ends.  Because prostitution inevitably involves the instrumental and immoral treatment of others, toleration of prostitution involves the toleration of immoral behaviour. Society should uphold moral values by banning prostitution.

Prohibition prevents harm by substantially curtailing markets in sex  The good of sex when offered as a gift is not the same good when it is bartered. Taking or offering money cheapens and deforms the good of sexual intimacy, which when shared with many on the open market diminishes its value. Moreover, while the benefits of commoditized sex are questionable, the harms are significant. Those who engage in such exchanges diminish their capacity for genuine sexual intimacy, while damaging their physical, emotional, and mental health. Moreover, the harms of market sexual transactions often affect non-involved third parties, such as the spouses or lovers of sellers and buyers.  Because the harms of market sex are long lasting, though sometimes distant, it is appropriate for society to intervene to prevent these harms. Markets in sex pose a public health threat, just like markets in dangerous drugs. Prohibition will reduce the number of people who engage in market sexual transactions, and for those who do participate, there are ways to minimize violations of their rights.

Consumers can access the healing capacities of health care providers without coming to regard the people who provide health care as replaceable market goods rather than unique human subjects. Consumers can access the cooking talents of chefs without coming to regard the people who provide good food as replaceable goods rather than unique human subjects. Sex markets may differ in that the position of consumer and provider is often shaped by gender and other social markers. But if this is what causes the degradation of the provider into a replaceable and exploitable good, then what needs to change is how positions in this market are shaped by one’s social identity, rather than eliminating sex markets.  All markets are structured by social hierarchies. As illegitimate social hierarchies based on gender, race, class, and so on, are dismantled, then this will have beneficial effects on all markets and not just sex markets.

People who engage in market sexual relationships and other forms of casual sex can treat their partners with dignity and respect. This involves respecting the boundaries that sexual partners communicate to each other, regarding what parts of their lives and themselves they are willing to share. With different sexual partners we open up in different ways, and people who engage in casual, market sexual relationships might draw different emotional and sexual boundaries in these relationships than in others. While casual sexual relationships are unlikely to involve commitments of fidelity and exclusivity, they are compatible with the decent and respectful treatment of others if persons in these relationships respect their partners’ rights to privacy, autonomy, and other basic interests.

The overriding objective of the justice system is to ensure that the innocent go free, not that the guilty are punished, and the system should be orientated around that objective.  Ex post-facto confessions do not make someone ‘clearly guilty’ as false confessions can arise for a number of reasons, from boasting to an innocent misstatement.  It is also wrong to assume that new evidence is better evidence. The longer a trial takes place after a crime the less strong the evidence gets; memories get weaker, people go missing, evidence can be damaged etc. There is also the problem that in a re-trial any tactical advantage of ‘ambushing’ a witness in cross-examination is lost because they know that the ambush is coming. There are therefore a multitude of reasons why retrials are less likely to achieve convictions than a well prepared first trial.

Abolishment of double jeopardy would ensure the guilty do not escape punishment  The problem with the 'double jeopardy' rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evidence has emerged, because they've confessed - are not being punished for crimes they have committed. We believe that guilty people should be punished for their crime, and our justice system should be tailored to allow that. In 2009, a footballer in London confessed to murdering his ex-girlfriend at a re-trial after fresh evidence was found to overturn the original verdict1; under previous double jeopardy laws in Britain, the murderer would have remained free. We have as great a duty to ensure miscarriages of justice are not perpetrated on victims as on accused. An offence committed ten years ago does not cease to be an offence because time has passed, or because the perpetrator has managed to evade justice in the past. The criteria by which the decision to charge an individual is taken ought to be likelihood of guilt, not whether or not they have had a trial before. 1 BBC News a. (2009, May 21). Cleared man admits killing woman. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from BBC News:

Such restrictions on double jeopardy would not be effective in practice, for they attempt to put a value on the relative importance of crimes without using either the prospect of re-offending or the impact on victims. As QC Geoffrey Robertson noted in response to the Law Commission's finding, it is irrational to confine the possibility of re-trials to 'serious crimes' alone and exclude "repetitive, professional" crime like armed robbery. If the intention of the repeal is to bring both offenders to justice and prevent further crime, it is exactly the 'repetitive, professional' criminals who should be targeted.

The rules and laws that protect the accused will remain at retrial  All the rules and laws that protect the accused at the first trial will be in place at a second - it's not as if the rule of law suddenly disappears. The presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to a fair hearing and competent counsel, the judge's duty to appropriately direct the jury, etc. will all continue to apply and prevent miscarriages of justice from occurring. Nor is the system likely to be overwhelmed with retrials. Much of the current push for the end of the double jeopardy rule comes from the widespread use of DNA testing, which has allowed many old cases to be revisited with compelling new evidence of guilt or innocence. Mark Weston, for example, was convicted at a re-trial after specks of the victim's blood were found on Weston's shoes, justifying the re-opening of the case1. After a few years, the impact of DNA testing on solving similar cold cases will be expended and there will be very few retrials. 1 Bate, S. (2010, December 13). 'Loner' convicted of murder in double jeopardy re-trial. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The Guardian:

Juries will know this is a retrial – because evidence will have to be ‘read’ from the first trial where witnesses have died, because notes from ‘last time’ will be available to advocates and the accused, because the legal procedure of the last trial will be subject to discussion in this one. If a jury knows a case has been brought again, there will be a presumption that the accused is guilty because a higher court has already decided that the new evidence makes the acquitted defendant now look guilty after all, and so granted a retrial. The presumption of innocence will no longer exist. And unless the system is going to be overwhelmed with retrials like this, in which case it would be unworkable, then second trial capacity can only (and rightly) be directed towards ‘exceptional’ cases. Such cases are well known - like that of the murder of Stephen Lawrence 1. How could individuals face trial again on the same charges, when in the glare of media attention it has been declared they should have been convicted at the first trial? How could they possibly expect a fair trial?  1. Akwagyiram, A. (2008, April 22). The legacy of Stephen Lawrence. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:

Faith in the justice system is derived from it being been to be fair and even-handed. It is not merely faith on the part of victims that offenders will be found guilty, but faith on the part of innocent defendant that they will be found innocent.  The double jeopardy rule reinforces faith in the justice system because it forces the prosecution service to make the best possible case that they can – because they only get one shot to make it. It also means that defendants can feel secure in submitting themselves to trial on the basis that an acquittal represents complete security from future accusations.  Abolishing the double jeopardy rule would actually undermine confidence in the system – overturning an acquittal is an explicit statement that the system produces false negatives. If it becomes widely accepted that a not-guilty verdict is meaningless then the principle of the presumption of innocence loses its force.

Double jeopardy could be abolished by state legislatures for all serious crimes whereby fresh, compelling evidence emerges  The scrapping of the double jeopardy would be practicable if it was permitted for serious crimes, like murder and rape, and only when fresh, compelling evidence of guilt emerges that calls into question the original acquittal. Such restrictions on any scrapping of the rule would not tie up courts in re-trials, for they could only be called for certain crimes in certain, restricted conditions. The British Law Commission in a 2011 review concluded that whilst the ancient rule of double jeopardy is of 'fundamental importance', it should be possible to "quash acquittals in murder trials where there is 'reliable and compelling new evidence of guilt'". In practise, this would preserve the traditional advantages of the law, whilst ensuring that those who are guilty, and can be proved so, do not remain free.

Abolishment of the rule would restore faith in the justice system  When we see people still unpunished for offences in society they've clearly committed, it damages our faith in the justice system. Our bargain with the state entails the state's right to judge the individual because the state protects the individual: if our attackers roam the streets because an arbitrary legal rule exempts them from prosecution despite clear guilt, then that system has broken down. When Jennifer McDermott witnessed her daughter's murderer get convicted at a re-trial, she described it as a 'victory for everyone who feels let down by the justice system.'1 Victims deserve such justice and it is an insult to them, and all of us, to see their persecutors go free. As a Home Office spokesman stated when England overturned the double jeopardy ban, 'it is important the public should have full confidence in the ability of the criminal justice system to deliver justice.'1 Justice is only applicable when the perpetrators remain within the arm of the law; double jeopardy prevents this.  1 BBC News a. (2009, May 21). Cleared man admits killing woman. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from BBC News: 2 BBC News. (2005, April 3). Double jeopardy law ushered out. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:

Vast improvements in the technology of crime-solving have occurred in recent times to ensure that defendants brought to trial are done so appropriately. DNA testing, voice identification technology, facial mapping techniques that reveal faces beneath masks - all can now solve cases and show guilt in individuals whose escape from punishment occurred only because of a lack of satisfactory evidence. For example, In 1963 when Hanratty stood trial for the A6 murder (a gruesome offence where the abused victim was shot in her car and left to die on the motorway), semen stains on the victim's underwear could not be investigated using the technology of the day1. He was convicted anyway on the facts, but if he hadn't been, and thanks to advances in technology the sperm turns out later to be his (as it has), shouldn't we use that evidence to obtain justice for those concerned? Some evidence couldn't possibly have been used at the time of trial, because the technology doesn't exist. Looked at now, it could demonstrate conclusive guilt. If such evidence exists, isn't there a compulsion to use it?2 How can we ignore it?  1 Foot, P. (2000, July 25). Hanratty was innocent. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Guardian: 2 The Independent. (2002, July 18). The abolition of double jeopardy will undermine confidence in British justice. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Independent:

The rule of law, by its very nature, serves the cause of justice. In doing so, it is often overturned, but only in order to ensure that justice is delivered and offenders punished. Protection from the state therefore is a principle that is relinquished by those who commit crimes; it is the protection of the state from such people that thereafter becomes paramount. The double jeopardy rule enshrines in law that the key factor in any trial is the quality of police work up to that point, rather than the actual guilt of the defendant. If abolished, vindictive policemen will not affect the integrity of the justice system, the case will still be judged by the quality of the evidence whilst the defendant will have recourse to protest their innocence. The potential for innocent people to go through the stress of further trials is a price worth paying to ensure the guilty do not walk free.

Double jeopardy protects the acquitted from the threat of constant harassment by the state  We’re not just protecting ‘evil people’. The double jeopardy rule protects everyone from the danger of constant harassment from the state. The opposition would rather see a guilty man occasionally go free than see the resources of the state trained on individuals again and again and again, ‘until the state secured (the) popular result’ 1. The double jeopardy rule provides closure for both defendants and the prosecution; if the prosecution regret their case in the future, the fault lies not with the double jeopardy rule itself, but their decision to go to trial based on insufficient evidence. Citizens should not be forced to go through the stress of multiple trials due to the incompetence of the state. ‘If a person accused of a serious crime is acquitted, they are entitled to have some certainty in their future’2. That certainty can only be guaranteed if the prosecution is granted one attempt at a conviction, and one only.  1. The Independent. (2002, July 18). The abolition of double jeopardy will undermine confidence in British justice. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Independent:  2. Bosscher, M. (2006, November 10). Danger in abolishing double jeopardy rule. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Online Opinion:

Double jeopardy ensures defendants are not brought to trial on weak grounds  The implications of this should be looked at carefully. This would grant police and the prosecution the right to prosecute an individual if the evidence against them can be ‘reanalysed.’ Surely almost all cases could see such ‘improvement in investigatory techniques,’ allowing the state to pursue individuals at will. Presumably this ‘generation’ of techniques isn’t the last; why won’t the same logic hold in asking for a third trial? A fourth? A fifth?…Subsequently, if the ‘double jeopardy’ rule is scrapped, police work will be sloppier, because police detectives will know that the insurance of a second trial exists. The ‘one-shot’ rule forces investigations and prosecutions to be of as high a quality as possible. The abolishment of double jeopardy would be ‘merely a shortcut to prosecutors seeking unlimited re-trials until they get the verdict they want’ 1. Courts cannot be permitted to be tied up in such cases, nor can prosecutors be allowed to destroy the lives of defendants by enforcing such constant emotional turmoil.  1. Bosscher, M. (2006, November 10). Danger in abolishing double jeopardy rule. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Online Opinion:

The rule of law means less if it is being constantly overturned  Respect for the law will diminish if criminal verdicts exist in a perpetual state of uncertainty. We need to be protected from the state in other ways, too - from the vindictive or obsessed policeman that will pursue a case because he 'knows' the accused, properly acquitted in a court of law, to be guilty nevertheless. The nature of our police force means that these instances are inevitable as it imparts a strong cognitive bias onto our policemen to look for guilt - so unless we mandate a rule determining when a line of investigation has to end, police will continue to focus on their chosen 'perpetrator' until they get the result that they have decided is correct. As Matthew Kelly QC notes, removing double jeopardy restrictions could 'lead to prosecutions routinely seeking a second bite of the cherry, if a case flopped first time for good reason.'1  Given that we are talking about a tiny proportion of cases, it is better to have the principle of finality - because the police will spend vast amounts of time and effort and money on case that are already resolved, to the detriment of crimes that will receive less attention. Therefore successful detective work, and subsequent conviction rates, will increase with the double jeopardy rule in place, not decrease, for police cannot allow themselves to remain rooted in closed cases. 1 BBC News. (2005, April 3). Double jeopardy law ushered out. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:

The people who are protected by this rule are the guilty who are wrongly declared innocent; the murderer whose voice couldn’t be identified on the tape; the rapist who couldn’t be identified because DNA testing wasn’t sufficiently developed at the time; the robber who couldn’t be identified because facial mapping technology didn’t exist to show their face beneath the mask. People may in unguarded moments confess to crimes for which they have been found not guilty. Why would the state be in their favour and against the victims that so deserve justice - why should victims suffer because evidence didn’t emerge until later?  The test for guilt will still be 'reasonable doubt' - defendents who are genuinely innocent have no need to fear because they will still be found innocent.

While they undermine the court, they are an inevitable quid pro quo of part of diplomatic relations with the US, the last remaining superpower. While impunity is not ideal, it is better than not signing and taking part in international criminal justice at all. Creating BIAs does not mean that the countries in question will absolve their own citizens of wrongdoing instead they are likely to be tried at home and in some cases may still be handed over to the ICC.

The rationale for the BIAs is flawed  The Bilateral Immunity Agreements that these states have entered in to undermine the court that these states have signed up to. BIAs invalidate the intention for the ICC that any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court (which only triggers when an individual is a citizen of a state that has ratified the Rome Statute, or in the territory of a Rome Statute state) and commits the horrific acts covered by the Rome Statute should be brought to trial by providing a get out clause for the powerful. A proliferation in BIAs could potentially render the ICC a court that can only try nationals of small states that do not have the leverage to get others to agree to BIAs, already the ICC is accused of bias in putting Africans on trial and ignoring the rest of the world, such agreements make this worse. [1] BIAs by one state, the United States, creates a precedent for other states to use and as they do so the field that is available for international criminal justice will become smaller and smaller.  [1] Kersten, Mark, “African and the ICC: Some Unsolicited Advice”, Africa at LSE, 28 May 2013,

The United States is not under any form of responsibility to other states to provide them with military and other aid. Aid has always been provided with strings attached to those whose receipt of aid is considered beneficial. It is within the purview of the US to decide who they give aid to, based on their own priorities. This is simply part of the diplomatic process. If the US wishes to provide aid to countries that sign up to treaties then this is its right, it is perfectly normal to provide a sweetener to encourage states to sign up while punishing those that don’t.  This then is a good reason why these European states should not pull out of their BIAs. To do so would mean losing the financial benefits being provided. At the same time it would also show that these states are not to be trusted when they sign up to international agreements.

The BIAs are at best bad faith compliance, and worst a blatant violation of the Rome Statute  The European states have signed and ratified the ICC Statute and should honour it, to do otherwise makes a mockery of the ICC which those states supported throughout its genesis and at least claim to continue to support.  Article 98(2) was only intended to be a factor where there are other agreements such as status of forces agreements (an agreement entered in to between two states, one having military forces in the other voluntarily, such as British troops in Germany). It was not meant as a broad-brush way for states being able to grant selective immunity to citizens of non-member states who have committed genocide or crimes against humanity inside the jurisdiction of an ICC member state.  Signing an Article 98 Agreement is at best accepting foreign instigation of the abuse of process of a treaty. At worst it is accepting an illegal attempt at circumventing the treaty.

The text of the Rome Statute is clear. Article 98(2) is unspecific as to the variety of international agreements that it covers, unlike the narrower Article 98(1) covering diplomatic immunity.  Article 98 Agreements are a tool that is a legitimate method of the US ensuring that US citizens are not subject to trial and punishment by a court which the United States is not a part of. This would run against the principle that a treaty only affects states that have signed and ratified it, rather than any others.

The BIAs were only granted following bully tactics from the United States  The United States has been accused of using bullying tactics in the pursuit of gaining Article 98 Agreements by, amongst others, Human Rights Watch [1] .  This has included significant reductions in non-military, development aid, including to countries such as South Africa, the Bahamas [2] and Peru [3] , as well as making threats to accession to NATO in the case of Croatia. [4]  By signing up to Article 98 Agreements, European nations help contribute to a climate where smaller nations can also be strong-armed in to harming the International Criminal Court by signing them, even if they were not subject to blackmailed in to it themselves.  [1] Roth, Kenneth, “Letter to the US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Bully Tactics against the International Criminal Court”, Human Rights Watch, 2003   [2] Roth, Letter to Colin Powell, 2003  [3] Keppler, Elise, “The United States and the International Criminal Court: The Bush Administration’s Approach and a Way Forward Under the Obama Administration”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, 2009, 2, p12,   [4] Roth, Letter to Colin Powell, 2003

Theoretical impunity is still impunity. The concept that any entity should be given special treatment by the law runs contrary to principles of the rule of law. If such immunity is not going to be needed then there is very little reason for the agreements in the first place and there should be little objection to getting rid of them.

The Rome Statute itself does not bind any state to be put on trial – it binds individuals. Individuals violating the criminal law of a state (the Rome Statute also integrating the international criminal law in to the national criminal law) have always been subject to trial and punishment by that state, barring cases of diplomatic immunity or other separate cases. This is nothing new – the Rome Statute respects the sovereignty of a nation within its territory. If anything, it is the use of coercive tactics by a state to give its citizens immunity from the ordinary law that is the violation of national sovereignty.  Even without the BIAs it would only be possible to prosecute Americans if they commit an international crime in the jurisdiction of another state. When this occurs due to the principle of territoriality it has traditionally been the case that the state upon whose territory the act was committed is able to try those who committed the act. It is not a violation of sovereignty to allow the ICC rather than the other state the right to bring the defendant to trial.

Withdrawal from Article 98 agreements would hamper relations with the US  Many of the states in Europe that have signed up to BIA’s are applicant to NATO which leaves them in a difficult position when it comes to withdrawing from such a treaty. While NATO members are exempt from the punitive provisions aimed at states who do not have Article 98 agreements, in order to join NATO the state will need the support of the United States. Such support will be less forthcoming if that country has abandoned an agreement with the United States such as a BIA. Linking issues is not unusual in international relations whether it is linking multiple issues in a single larger negotiation or blocking progress in joining an organisation as a result of a single issue. Perhaps the best example of this occurring is Turkey and the EU where Turkey’s membership has been held up by its dispute with Cyprus over the northern half of the island. [1]  Even if the United States were to allow an application to NATO to proceed despite the abandonment of their bilateral treaty relations will surely be damaged. No state is going to welcome another state unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty they have signed. The Eastern European states value their relationship with the United States due to that country’s commitment to their independence and support during the early 1990s as the soviet bloc broke up. It would not make sense for these small independent countries to risk relations with the world’s most powerful statements over an agreement which is unlikely to ever have a practical relevance.  [1] Rinke, Andreas, and Solaker, Gulsen, “Cyprus remains stumbling block in Turkey’s EU ambition: Merkel”, Reuters, 25 February 2013,

Article 98 Agreements are unlikely to be needed  The prospect of an Article 98 Agreement actually being relied on is slim. It would require the International Criminal Court to prosecute an American for a crime against humanity, or genocide, that takes place in ICC member state. There is next to no chance of the UN Security Council referring a case against America to the ICC as the US has a veto as a permanent member.  The ICC already makes only a highly limited number of prosecutions per year, in obvious cases, and so far all of these have been focused on the developing world. While Article 98 agreements may be unsavoury, the chance of them actually being used to grant someone impunity is low.

Article 98 Agreements are a crucial tool in maintaining American national sovereignty  As a key part of its national sovereignty, the US should not be required to have its citizens subject to the ICC if it does not ratify the treaty itself of its own choice. It is an accepted principle, as enshrined in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, [1] that a treaty only binds the states that have consented to it. Binding citizens of states who are not parties, who may be acting under the orders of a state arm, such as a military, when in the territory of state parties, violates that state’s sovereignty. There have been attempts to put US soldiers on trial. Italy for example put Mario Lozano on trial for the killing of an Italian agent in Iraq, the US maintained he was doing his job at a checkpoint and provided warnings while the Italians considered it murder. In this case the United States was able to refuse to hand the soldier over but BIA’s ensure that such actions will not be a concern whenever troops are deployed abroad. [2]  Bilateral Immunity Agreements are a legitimate tool to ensure that this key principle is protected in the case of the International Criminal Court – this has no bearing on the nations that desire to be part of the International Criminal Court.  [1] United Nations. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969,   [2] “Controversial Trial Opens in Rome: Italy Tries US Soldier For Iraq Murder”, Spiegel Online, 17 April 2007,

The US is not focusing on encouraging existing NATO members to withdraw from the ICC. Existing NATO members are not subject to the aid-cutting provisions of US law (before and after the Presidential waiver was created), neither are major non-NATO allies – indeed, all EU member states in NATO are ICC members, with the exception of Romania none have signed an Article 98 agreement.  Much of the US antagonism to the ICC came during the Bush administration, when the ICC was an unproven organization in its infancy.  Since then, US Policy towards the ICC has softened, as can be evidenced by the US voting in favour of referring the situation in Libya to the ICC (compared to abstaining in the referral of Darfur), so it would be unlikely to do much harm to bilateral relations if other states were to expand their co-operation. No EU member state other than Romania has entered in to an Article 98 Agreement with the US. [1]  [1] Barbour, The International Criminal Court, 2010

The police should not be reacting in such a way that they exacerbate those problems. By routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimizes the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.  The argument about a rapid increase in gun crime in the UK depends upon a very limited and selective use of crime data. Recorded gun crime did indeed rise by close to 105% between 1998 (when handguns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane tragedy) and 2003, but a large proportion of that increase is attributable to air weapon misuse and non-firing replica weapons. [1] Since then the increase has largely stabilised and even fallen. A temporary trend, now brought under control, is not necessarily a strong argument for changing, for ever, the nature and character of British policing.  By this policy—especially in the absence of a Constitutional right for citizens to bear arms—the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values and that policing is undertaken in a spirit of the minimum use of force and by ‘public consent’.  [1] Squires, P. 2008 Gun Crime: a Review of Evidence and Policy, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

The police should be equipped to react to contemporary social problems  The old-fashioned notions of friendly neighborhood unarmed policing reflect the aspirations of a different age. As armed violence has increased sharply in parts of the developed world, the police need to redefine their role so that it is a more appropriate response to contemporary problems. In the UK, for example, gun crime almost doubled in the decade to 2008, [1] while the rise in London gun crime has tripled, the police need to be able to respond to this. [2] There is also danger in being a state with unarmed police when others states have armed police forces. The unarmed nation may be seen as a “soft touch” compared to other regional nations. This can encourage an importation of criminality.  [1] Whitehead, Tom, 'Gun crime doubles in a decade', The Telegraph 27 October 2009,   [2] Bamber, David, ‘Gun crime trebles as weapons and drugs flood British cities’, The Telegraph, 24 February 2002,  , accessed 20 September 2011

When a police officer carries a weapon, she faces the risk of having that weapon turned on her by a criminal. It is also more obvious to a criminal that they need to shoot first against an armed officer whereas against an unarmed one they may be more open to listening and less likely to try and pre-empt being shot. So arming the police can sometimes make the police more vulnerable, rather than more protected.  If, as the opposing argument suggests, legally owned guns are part of the risk profile facing the police, measures ought to be taken to reduce the risk and restrict levels of gun ownership. The police have had a National (legal) Firearms Database since 2006 allowing them to assess whether someone they will be dealing with is a gun owner or whether the premises they are attending contains licensed firearms. Criminal misuse of illegal firearms is a different matter although, as has been argued, protection and safety are not the same as ‘armed’ and more armed police will probably mean more shootings and, equally probably, more mistakes and armed confrontations. [1]  [1] P. Squires and P Kennison 2010 Shooting to Kill: Policing, Firearms and armed response. Oxford, Wiley/Blackwell.

Arming the police is a necessary step  Police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations. This is a small step, as police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations, e.g. at airports and when providing security for political leaders or institutions. As mentioned earlier armed police have even been used before on routine patrols in areas where there has been gun crime. [1] Already rapid-response units of armed officers are available to deal with armed criminals, but these need to be specially summoned and authorised. Often, they arrive too late to do any good. The next obvious step would be to have many more police armed so as to make this response much faster.  [1] BBC News, ‘Armed police patrols withdrawn’, 7 February 2003,  accessed 20 September 2011

An armed police force will deter criminal behaviour  Most countries in Europe and North America have armed police forces, in part to deter criminal acts, but also to protect officers working in an armed or dangerous environment’ . Armed criminals operate in at least some areas of virtually every jurisdiction. Given this reality, a failure to routinely arm the police gives armed criminals a strong advantage in terms of their ability to threaten and commit violence, without any corresponding risk to themselves. [1] In Bristol in England where police are not routinely armed the deployment of armed police in inner-city areas in 2003 defused gang tensions and reduced crime enough to allow the armed police to be withdrawn again. [2] Only putting armed police in for brief periods will only have a short term impact, having permanently armed police is the only way to keep this deterrence in effect. A world-wide ‘meta-study’ of armed police patrols found some evidence that in high violence areas, targeted armed police patrols could chill down the tensions and reassure the community but the evidence was not very compelling and the authors acknowledged that such a ‘sticking plaster’ approach was no long term solution to urban violence [3] .  [1] Kopel, David B., ed., Guns: Who Should Have Them, Prometheus Books, 1995.  [2] BBC News, ‘Armed police patrols withdrawn’, 7 February 2003,  accessed 20 September 2011  [3] Koper, C.S. and Mayo-Williams E. (2006) Police crackdowns on illegal gun carrying: a systematic review of their impact on gun crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology Vol. 2 pp. 227-261.

Arming the police can lead to a spiral of violence. In places where the police are not routinely armed, a portion of criminals will not arm themselves (since, for example, armed robbery often carries a higher sentence than robbery). Once the police are armed, criminals who do not match their capability operate under a strong disadvantage. Therefore, when the police become routinely armed, the criminal world fully arms itself in response. [1] The mere fact of increased weapons possession (by both police and criminals) will in itself result in higher use, since in circumstances where arms may not be currently used (e.g. a police chase), either side carrying weapons will mean that they consider shooting an option which they did not formerly possess. A study comparing police dispute resolution in Norway and Sweden (the former unarmed, the latter armed) [2] tended to confirm that where police have guns, they are much more likely to use them – the Swedish police shot significantly more suspects. Thus gun availability effectively reduces the options currently available to police along the ‘continuum of force’. For example, if the police are armed, they are less likely to use less harmful alternatives such as tasers, “stun guns”, CS spray, and negotiation, even though the lowered lethality of a technology generally seems to imply it will be used more frequently. [3]  [1] Talking Point, ‘Should British police carry guns?’, BBC News, 12 February 2001,  accessed 20 September 2011  [2] Knutson , J and Strype J. 2003 Police use of Firearms in Norway and Sweden Policing and Society Vol. 13(4) pp. 429-439.  [3] Porter Henry, ‘Should the police ever shoot to kill?’ Liberty Central, 13 May 2009,  , accessed 20 September 2011

The large majority of policewomen and men go through their whole career without handling firearms. The numbers in the firearms authorised officers are low, only 6780 in 2007-8 out of more than 100,000 police, [1] and even these have been criticised by SAS officers who stated “When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the ‘red mist’ seems to descend on armed police officers who become very trigger-happy. This has been shown time and again in training exercises.” [2] Any expansion of the numbers of police carrying firearms could result in many more unsuitable police carrying guns.  [1] Coaker, Vernon, ‘Statistics on police use of firearms in England and Wales 2007-08’, Home Office, 2 March 2009,  , accessed 20 September 2011  [2] Winnett, Robert, ‘SAS trainers denounce ‘gung ho’ armed police’, The Sunday Times’, 18 September 2005,  , accessed 20 September 2011 (original article is no offline but the quote was not picked up by other newspapers)

Arming police would negatively impact the relationship between the police and the community – this is especially so in relation to some communities which feel that they bear the brunt of heavy, enforcement-led policing (for example young men in urban areas, ethnic minority groups). [1] Arming the police might delegitimise their role as community standard bearers. Many law-abiding citizens who have no connection to the criminal underworld are horrified by armed police, whom they regard as alien to their cultural frame of reference.  Guns potentially place a distance between the people and the police and impact the relationship in a negative way. It impacts not only those who would perform potentially criminal activity, but even day to day police interaction such as breathalysing and spot checks on vehicles. The police would no longer be viewed as ‘upholding the peace’ but rather enforcing through threat.  Even worse than the distancing effect, lethal weaponry is also a potent symbol of brutality. This can undermine the ability of the police to be seen as a key constituent part of civil society. This problem is exacerbated when this symbolic brutality is applied in ways that deviate from the expectations of civil society, for example through unfair racial profiling.  Finally – arming the police may well alter the profile of police recruits. Police managers sometimes remark that the very last person to trust with a firearm is the one who wants one the most.  [1] Jefferson, T. (1990) The Case against Paramilitary Policing, Milton Keynes, Open University Press; P. Scharf and A. Binder 1983 The Badge and the Bullet: Police Use of Deadly Force, New York, Praeger; Kraska, P. and Kappeler, V.E. 1997 Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units Social Problems, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 1-18.

Policing is a dangerous job. Police officers should be allowed to arm themselves  There is a global increase in gun ownership, even in countries which did not traditionally think of themselves as having a large criminal gun culture. Presently 1.8 million legally held guns are accounted for in the UK. [1] This increases the risks to frontline police officers of being the victims of gun crime. Police officers should have a right to protect themselves. Fewer officers may die on duty if they were better able to protect themselves. Arming the police is essentially a matter of self-defence rather than being actively involved in regular firearms incidents. This is shown by the fact that most routinely armed police never fire their weapon on active duty in their whole career. [2] If being a police officer is a safer job, then there will be a larger applicant pool to choose from, and thus better, more qualified police forces.  [1] Legal Community Against Violence, ‘Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines’, 2011,  , accessed 20 September 2011  [2] BBC News, ‘Q&amp;A: Armed police in the UK’, 8 June 2010,  , accessed 20 September 2011

Arming the police makes communities feel safer  Armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing in most European countries and parts of North America. In the UK 28 gun crimes are committed every day. [1] Much public opinion holds that something must be done to tackle this. [2]  The sight of armed police officers patrolling the streets will not only deter gangs from harassing residents, but will instil in communities a confidence that they are being properly protected. Gangs are not interested in fighting the police; they are more concerned about attacks from other gangs in their area who are willing to break the law and attack them unprovoked.  People feel safer when they see armed police, especially if they perceive them as a response to a heightened risk. Thus, for example, police officers at British airports routinely carry sub-machine guns, although there is no evidential pattern to suggest that this high-visibility weaponry offers any situational strategic advantage over a more subtle arming.  [1] Hope, Christopher, ’28 gun crimes committed in UK every day’, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008,  , accessed 20 September 2011  [2] Shearing, Clifford et al., Lengthening the Arm of the Law: Enhancing Police Resources in the Twenty-First Century, (Cambridge Studies in Criminology, 2008)

Violence is already escalating and we need a robust response. Many communities are vulnerable to postcode gangs comprised of young people aged 14 and upwards who are armed and dangerous and making their areas unsafe to live in. Only a robust and proactive response from the police such as patrolling such territories with firearms so as to protect themselves and innocent civilians will address this problem.

The police themselves are calling for more routine arming in the United Kingdom, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out their task. To the contrary, recruitment will also suffer if police officers are seen as too vulnerable, as easy targets for criminals because they have no proper means to defend themselves.

When the police are armed, mistakes will lead to innocent people getting shot  Even with the special selection measures and intensive training given to firearms officers, mistakes sometimes occur, and innocent people are shot. This can happen either by mistake because the armed officers are acting on inaccurate information, or because they are bystanders caught in the cross-fire of a shoot-out. Arming all police officers would mean ditching the current stringent selection methods for who is armed, and would inevitably result in less training being provided, so mistakes would become much more common and more people would be wounded or killed. Such as the Amadou Diallo shooting in New York in 1999, or the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes at Stockwell underground station in 2005. [1] Squires and Kennison, in their 2010 book, detail a number of case studies of mistaken police shootings, further details can be found on the IPCC Inquiry reports website. [2]  [1] The New York Times, ‘Amadou Diallo’,  , accessed 20 September 2011  [2] P. Squires and P Kennison 2010 Shooting to Kill: Policing, Firearms and armed response. Oxford, Wiley/Blackwell.

Arming the police does not deal with the causes underlying violence  The real issues that cause crime usually lie in societal issues and a lack of a proper rehabilitation effort in the justice system. The root problems are therefore not being solved by arming the police. This policy only masks the problems societies face. Governments need to make more long-term, sustainable investments. They should be attempting to change the culture that creates violence, providing jobs for those who are in poverty making sure that everyone feels they have a stake in society, rather than rely on a “quick fix” plan that tackles none of the real issues.

Arming the police will cause an escalation in criminal violence  The British Crime Survey maintains that gun crime is very rare throughout the UK. The reason communities are so afraid is that the over-zealous media continually hype up individual incidences of gun crime in order to attract more readers. The statistics show that knife and gun crime are overrepresented in the news, with 25% of newspapers stories on average being dedicated to crime. [1] Because of this exaggerated coverage, there is a moral panic in which people think that if they are attacked it will be by a knife-wielding maniac. This is simply not true. There is more chance that you will be in a car accident than be attacked on the street.  Introducing guns onto the streets, even in a legal and well-intentioned manner is a trigger for increasing the number of guns that gangs and organised crime groups bring onto the street.  [1] Media Awareness Network, ‘TV Crime Facts – Teaching Backgrounder’  , accessed 20 September 2011

Recruitment will be adversely affected if the police are armed  The police are split on this issue at all levels, so it would be wrong to listen only to the loudest voices. The police should also be held firmly under civilian control. Policy areas such as the carrying of firearms or stop-and-search procedure should be subject to political decisions and accountability. Recruitment may well be adversely affected if the police are armed; many current officers opposed to this measure may leave, and others like them will not apply to join the force in the future. Do we want a police force largely composed of people who want to carry a gun every day? Japan’s police force are trained in combat without weapons and they some of the lowest crime rates in the world. The country has a steadily decreasing crime rate, with this year alone, overall crime has decreased by 1.4%. [1]  [1] Eguchi, Arichika, and Kanayama, Taisuke, ‘Japan’s Challenge on the Increase in Crime in the New Century’, Police Policy Research Center,  , accessed 20 September 2011

Arming police is not mutually exclusive with other policies that could deal with the whole spectrum of crime-related issues. This debate is not suggesting that other issues related to crime will not be dealt with. Rather that in order to facilitate a reduction in crime the criminal justice system will be served by police who are armed. It is untrue to suggest that simply because the police are armed, other integral parts of crime reduction will be ignored.

Armed police already exist in a number of situations and a rise in mistaken shootings that the opposition fear is not evident in these areas.

Treatment programs can address the problems of those who are addicted, and many casinos offer “Self-Exclusion Programs”, where individuals can effectively “ban” themselves from casinos. This could be the initiative of either the gambler or their family or friends.

Gambling leads to the disintegration of families  Gambling can have a devastating effect on families. The most obvious effect is financial as one partner uses all their money on gambling the other needs to support the whole family or the gambler may even gamble away joint savings. Psychologically there is a relationship between gambling and various psychiatric and alcohol disorders. This is also an impact on friends, who do not want to be tied into supporting gambling financially or even just emotionally. Lesieur and Custer estimated that for each problem gambler there were 10-15 other people adversely impacted by the gambling of that person.1 As with drugs, it is harmful to the individual concerned and their family and friends, and it is better to ban gambling to stop people getting started in the first place.  1 Shaw, Martha C. et al., ‘The Effect of Pathological Gambling on Families, Marriages , and Children’, CNS Spectrums, Vol. 12, No. 8, 2007, pp.615-622.

Gambling is associated with other forms of addiction and harmful behaviour  Gambling makes people concentrate of winning money. Religious leaders of all denominations see gambling as eroding family values1 because it implies that material goods should be valued above other things like friendships and families. It also sends out the message that success should not necessarily be the result of merit and effort. As a philosophy, ‘gambling culture’ is incredibly dangerous. Those in society who most need to self-improve, never do. Instead, they tie their hopes and dreams to the lottery. There may be the possibility of winning a big prize, but the overwhelming likelihood is that a gambler will lose money. Instead, governments should be promoting values like thrift, hard work and self-reliance rather than encouraging or even allowing gambling to promote its own negative values.  1 Holahan, Catherine, ‘Online Gambling Still in the Cards’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 3 October 2006.

Internet gambling is in fact less dangerous than normal gambling. It is free from the pressures to gamble that casinos can create through free food and entertainment, glitzy surroundings and peer pressure. And as children can’t get credit cards, they should not be able to gamble online anyway. Stolen credit cards can be used to commit fraud in any number of ways - online gambling is not a specific problem here. It is also in the interest of internet gambling sites to run a trustworthy, responsible business. Whatever they are looking for online, internet users choose trusted brands that have been around for a while. If a gambling site acts badly, for example by changing its odds unfairly, word will soon get around and no one will want to use it.

Gambling affects poor people disproportionately  Poor people are more likely to gamble, in the hope of getting rich. In 1999, the National Gambling Impact Commission in the United States found that 80 percent of gambling revenue came from lower-income households1. It is immoral for the state or charities to raise money by exploiting people’s stupidity and greed. Taxing gambling is a regressive tax (this means that the poor pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the rich), and regressive taxation is deeply unfair. Gambling attracts people with little money who are desperate for a windfall. These are the people who can least afford to lose money.  1 Mark Lange, The Gambling Scan on America’s Poor, Allnet.com, May 3 2007.

Gambling is addictive and psychologically harmful  Gambling can become a psychologically addictive behavior in some people. According to the Emotional Neuroscience Centre in Massachusetts, “Monetary reward in a gambling-like experiment produces brain activation very similar to that observed in a cocaine addict receiving an infusion of cocaine.”1 Because of this addictive nature, many people end up gambling to try to recover money they have already lost. This is known as ‘chasing losses’. It results in people staking more and more money, most of which they will lose, and sinking deeper and deeper into debt. People start to gamble without thinking that they will become addicted. Once that happens, it is often too late. A gambling addiction, in addition to the long term effects it has, can result in financial ruin in a few short hours.  1 Johannes Hedwig, Hypersensitivity to Reward in Problem Gamblers, Biological Psychiatry, April 15 2010. .

Unlike drugs, gambling is not physically or metabolically addictive. Most gamblers are not addicts, simply ordinary people who enjoy the excitement of a bet on a sporting event or card game. Only a small percentage of gamblers have an addiction. Many more get enjoyment from gambling without problems. The risks of gambling addiction are well known. People can make a conscious choice to start gambling, and are aware of the risks of addiction.

Gambling effects every person in the same way, everyone have the free will to decide to gamble and each may win or lose despite of their wealth or position in society, thus gambling cannot affect poor people to a greater extent. Gambling is only regressive because more poor people choose to gamble.  Gambling does also have good effects on all member of society- Gambling is often used to raise money for the state or good causes. Many governments tax gambling. Some even run their own lotteries. Charities use prize draws to raise funds. Because people will gamble anyway, the best that governments can do is to pass rules to make it safe and try to get some social good out of it. If the government uses the revenue to help people on lower-incomes, it is not necessarily true that taxes on gambling are regressive and target the poor.

There is no evidence that gambling makes people not care about others. People do not gamble because they expect to win lots of money. Most gamble as a form of entertainment. Also, there are many areas of life where success is not the result of merit or hard work. Someone born to well-off parents may get many advantages in life without merit or hard work. There are therefore no grounds for thinking that gambling promotes these undesirable values. The desire for wealth one that stems from society as a whole, not casinos.

People committing crimes should be prosecuted. The existence of criminals does not make nearby businesses (including casinos) immoral. It is perverse to punish people who just want to gamble (and not take drugs or use prostitutes) by taking away their chance to do so.

Online gambling has increased the incidence of gambling addiction  Someone can become addicted very easily – they don’t even need to leave their home, and online gambling sites are available at all hours. This also means that they are gambling in private. They may therefore be less reluctant to wager very large sums they cannot afford. In the United States in 1999 the National Gambling Impact Study stated "the high-speed instant gratification of Internet games and the high level of privacy they offer may exacerbate problem and pathological gambling",1 and it is estimated that 75% of internet gamblers are problem gamblers, compared with 20% of those who visit casinos.  It is very hard to know the identity of an online gambler – there have been several cases of people (including children) using stolen credit cards to gamble online.  Online gambling sites can also get around government regulations that limit the dangers of betting. Because they can be legally sited anywhere in the world, they can pick countries with no rules to protect customers.  1 Skolnik, Sam, High Stakes: the Rising Cost of America’s Gambling Addiction, Beacon Press, 2011, Chapter 5

Casinos are often used to mask criminal activity  Casinos are often associated with crime, particularly organized crime. When it comes to local crimes a study has found that only larceny(theft) liquor violations increased significantly with a small increase in prostitution.1 But comparing statistics probably does not show the real harm; drug dealers and prostitutes operate near casinos – they know that there are a large number of potential clients in the area. Moreover when a gambler is in debt and wishes to continue gambling due to its addictive nature, he or she often turns to loan sharks as no bank would lend to them. Casinos can therefore be devastating to neighborhoods. It would of course be wrong to assume all gamblers are criminals, although there is an increased possibility that gamblers in debt could turn to criminality through illegal borrowing. These loan sharks themselves usually have links to organized crime, in some cases are actually run by organized crime,2 and use brutal methods to reclaim their money. By banning gambling the opportunities for loan sharks to offer their services is greatly reduced due to a lesser amount of gamblers in debt, as are the opportunities for prostitutes therefore reducing criminal activity in the areas surrounding casinos.  1 Stitt, Grant, et al., ‘Does the Presence of Casinos Increase Crime? An Examination of Casino and Control Communities’, Crime &amp; Delinquency, Vol. 49, No. 2, April 2003, pp.253-284, P.279  2 Jordan, Mary, ‘Mafia loan sharks making a killing’, Washington Post, 15 March 2009.

The economic benefits of casinos are exaggerated.1 They generally only create low-paid jobs for local people – the casino companies usually bring in managers from elsewhere. The problems associated with casinos (e.g. crime, gambling addiction) outweigh the economic benefits. In any case, an immoral industry is not justified by the fact that it creates employment.  1 John Warren Kind, "The Business-Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in West Virginia: Short-Term Gain but Long-Term Pain", PBS, 1994

Gambling is a harmful activity and could have harmful effects on not only to individuals but also on their friends and family. Gamblers may win money from time to time, but in the long run, the house always wins. Why should governments allow an activity that helps their citizens lose the money they have worked so hard to earn? Surely it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens from harming themselves, just as harmful substances are illegal, gambling should also be illegal.

It is impossible to effectively ban gambling  When gambling has been banned, people have just found a way round the ban. They use internet sites based in other countries. A good example being the Ukraine, who in May 2009 made gambling illegal, this included internet gambling. By July 2009, over 500 illegal gambling operations were established, where 6,000 slot machines were confiscated and 216 criminal charges were made in connection to illegal gambling.1 This illustrates how banning gambling can creates a thriving underground market.  It is better to legalize and regulate online gambling than to drive gamblers to poorly-regulated foreign operators. Regulation can reduce the problems identified by the proposition. For example, online gamblers can be required to give personal details when registering (e.g. occupation, income). If this information suggests he or she is spending more than they can afford, the company can block their credit card.  1 Kyiv Post, ‘Governmental checks expose over 500 facts of illegal operation of gambling establishments’, 20 July 2009.

Many activities directly comparable to gambling are already legal and regulated  What is the difference between gambling and playing the stock market? In each case people are putting money at risk in the hope of a particular outcome. Gambling on horse-racing or games involves knowledge and expertise that can improve your chances of success. In the same way, trading in bonds, shares, currency or derivatives is a bet that your understanding of the economy is better than that of other investors. Why should one kind of online risk-taking be legal and the other not?

Casinos create positive economic effects in the communities that host them  Casinos can revive entire areas and regions. They create jobs and cause money to be spent on transport infrastructure. The jobs are not just in the casino itself. More jobs are created in hotels and other parts of the tourism industry. In an article for nwjob.com Sandra Miedema, ‘Snoqualmies’ employment coordinator is quoted saying that at any one time there are an average of 20 vacancies, from chefs to table dealers.1 In the United States commercial casinos employed more than 350,000 people in 2003.2  Casinos have helped to regenerate many places that previously had considerable poverty and social problems, e.g. Atlantic City, New Jersey5.  1 Libraryindex.com, ‘Casinos: The Effects of Casinos – Employment’  2 Associated Press, Atlantic City to be transformed by 2012, November 20 2007

Gambling is simply a leisure pursuit  People have free will and should be allowed to spend their money on which ever leisure pursuits they choose. Gamblers know that, overall, they are likely to lose money. They gamble because it is a leisure pursuit that they enjoy.  There is nothing irrational about this. Some people get an enjoyable thrill from the remote possibility that they might win a huge prize – even if he or she loses, they enjoy the experience. Some forms of gambling are highly sociable. For example, many people are involved in ‘social gambling’ and go to bingo halls (or equivalent) to spend time with friends, and some types of gambling are interlinked with other leisure pursuits such as horse racing.* Society accepts people spending money on other leisure pursuits with no material benefits (e.g. cinema tickets, watching sport) – gambling should not be any different. It is patronizing to suggest that people should not be able to choose how they spend their money or their leisure time.  1 The General Education Centre of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, ‘Report on A Study of Hong Kong People’s Participation in Gambling Activities’, Home Affairs Bureau, March 2002, p.4

Gambling is not impossible to ban, although it will not be easy such examples of states that have banned it show that it is possible and although illegal activity may arise from the ban this can also be stopped by though rules. If government did not ban activities where some may find a way around it, nothing would be banned at all.  Making an activity more difficult to pursue will still reduce the number of those who take it up. It is not impossible to put effective deterrent steps in place, such as the recent US ban on American banks processing credit card payments to internet gambling sites.

This would be an argument in favour of preventing countries from developing any deterrent at any time, because it would make them easier to invade. It presumes, firstly, that it would be a good thing for the United States to be able to invade countries that do things it does not like at will, and secondly that it assumes that deterrence will not deter the initial invasion in the first place.  The main reason why great powers involve themselves in wars, is because many smaller countries are not able to fight off larger ones using their own resources and so the great power expects an easy victory assuming it can avoid intervention by other great powers. Jammu and Kashmir could not stand up to the Indian army in 1947 and Kuwait could not stand up to Iraq; Georgian was unable to mount armed resistance against a Russian incursion and neither was Chechnya.  Nuclear Weapons are a great equalizer, and if one consequence of Iran developing Nuclear weapons is that all of her neighbours do so as well, then war will become far less likely, and US intervention will become unnecessary. As a consequence, in the long-run, Nuclear proliferation is a self-correcting problem.

The possession of nuclear weapons by some states drives others to militarize, creating arms races.  er, the government possesses nuclear weapons it can threaten to use them, and thereby deter a counter-invasion or prevent the International community from being able to intervene to depose it.  This can be seen in the relative coddling Pakistan has received both from its political and territorial opponent India, and from the United States since its development of Nuclear Weapons. [3] Actions that previously would have led to sanctions or worse, such as aid to the Taliban, assistance to the Nuclear Programs of Rogue States – most famously through the A.Q. Kahn network that supplied Libya, Iran and North Korea, [4] and complicity in terrorist attacks in India are brushed off with empty words [5] and meaningless semi-sanctions, India itself is deterred from making any response. [6] Indeed, US policy in recent years has been to try to buy off Pakistan rather than to coerce it.  [1] Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth ed., 1978, pp.4-15,   [2] Kaplan, Robert D., ‘Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things)’, the Atlantic, January/February 2012,   [3] Miglani, Sanjeev, ‘Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, a deterrent against India, but also United States?’, Reuters, 9 April 2011,   [4] Kerr, Paul K., and Nikitin, Mary Beth, ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues’, Congressional Research Service, 30 November 2011, pp.20-23,   [5] The Associated Press, ‘India reluctant to blame Mumbai blasts on Pakistan’, CBCnews, 15 July 2011,  [6] Narang, Vipin, ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Posture: Implications for South Asian Stability’, Harvard Kennedy Sc  Belfast Center for Science and International Affairs Policy Brief, January 2010,

[Iran specific] Others, particularly Israel, would act if the United States did not  A failure of the United States to act would motivate Israel to do so. [1] Israel is under much more pressure to act as it would be the most affected by Iran going nuclear. The result would be catastrophic, as Iran would be able to portray itself as a victim of Israeli aggression, leading to a massive outpouring of pro-Iranian and anti-American sentiment in the middle east and central asia. It could easily spark a regional war across the middle east as Iranian proxies strike back against Israel and U.S. forces around the region. [2]  The US would get all the harms of direct intervention with none of the benefits, and efforts to fight Hezbollah and Hamas, both within Palestine and elsewhere, would be undermined by their newfound sympathy in the region and the need of Arab governments to pander to it.  [1] Ravid, Barak, ‘Report: U.S. preparing for an Israeli strike on Iran’, Haaretz.com, 14 January 2012,   [2] Benhorin, Yitzhak, ‘Attack on Iran would ignite regional conflict’, ynetnews.com, 3 November 2011,

Preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists is a serious concern, but terrorists tend to be stronger in weak states than strong ones. That is one reason why Pakistan has figured so prominently in weapons sales in the past.  Invading a country like Iran would be more likely to destabilize things than stabilize them. This argument is underlined by analysis of the second Iraq war. Al Qaeda and Shi’a insurgent groups became a far stronger presence in Iraq following the coalition invasion than before the arrival of American and British troops. [1] As a consequence, it is unclear if invading these countries is a better way of preventing transfers of nuclear technology than sanctions and other methods of coercing their governments.  [1] Mazzetti, Mark, ‘Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terroism Threat’, The New York Times, 24 September 2006,

[Iran specific] Iran has threatened to destroy Israel  Iran has explicitly threatened to destroy Israel, President Ahmadinejad described Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth". [1] Such a prospect would be disastrous, not just in its initial consequences, but for the entire region. Even an unsuccessful attack on Israel would provoke a counter strike. The US would take much of the blame for the casualties of such a strike even if it counselled Israel against it. The United States must prevent Iran from ever being able to put such threats into action which may mean having to engage in military action to prevent Iran gaining the capability.  [1] MacAskill, Ewen, and McGreal, Chris, ‘Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran’s president’, The Guardian, 27 October 2005,

The United States has an obligation to protect international stability due to its unique military strength.  The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the lynchpins on which the current Western-led international political and diplomatic order is dependent.1,2 Just as any normal legal system requires laws that are predictable and enforceable, so too does the international system. The Non-Proliferation Treaty provides this level of consistency and control over states’ nuclear assets.  In particular, one of those key principles is the assumption that once a country enters a treaty it will abide by its terms. If a country can leave a treaty at will, it means that no policy can be made with any degree of predictability. States are not able to formulate plans for future policies and development strategies if analysts and politicians are prevented from making reliable predictions about neighbouring state’s behaviour, economic policies and territorial ambitions.  This is particularly important with treaties relating to armaments, and of vital importance when it comes to Nuclear Weapons, because other countries choose to participate in military alliances and actions based on such assumptions.  Historically, arms build-ups and wars have occurred when the Great Powers fail to uphold the international legal system – fail to regard it as binding and inherently valuable and consequential. For example Germany’s willingness to disregard Czechoslovakian sovereignty prior to World War II. For that reason the United States has a vested interest in upholding the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is because the US is the major beneficiary of the present international system, both economically and politically.  Economically, the major loser in any upheaval around the world is almost guaranteed to be the United States or its corporations. However, the political incentives for the USA to continue upholding the non-proliferation treaty- by force if necessary- are far greater. A failure on its part to act will not just lead to nuclear proliferation, but also undermine other treaties banning chemical weapons and guaranteeing human rights as nations’ realize they are only pieces of paper.  1. ‘The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’, 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 1 July 1968,   2. Kasprzyk, Nicholas, ‘Nuclear Non-proliferation and Regional Changing Strategic Balances: How Much Will Regional Proliferation Impinge Upon the Future of the NPT?’, in Krause, Joachim and Wenger, Andreas eds., Studies in Contemporary History and Security policy, 2001,

The reality is that it makes far more sense for the United States to legitimatise actions it might take to prevent a state like Iran from developing nuclear by making reference to the uses that might find for a nuclear device, rather than the fact that they are have breached the terms of highly tenuous body of law.  While it may be true that the development of nuclear weapons is banned by international treaty, and that this treaty is recognised as a valid international legal instrument, it is far from clear whether it is in the United State’s interests to embrace either this specific version of International Law, or whether it should be the enforcer even if it does. For one thing, the current international legal system bans Iran from developing Nuclear weapons, but also bans Brazil from developing them. Consistency would obligate the US to actively prevent Brazil from developing a nuclear deterrent, by using threats and sanctions similar to those that have deployed against Iran. However,– common sense would argue that this would be both futile and counter-productive, since it would not only be difficult but result in enormous costs, both militarily and in terms of the reputation of the US. The alternative- granting an exception to Brazil, comparable to those previously granted to India, Pakistan and Israel-, India in particular now wishes to not just be an exception by join the NPT as a weapons state, would undermine those very legal standards that the government argues in favour of.1  After all, Brazil is unlikely to use such weapons aggressively, and the acquisition of such weapons by a regional hegemon(like Brazil) is unlikely to change the balance of power. It should be noted that most of the rising “responsible” regional hegemon like Brazil and South Africa opposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, [2] out of risk of enshrining a legal precedent.  Furthermore, even if the US chooses to cleave to the premise that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should be enforced as a matter of law rather than of policy, it is unclear why the US alone should take on the burden of its enforcement. As Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated, even disarming and politically reforming countries that lack a nuclear deterrent is a financially and politically ruinous process – one that cannot be achieved without the support of allies and intergovernmental organisations. Furthermore, given the reaction against the US in international opinion, [3] it’s worth asking whether or not the cure is worse than the cold when it comes to American influence around the world.  [1] Fidler, David P., and Ganguly, Sumit, ‘India Wants to Join the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a Weapons State’, YaleGlobal, 27 January 2010,   [2] Charbonneau, Louis, ‘Q+A: How likely are new U.S. sanctions against Iran?’, Reuters, 9 November 2011,   [3] Pew Global Attitudes Project, ‘Opinion of the United States’, Pew Research Center, 2011,

Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, [1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. [2]  On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presidential Chief of staff, suggested in 2008 that Iran is a friend of all peoples including Israelis. [3]  Furthermore, Iran needs Israel to provide a bogeyman they can use to divide their anti-Iranian governments from their anti-Israeli people. Anti-Israel sentiment has allowed Iran to push anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world to the backburner, something that would disappear along with Israel if Iran were to act on these ideas.  [1] Bronner, Ethan, ‘Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?’, The New York Times, 11 June 2006,   [2] BBC News, ‘Iran leader Khamenei brands US ‘nuclear criminal’, 17 April 2010,   [3] Cohen, Dudi, ‘Iranian VP: We are friends of the nation in Israel’, ynetnews.com, 19 July 2008,

Forcing Israel to act would remove the United States from direct responsibility for the consequences, and allow the US to strategically “condemn” Israel’s actions.  Iran and Israel already have a terrible relationship, so a lot of the harms here are already sunk costs.

This is in fact a good thing. Nuclear weapons are a great equalizer between large and small countries. [1] One of the great problems of history for tiny nations like Georgia or the Baltic states is that they have consistently been at the mercy of Russia. Nuclear weapons will allow them to fight the Russians on an equal level, and therefore deter the Russians from intervening as actively as they have in the past.  In the case of Iran and its neighbours, Iran’s position would actually be weakened if everyone in the region acquired nuclear weapons as the United Arab Emirates or Bahrain cannot compete with Iran conventionally, but could compete in a nuclear arms race. Wider uptake of nuclear arms would reduce Iran’s power and influence.  Moreover there is little evidence that this domino effect will happen. North Korea detonated its first nuclear weapon in 2006 but there has been no response from other countries in the region even though South Korea and Japan could have rapidly gone for nuclear breakout. [2]  [1] Buchanan, Patrick J., ‘The Great Equalizer’, The American Conservative,   [2] Berganas, John, ‘The Nuclear Domino Myth’, Foreign Affairs, 31 August 2010,

Nuclear weapons can fall into the wrong hands.  Even if states do not use nuclear weapons themselves, or attempt to threaten their neighbours, they can sell their technology to other, less savoury states and individuals.  This was a particular problem with Pakistan. The former head of the Pakistani nuclear program, AQ Khan, sold technology on detonation mechanisms and Uranium enrichment to North Korea and Iran. [1] Iran is also likely to be willing to pass on its own nuclear information to other states, particularly Assad’s Syria. [2]  Such weapons could also find their way into the hands of terrorists. Iran has close links to Hezbollah and Hamas which it funds substantially, and a strong desire to hurt Israel. [3] North Korea has close links to a number of nasty groups ranging from drug cartels to Islamist terrorists.  [1] Kerr, Paul K., and Nikitin, Mary Beth, ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues’, Congressional Research Service, 30 November 2011, pp.20-23,   [2] Gekbart, Jonathan, ‘The Iran-Syria Axis: A Critical Investigation’, Stanford Journal of International Relations, Vol. XII, No. 1, Fall 2010,   [3] Bruno, Greg, ‘State Sponsors: Iran’, Council on Foreign Relations, 13 October 2011,

The development of nuclear weapons creates a self-perpetuating cycle of proliferation among other states.  The development of nuclear weapons encourages other countries to develop them as well. Rationally governed states without a nuclear deterrent are unlikely to allow themselves to be placed in a position where a nuclear armed neighbour can mount attacks against them with impunity. They therefore feel that they too need nuclear weapons in order to prevent the new nuclear power from taking advantage of their new capability.  For instance, the presence of an Iranian weapon would immediately threaten the Gulf States. Already unable to compete with Iran on a conventional level due to the vast disparity in size and population, states like the UAE would have every reason and motive to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. [1] A Saudi Prince actually floated the idea in 2011 that if Iran developed Nuclear Weapons, Saudi Arabia might follow. [2]  As more countries develop Nuclear weapons, the likelihood that someone will use them, either deliberately or by accident, goes up substantially.  [1] Lindsay, James M., ‘After Iran Gets the Bomb’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2010,   [2] Burke, Jason, ‘Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns’, guardian.co.uk, 29 June 2011,

Not all states are inherently rational, either by our standards or generally. North Korea is a xenophobic state based on the belief that they are racially and ideologically superior to all other states. [1] A government that does not consider its enemies fully human in its official propaganda is unlikely to blanch at the prospect of nuking them, even at their own expense. Even seemingly rational states make tactical mistakes, like Saddam Hussein did when he invaded Kuwait.  Nuclear Weapons raise the stakes, and have the potential to make the consequences of those errors far more serious and deadly.  Furthermore, MAD does not operate solely due to the possession of Nuclear Weapons, but rather it requires that a state possess a “Second-Strike” ability. A “second Strike” ability means that a country has the capacity to nuke another country after it has already been attacked, whether through hardened silos or submarine launched warheads. Without such an ability, a state like Israel would risk losing its nuclear deterrent in an Iranian attack, and would therefore have every incentive to strike first if it thought such an attack might be about to occur. Iran, which is far less likely to be able to develop a “Second Strike” capability due to financial and technological limitations, would in turn almost constantly face a “use it or lose it” situation of its own.  [1] Myers, B.R., ‘Excerpt: The Cleanest Race’, The New York Times, 26 January 2010,

Regardless of its origins, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of an international system that has prevented the rapid proliferation of Nuclear weapons for nearly half a century.  The dangers of Nuclear weapons, especially in the wrong hands, mean that the ownership of nuclear weapons is an issue which transcends moral standards of “fairness”. It may be true that the treaty should be revisited in the case of say India or Brazil, but this debate is not about the nuclear ambitions of fundamentally stable, democratic states that would willingly comply with all of the terms of the non-proliferation treaty if they were permitted to become signatories. Rather, the question of America’s right to act to enforce the treaty should focus on rogue states that present a significant danger to their neighbours, and whose acquisition of such weapons is likely to destabilize regional balances of power, and make the entire world less secure. Iran, Syria and Pakistan’s use of the language of anti-colonialism is a sign of nothing more than political opportunism.

No country has an inherent right to invade or use aggression against another.  Given the moral bankruptcy of the NPT, and existing views of the United States in much of the developing world, [1] any move by the United States to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons by force will be seen for what it is: an act of neo-colonialism. This would be the case with any act to enforce a treaty that is considered unfair towards most of the world.  This is especially true in areas where there is a long history of US support for regional actors who are less than popular. In moving against Iran, the United States will be perceived as a stalking horse for Israel, whilst any efforts to invade North Korea Would cause great alarm in China as well as in neighbouring South Korea despite being a U.S. ally where some Koreans believe the US is more of a threat to the nation than the North. [2] In both cases, the image of the US in the region will be badly damaged, and the United States will face a hostile insurgency within the countries that they invade.  [1] Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2011,   [2] Larson, Eric V. et al., Ambivalent Allies? A Study of South Korean Attitudes Towards the U.S., RAND Corporation, March 2004, p.93  (n.b. before north detonated nuclear bomb)

[Iran specific] Iran has not invaded any other country in three and a half centuries; the same cannot be said for US allies including Israel, Pakistan, etc.  For all the censure Iran has faced as a rogue state, it has not, in fact, invaded another country for more than three centuries and despite internal aggression against western embassies the Iranian revolution seems to have made little difference. On the other hand, it has faced invasion on numerous occasions, whether from Russia, Britain or Iraq. Both Britain – whom the Iranians are still extremely suspicious off due to events such as the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mosadeq [1] – and Russia – who together with Britain occupied Persia during world war II [2] - are nuclear weapons states.  Iran therefore has legitimate defensive reasons for developing Nuclear weapons. While Iran’s current government has pursued destabilizing policies in Lebanon and Israel/Palestine, the presence of Russia on its northern border and tensions with the United States justify their development. This is one reason why Iran’s nuclear program predates the current government and in fact goes all the way back to the Shah’s time. [3] Rather than being the product or continuation of Iran’s policies in the region, the nuclear program is independent of them, and justified on those basis.  [1] Abrahamian, Ervand, ‘The 1953 Coup in Iran’, Science &amp; Society Vol. 65, No. 2, Summer 2001, pp.182-215,   [2] Globalsecurity.org, ‘Azerbaijan crisis (1945-1948)’,   [3] Milani, Abbas, ‘The Shah’s Atomic Dreams’, Foreignpolicy.com, 29 December 2010,

The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction makes war less likely.  States are fundamentally rational, and as such, nuclear proliferation has generally made war less likely, by promulgating the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD).  States go to war with other states when they think they can win the conflict they will provoke. By making victory impossible, MAD makes wars unprofitable, and thereby prevents them from beginning in the first place. The Cold War never turned hot partially for this reason, and it is possible that the Israeli-Iranian relationship could be stabilized by both states possessing a nuclear deterrent. North Korea may well desire to Nuke the United States and Japan, and may well feel that there would be no moral issues with doing so, but they have refrained from doing so. As they have refrained from invading the South since 1950. There is substantial evidence that even the most irrational regimes can be deterred. No matter how dictatorial and authoritarian a state government, the prospect of complete nuclear annihilation will be effective in restraining its ambitions. [1]  In the case of Iran, the threat to Iranian cities by the Iraqi army moving on to the offensive and using chemical weapons motivated Khomeini to make peace in 1988. [2] It is worth noting that they have not explicitly attacked Israel themselves, preferring to work through proxies. It would seem unlikely that Iran, if it were to become the only nuclear power in the Islamic world, could avoid responsibility if Hamas or Hezbollah were to utilize a weapon.  [1] Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” I, Number 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981),   [2] Globalsecurity.org, ‘Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)’,

Existing international treaties that grant nuclear weapons to the US and other countries no longer reflect the changing global balance of power.  The Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty is inherently unfair, in that it prevents countries that did not have nuclear weapons as of 1964 from developing them, but makes no effort to force those who already possess nuclear devices to disarm.  The result is that the list of countries with such weapons, the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China, represents the balance of power as it existed at the time that the non-proliferation treaty was drafted. Countries that have entered the club subsequently, like India and Pakistan, did so in violation of the treaty and international law.  Any sort of treaty that seeks to limit access to nuclear arms has to provide opportunities for countries like Brazil to enter the “club” as they gain political or economic power. In the absence of any such mechanism the current treaty system is nothing more than a tool of Western dominance in order to keep the status quo which is favorable to the current nuclear powers something which is bound to build up resentment.  This would in effect offer not only to the pursuit of nuclear weapons by the targeted regimes, but to the rest of their policies. States like South Africa and Brazil already find it difficult to support a strong international line against Iran [1] due to seeing the inequality of allowing some countries nuclear weapons programmes but seeking to punish others, especially when the nuclear weapons states that are signatories to the NPT have not moved towards disarmament as the treaty stipulates. [2] This would in effect alienate them completely.  Second, even if the harm was justifiable by the ends, it would seem that in the long run, invading- or even censuring- every country that attempts to develop Nuclear Weapons in violation of the NPT is impractical as the United States and the rest of the world have de facto admitted by ending sanctions on Pakistan and India in 2001, two years after their nuclear tests. [3] As such, there needs to be a political means that can separate states like Brazil from states like Iran, lest the policy collapse under its own weight.  The West, rather than using force, should attempt to repair the existing non-proliferation treaty framework, such that the standards for possession of nuclear weapons are based on behaviour rather than history.  [1] Charbonneau, Louis, ‘Q+A: How likely are new U.S. sanctions against Iran?’, Reuters, 9 November 2011,   [2] Spektor, Matias, ‘How to Read Brazil’s Stance on iran’, YaleGlobal, 16 March 2010,   [3] BBC News, ‘US lifts India and Pakistan sanctions’, 23 September 2001,

What is not at issue is whether Iran will invade anyone. No one expects that, at least not immediately. Rather, the harm of Iranian possession of nuclear weapons is that they will provide Iran with immunity from retaliation which will encourage it to escalate its Cold War against Saudi Arabia in the Gulf, and increase its assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas.  As noted above, Pakistan has in fact behaved in exactly this manner. Safe behind its nuclear shield, it has provided increasingly blatant backing to anti-Indian terrorist groups and opp is right to note that there is little that can be done about that. The best bet is not to allow Iran to do the same thing

The United States would ideally move with the backing of the world community, but even if that is not present, we think that the United States is more than capable of making clear that it is not anyone’s puppet and that it is intervening solely to uphold international law.  Any military action whether justified or not will cause resentment, but this not a reason to let genocide run amok or dictators get away with invasions nor is it a reason to let the same dictators get their hands on nuclear weapons, security is a vital interest whereas being liked by the rest of the world is not.

Through their actions, career criminals and drug offenders often subject their families to misery far in excess of the temporary absence of a loved one, or transient financial hardship. The damaging processes of taking drugs and supporting a habit are normalised for children living with addicts; children exposed to drugs in this way are much more likely to develop an addiction themselves. Criminals who make a business out of thievery may use the family home to store acquisitions. Wives and members of an extended family may be coerced into trading stolen goods. Offenders who trade drugs or store stolen goods in leased or social housing risk eviction if their activities are discovered. This, in turn, would lead to their families being displaced or left homeless. Siblings and parents of gang members can often be the targets of violence resulting from feuds and "territorial disputes".  As noted above, rehabilitation does not offer an immediate "cure" for criminality. Neither can it protect families who, through ignorance or misfortune, are maintained by the proceeds of criminal activity. Although a significant number of prison inmates may be normally honest citizens who have made bad or impulsive choices, an equally large number are poorly socialised members of chaotic families. The environment of lawlessness that such individuals create in family homes creates a situation that may lead their spouses and children into deviance themselves.  Under these circumstances, isolating an offender from his family may give the family an opportunity to break free of a pattern of daily life that would otherwise be saturated with criminality.

Imprisonment punishes offenders' families  Even though liberal democratic systems of justice continue to place an emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation, sentences are still required to be proportionate to the crime that they punish. Further, a sentence must only punish those judged responsible for the crime. Collective punishment and guilt by association are not tolerated within rational, liberal systems of criminal law.  Imprisoning or fining an offender often places an intolerable burden on the offender's family. If the offender is a breadwinner, the family is denied the income that he would otherwise provide. They may be forced to use inadequate benefit systems. Other members of the family may be forced to take up a second job, adversely affecting childcare arrangements. Any fines that an offender is ordered to pay are often impact upon his family, damaging household budgets and forcing other family members into debt.  The negative effects of a custodial sentence extend beyond the offender himself. Financial and social deprivation may have a minimal impact on an offender while his is imprisoned, but may cause considerable suffering within his family. Sudden social isolation and poverty have themselves been shown to provoke criminality and increase childhood deviance.  Corporal sentences allow a punishment to be targeted only at the criminal, not at their families.

Rehabilitation programmes are not a panacea – nor are they instantly or reliably effective. The risk of an individual committing crime can only be reduced by long-term engagement with reform schemes. In 2009 violations of parole- the rules, conditions and schemes offenders are required to engage with on being released from prison- led to a third of all state prison admissions in the United States [i] .  This being the case, the best location in which to rehabilitate offender is prison. Prison serves, in some cases, to separate prisoners from poverty and desperation, and to help them access the structure and routine that was missing from their lives.  Moreover, contrary to the proposition’s argument, offenders are less likely to originate from stable family environments, to have secure employment, or to have the skills that will let them seek employment in the future.  Additionally, it does not seem proportionate for a white collar fraudster, whose actions could affect the livelihoods of thousands of individuals, to receive a flogging while retaining his freedom and his assets.  Prison also quarantines offenders from the influence of gangs or damaged family structures. Offenders may have difficulty cutting themselves off from close knit social groups of this type; the activities of these groups (drug taking, organised violence) may compete with the positive behaviours fostered by rehabilitation.  It cannot be assumed that dramatic changes in an offender’s behaviour can be brought about without a correspondingly dramatic change in their environment and lifestyle. Criminality is as dependent on context and environment as it is on the choices and values of the criminal.  If there are minimal restraints put on an offender’s freedom while he rehabilitates, it will be easier for him to avoid complying with rehabilitation programmes. As noted above, the threat of further floggings will not motivate offenders who have become habituated to brutality and violence.  [i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011,

Flogging harms offenders less than imprisonment  The criminologist Peter Moskos [i] observes that most of us, if given the choice, would opt to receive ten lashes rather than spend five years in prison. Paradoxically, a significant number of us would condemn corporal punishment as barbaric and inhumane. If imprisonment is a more rational response to criminal behaviour, why would so many rational individuals opt to receive corporal punishment?  Contemporary prisons are the result of a failed utopian experiment. They serve no useful rehabilitative purpose, and exist only to fulfil a common desire to punish deviant behaviour and to segregate criminals from the public at large. Prisons harm inmates and obstruct attempts to reintegrate them into society. It may be necessary to incarcerate certain compulsive and habitually violent criminals, but for a majority of offenders, prison only serves exacerbate underlying social, economic and psychological problems that lead to criminality.  Using corporal punishment to reduce or replace custodial sentences would provide an effective way to fulfil the social need to punish criminals, while removing the harmful externalities of mass incarceration. Strictly supervised whipping or caning can adequately and proportionately express society’s anger with the criminal, while avoiding the dangers of long-term incarceration and reinvigorating the use of rehabilitation.  In the United States, the UK and many European countries, prison populations have increased dramatically, but reductions in rates of offending have been minimal or non existent. In the absence of funding, or coherent, centrally administered rehabilitation strategies, prisons have become places devoid of productive activity. Prisoners are not encouraged to address the causes of their offending, or to acquire skills that will help them to live independently in society following their release. Boredom, overcrowding and under-staffing have led to the emergence of gang- and drug-cultures in many prisons. Inmates incarcerated for minor offences quickly become complicit in gang violence, or fall prey to alcoholism and drug addiction. Gang associations and chemical dependencies carry over into inmates’ lives once they are released. The prison system serves only to breed criminality, not to cure it.  The cost of incarcerating the average offender in the United Kingdom is estimated to be £45000 a year [ii] . Reduced spending on incarceration can be used to fuel an increase in spending on detoxification, rehabilitation and restorative justice schemes. Moreover damaging effects of prison will not cancel out the positive effects of rehabilitation.  The physical injuries resulting from whipping, although painful, are less severe than the subtler damage wrought on inmates by imprisonment.  [i] “In Defense of Flogging”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 April 2011,   [ii] “Tough on Crime, Tough on Criminals”, The economist, 23 June 2011,

What pretends to be an argument in support of the resolution is in fact an argument in favour of reforming the prison system. It is true that in an alarming number of prisons the rehabilitative objective of incarceration has been forgotten. In many other prisons, however, innovative rehabilitation programmes are flourishing. The prison system is not a monolith – it is a network of different institutions, each serving a specific purpose, each subject to different standards of management. Schemes such as the HOPE (Honest Opportunity Probation) drug offence sentencing programme in Hawaii [i] should be used as an example of best practice, communicated to other prisons and replicated in other jurisdictions.  Doubtless, knowledge sharing, professional standards and levels of accountability could be improved in many prisons. However, this does not mean that a prison sentence will inevitably lead to an offender suffering harm.  Moreover, if an increase in the prison population has failed to reduce rates of offending, an explanation could well be found in a poorly administered corpus of criminal law, rather than poorly run prisons. As a study conducted by The Economist points out, American law makers are fond of attaching criminal sanctions to otherwise innocuous misdemeanours in order to appear tough on crime. An increase in the number of activities being described as criminal can mask the success of prisons in reducing the number of individuals likely to commit truly harmful, truly criminal acts.  If we cannot be certain that the prison system has failed, if we cannot be certain that the prison system is uniformly harmful to inmates, why should we hasten to replace it with an untested alternative such as “supervised” flogging?  Finally, incarceration, apart from being used to punish criminals, also helps to protect the public, by physically preventing offenders from engaging in criminal activities. Dramatically reducing sentences or attempting to rehabilitate criminals within the community will not prevent them from carrying out further offences. Rehabilitation is not immediately effective; moreover, its usefulness is often reduced when the positive messages that it tries to communicate have to compete with poverty borne of long-term unemployment, or loyalty to a local gang.  The proposition assumes that the pain associated with corporal punishment will be sufficient to discourage offenders from engaging in further criminal activities while they are being rehabilitated. Empirical proof of this deterrent effect is hard to come by. A large number of offenders live lives characterised by chronic brutality, often the result of parental abuse or long term involvement in gang violence, and they may come to regard state administered flogging as little more than an occupational inconvenience, one more aggressive act among many.  [i] “A revival of flogging?”, The Economist, 25 April 2010,

While the conservative press may advocate the reintroduction of corporal sentences, an equally vocal section of society would condemn any attempt to use flogging as a means of punishment. The inherently pragmatic political discourse that prevails in most liberal democracies would be as reluctant to replace prison with the lash as it currently is to reduce prison populations and confront under-investment in rehabilitation schemes.  It should be noted that corporal punishment was initially abandoned as a result of the activities of penal reform campaigners in the early eighteen hundreds. These thinkers, politicians and professionals were able to convince members of a much more conservative political class of the wisdom of sentences focussed on rehabilitation. Moreover, they sold the idea of penal reform to a public who lacked the robust defences against disorder and criminality (the police, electronic surveillance, cheap insurance) that we take for granted today. Victorian-era citizens had much more to fear from crime than we do. If such dramatic change could be brought about in the nineteenth century, why should it be out of the grasp of politicians in the twenty first?

Custodial sentences make recidivism more likely  A custodial sentence is capable of destroying the relationships and livelihood of an offender. Imprisonment means that an offender will be unable to work and will lose his job, if he has one. Statistics sourced from the Pew Foundation indicate that a criminal record can reduce the likelihood of a black, male American securing a job by up to 57%1. The isolation inherent in imprisonment can lead to the breakup of marriages and to the decay of relationships between parents and children. The stigma associated with a custodial sentence may result in an offender being shunned by his friends, his family and his community. He will, in effect, be left with no sources of support once he is released. A former inmate will be left with no incentive to adjust his behaviour and disengage with criminality2. The Pew Foundation notes that 43% of offenders in the United States were returned to prison within three years of release1.  The long-term damage done to an offender's life is not an intended consequence of custodial sentencing. However, it cannot be claimed to be a proportionate response to crime, as it affects both serious offenders and those accused of non-violent offences such as burglary or fraud. The decay of an offender's relationships and social support structures is yet another harmful externality of custodial punishment.A corporal sentence caters to the social imperative to punish criminals, but it also allows offenders to remain with their families and to avoid financial hardship by remaining in employment. In Moskos' own words, corporal punishment allows society to express its disapproval quickly and efficiently, leaving the offenders to "move on" with the process of reform.  It is in the interests of any effective system of rehabilitation to ensure that a non-violent offender remains in contact with their family and remains in employment (excepting, of course, offenders who have attack or abused family members). Families, spouses and social networks can play an important role in supporting and encouraging an offender to engage with rehabilitation programmes. Wives and children can effectively monitor an offender's behaviour when trained staff are unavailable, integrating the reform process with the offender's day to day life.  1 "Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home", The Economist, 20 April 2011, 2"A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Incarceration in America". Drucker, E. The New Press

Prison reform is politically unachievable  The failures of the prison system are tolerated within political culture and by the public, partly because the privations of the prison environment are seen as a suitable punishment for criminal behaviour. Deprivation of liberty and the emptiness of criminal life are seen as retribution for criminals' dishonest or violent activities.  Politicians dare not confront the damaging effects of imprisonment for fear of being labelled as "soft" on crime. There is greater political cache to be gained from introducing policies that prolong prison terms, and remove judges' discretion to order non custodial sentences. Novel approaches to the problem of criminality are seen as signs of political weakness.  The use of monitored corporal punishment will keep offenders who have not committed serious crimes out of the prison system. At a nominal rate of five lashes for every year of incarceration, flogging will serve as a clear demonstration of societal disapproval, satisfying popular conceptions of retributive "justice". Once the need to punish is satisfied, policy makers will be free to institute new rehabilitation schemes that address the root causes of criminal behaviour; these schemes can be set up without sacrificing political capital or appearing to prioritise the rights of criminals over victims or the public.

The opposition is unable to conclusively prove that the growth in the prison population and the reduced effectiveness of rehabilitation is a direct result of over-criminalisation.  It may be true that the list of non-traditional crimes is expanding, but the harm that the resolution is seeking to address arises in the prison system, not in politician’s manifestos.  The majority of offenders imprisoned in the USA and the UK have committed genuine crimes, albeit of a petty or non violent nature. Once exposed to the prison system the criminal tendencies of these individuals are entrenched, rather than eliminated. The prison system does not transform unwitting and harmless offenders into criminals – it makes criminals out of desperate, poorly socialised or ignorant offenders. The prison system harms those placed in its care because it is no longer able to carry out its rehabilitative objectives.  The failure to rehabilitate those convicted of “ordinary” criminality impacts on the prison system itself, when recidivism and social exclusion lead to offenders being repeatedly convicted.  The root cause of the problems in the status quo is not the creation of too many crimes, but a failure to accept the contemporary reality of crime and criminal behaviour. Flogging would allow policy makers to engage with this reality, while satisfying the fundamental need to see wrongdoing punished.  The danger posed by over-inclusive corporal sentences is neatly eliminated by the balancing of judicial and legislative power in liberal democracies. Judges are given discretion in order to allow them to mitigate the effects of atavistic, unreasonable, disproportionate or populist manipulations of the law. If a judge believes that flogging would be excessive or unnecessary, given the nature of an offence, he will usually be free to hand down a different sentence.

As distasteful as debaters, moral philosophers and constitutional lawyers may find it, society still has a need to punish criminals. Although it seems to lack logic or reason (inflicting suffering on a criminal cannot be recompense for what he has taken, and may even prevent him from properly compensating his victim), a criminal justice system which does not punish will not command the confidence of the public.  If a criminal justice system is unable to command the confidence of the public, alternative methods of addressing criminal behaviour will be sought. Eliminating the role of punishment in criminal justice would put our entire judicial system at risk.  The resolution calls for a minimal and carefully controlled use of force by the state. This use of force is necessary in order to provide protection for the state’s citizens in the long term – by leaving the prison system free to treat and control offenders who are truly violent and dangerous, and by preventing the social exclusion of non-violent offenders.  While a state should endeavour to demonstrate the virtues of non violence and compromise, it can also fail in its duty to its citizens by being negligent of the needs of offenders, and wilfully ignorant of the most effective solutions to criminality.

Flogging will be over-utilised, rehabilitation will be under-utilised  The “packaging” of flogging with a revitalised approach to rehabilitation that proposition suggests may be a feasible response to some crimes, but politicians are much more likely to treat the lash as a panacea for any activity or trend that affects the public’s confidence in the justice system.  The public and the mass media are not inclined the probe the depths of criminal sentencing. Criminals are hard to sympathise with, and public confidence rests largely on the visible aspects of a sentence – has a criminal been locked away? Will they be closely monitored on release? Has a criminal received a sufficient number of lashes? As a consequence, as with custodial sentences, cutbacks to reform programmes can be achieved with little objection, leaving only the empty and brutal gesture of flogging itself. Political reality will neutralise the aspirations of the proposition  Lawmakers are currently too keen to invoke imprisonment as a response to crime. They are likely to be just as hasty in ordering the use of whipping as a sanction for criminality. A 1995 US Department of State Report on the use on penal practices in Singapore noted that 3244 sentences had incorporated caning [i] . A subsequent Department of State briefing published in 2008 stated that the Singaporean judiciary had handed down 6404 sentences that included either mandatory or discretionary use of caning [ii] . The corporal sentences handed down to Malaysian women that were discussed above were widely held to have been influenced by a clamp-down on “moral” offences mounted by the Malaysian judiciary [iii] .  Flogging will not prevent politicians from making grabs for political capital by criminalising the ill-judged actions of otherwise harmless, well-adjusted and compliant members of society. Moreover, law makers are likely to discount or overlook the close link between flogging and rehabilitation that the proposition case is dependent on.  [i] “Singapore Human Rights Practices, 1994”, US Department of State, February 1995,   [ii] “Singapore”, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, US Department of State, 11 March 2008,   [iii] “Malaysia canes women for adultery”, Al Jazeera English, 18 February 2010,

Poorly constructed laws are not an excuse to abandon the prison system  The proposition does nothing to address the root cause of overcrowding in prisons and “over-inclusive” penal codes. The problems inherent in the status quo are not solved by flogging. The strain placed on penal institutions and systems of sentencing originates in a political culture that cynically exploits public fear of crime and social breakdown to win votes and project power.  As noted above, many law makers frequently set out to “discover” or “invent” new forms of criminal offence, in order to appear proactive in reducing criminality or protecting communities from state or corporate graft [i] . Dogmatic and over-zealous responses to existing problems can also transform civil or disciplinary issues into crimes. A case in point is Indian anti corruption campaigners’ insistence on the use of a broad and open definition of “bribery” in a proposed open-government law. Under the “three strikes” implemented in the US state of California, approximately 3700 non-violent repeat offenders are serving life sentences [ii] . A US medical specialist received a twenty five year prison term when a number of his patients, without his knowledge, were found to have been illegal selling the drugs he had prescribed to them. Additionally, the practice of electing judicial officials in states such as the US incentives candidates to hand out sentences or file charges that generate a positive public response, whether or not they are suitable response to the actions and circumstances of offenders [iii] .  The resolution purports to discipline and restrain criminals, but does nothing to discipline and restrain law makers. Simply replacing custodial sentences with flogging will do nothing to address the factors that have led to an unreasonable expansion of penal law. The process of excessive criminalisation may even be accelerated, as the reduced cost of flogging over imprisonment encourages policy makers to turn to corporal punishment as a populist, knee-jerk response to civil disorder or moral panics.  Evidence of the inappropriate use of corporal punishment has already emerged from states such as Singapore, where, in 1995 a 48-year-old French citizen was caned for breaking the conditions of his Visa. Corporal sentences have also been given to Singaporean citizens convicted of vandalism and criticising Singapore’s judiciary. In Malaysia during 2010 and 2009 [iv] , state-sanctioned religious courts ordered the caning of four women who had admitted to extra marital affairs and drinking alcohol [v] – the first sentences of their kind in the history of the modern Malaysian state.  [i] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010,   [ii] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010,   [iii] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010,   [iv] “Malaysia canes women for adultery”, Al Jazeera English, 18 February 2010,   [v] “Malaysia in heated debate over caning of woman”, World Corporal Punishment Research, 25 July 2009,

States' duty to avoid the use of force when solving social problems  How will the severity and legality of flogging be monitored? How will it be reconciled with existing liberal democratic value sets? The majority of western liberal democracies are party to inter-governmental and supranational agreements that expressly forbid states from using torture or degrading or inhuman punishments in any capacity.  The mark of a modern, liberal state is that it uses authority and engagement rather than raw power to protect its citizens. The use of force or power by the state and its agents is harder to regulate and costlier to compensate when it is misapplied. Liberal democracies, apart from being agents of realpolitik, are also aspirational bodies that should strive to reflect and adhere to the values they were created to defend. Arbitrary, coercive force and violence is one of the core harms that a state must guard against. Violence is said to be the preserve of criminals and those acting against the values of society. Therefore, as an aspirational body, the state should hold itself to a higher standard of behaviour than such individuals.  Violence, as most liberal constitutions make clear, should only ever be employed by the state as a last resort. Where a state has the means to do so, even if those means are costly or politically contentious, it should endeavour to achieve peace and order within its own borders without wielding power.  At its broadest, the liberal democratic ideology holds that the rights and autonomy of individual citizens should be only be infringed in order to protect the rights and autonomy of other citizens. This principle would be violated if the state resorted to corporal sentencing as a way of satisfying a mob-like demand for visible and harsh criminal sentencing.  No citizen of a liberal democracy has a right to demand that another citizen, criminal or not, should be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering by the state.

There is political capital to be gained from adopting a hard line stance on law and order issues, but there is also political capital to be gained from showing that a particular policy has had a positive effect on reoffending. The Pew Foundation report cited above has also determined that some 90% of US voters were in favour of reducing the length of prison sentences and "strengthening" probation and parole systems1.  The opposition assumes that politicians are interested only in cheap, hollow, short term solutions to problem. However, a large number of policy makers are genuinely public spirited, with a sincere interest in solving long-standing social problems. The adversarial nature of politics tends to prevent politicians from seeking elaborate or novel solutions to such issues. Spending money on intangible rehabilitation programmes will always provoke more criticism than spending money on training more police officers.  The resolution allows politicians to engage with the novel solution to criminality offered by rehabilitation while at the same time meeting a general demand for criminals to be visibly and strictly punished for their actions.  There will be a cynical minority of politicians who will see the dramatic nature of flogging as an opportunity to disguise cuts to reform programmes. Equally, there will be others who will use corporal sentences as an opportunity to address and resolve the politically intractable problem of criminal deviance.  1 "Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home", The Economist, 20 April 2011,

Prison reform is politically unachievable  The failures of the prison system are tolerated within political culture and by the public, partly because the privations of the prison environment are seen as a suitable punishment for criminal behaviour. Deprivation of liberty and the emptiness of criminal life are seen as retribution for criminals’ dishonest or violent activities.  Politicians dare not confront the damaging effects of imprisonment for fear of being labelled as “soft” on crime. There is greater political cache to be gained from introducing policies that prolong prison terms, and remove judges’ discretion to order non custodial sentences. Novel approaches to the problem of criminality are seen as signs of political weakness.  The use of monitored corporal punishment will keep offenders who have not committed serious crimes out of the prison system. At a nominal rate of five lashes for every year of incarceration, flogging will serve as a clear demonstration of societal disapproval, satisfying popular conceptions of retributive “justice”. Once the need to punish is satisfied, policy makers will be free to institute new rehabilitation schemes that address the root causes of criminal behaviour; these schemes can be set up without sacrificing political capital or appearing to prioritise the rights of criminals over victims or the public.

Flogging harms offenders less than imprisonment  he criminologist Peter Moskos [i] observes that most of us, if given the choice, would opt to receive ten lashes rather than spend five years in prison. Paradoxically, a significant number of us would condemn corporal punishment as barbaric and inhumane. If imprisonment is a more rational response to criminal behaviour, why would so many rational individuals opt to receive corporal punishment?  Contemporary prisons are the result of a failed utopian experiment. They serve no useful rehabilitative purpose, and exist only to fulfil a common desire to punish deviant behaviour and to segregate criminals from the public at large. Prisons harm inmates and obstruct attempts to reintegrate them into society. It may be necessary to incarcerate certain compulsive and habitually violent criminals, but for a majority of offenders, prison only serves exacerbate underlying social, economic and psychological problems that lead to criminality.  Using corporal punishment to reduce or replace custodial sentences would provide an effective way to fulfil the social need to punish criminals, while removing the harmful externalities of mass incarceration. Strictly supervised whipping or caning can adequately and proportionately express society’s anger with the criminal, while avoiding the dangers of long-term incarceration and reinvigorating the use of rehabilitation.  In the United States, the UK and many European countries, prison populations have increased dramatically, but reductions in rates of offending have been minimal or non existent. In the absence of funding, or coherent, centrally administered rehabilitation strategies, prisons have become places devoid of productive activity. Prisoners are not encouraged to address the causes of their offending, or to acquire skills that will help them to live independently in society following their release. Boredom, overcrowding and under-staffing have led to the emergence of gang- and drug-cultures in many prisons. Inmates incarcerated for minor offences quickly become complicit in gang violence, or fall prey to alcoholism and drug addiction. Gang associations and chemical dependencies carry over into inmates’ lives once they are released. The prison system serves only to breed criminality, not to cure it.  The cost of incarcerating the average offender in the United Kingdom is estimated to be £45000 a year [ii] . Reduced spending on incarceration can be used to fuel an increase in spending on detoxification, rehabilitation and restorative justice schemes. Moreover damaging effects of prison will not cancel out the positive effects of rehabilitation.  The physical injuries resulting from whipping, although painful, are less severe than the subtler damage wrought on inmates by imprisonment.  [i] “In Defense of Flogging”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 April 2011,   [ii] “Tough on Crime, Tough on Criminals”, The economist, 23 June 2011,

Through their actions, career criminals and drug offenders often subject their families to misery far in excess of the temporary absence of a loved one, or transient financial hardship. The damaging processes of taking drugs and supporting a habit are normalised for children living with addicts; children exposed to drugs in this way are much more likely to develop an addiction themselves. Criminals who make a business out of thievery may use the family home to store acquisitions. Wives and members of an extended family may be coerced into trading stolen goods. Offenders who trade drugs or store stolen goods in leased or social housing risk eviction if their activities are discovered. This, in turn, would lead to their families being displaced or left homeless. Siblings and parents of gang members can often be the targets of violence resulting from feuds and “territorial disputes”.  As noted above, rehabilitation does not offer an immediate “cure” for criminality. Neither can it protect families who, through ignorance or misfortune, are maintained by the proceeds of criminal activity. Although a significant number of prison inmates may be normally honest citizens who have made bad or impulsive choices, an equally large number are poorly socialised members of chaotic families. The environment of lawlessness that such individuals create in family homes creates a situation that may lead their spouses and children into deviance themselves.  Under these circumstances, isolating an offender from his family may give the family an opportunity to break free of a pattern of daily life that would otherwise be saturated with criminality.

Custodial sentences make recidivism more likely  A custodial sentence is capable of destroying the relationships and livelihood of an offender. Imprisonment means that an offender will be unable to work and will lose his job, if he has one. Statistics sourced from the Pew Foundation indicate that a criminal record can reduce the likelihood of a black, male American securing a job by up to 57% [i] . The isolation inherent in imprisonment can lead to the breakup of marriages and to the decay of relationships between parents and children. The stigma associated with a custodial sentence may result in an offender being shunned by his friends, his family and his community. He will, in effect, be left with no sources of support once he is released. A former inmate will be left with no incentive to adjust his behaviour and disengage with criminality [ii] . The Pew Foundation notes that 43% of offenders in the United States were returned to prison within three years of release [iii] .  The long-term damage done to an offender’s life is not an intended consequence of custodial sentencing. However, it cannot be claimed to be a proportionate response to crime, as it affects both serious offenders and those accused of non-violent offences such as burglary or fraud. The decay of an offender’s relationships and social support structures is yet another harmful externality of custodial punishment.  A corporal sentence caters to the social imperative to punish criminals, but it also allows offenders to remain with their families and to avoid financial hardship by remaining in employment. In Moskos’ own words, corporal punishment allows society to express its disapproval quickly and efficiently, leaving the offenders to “move on” with the process of reform.  It is in the interests of any effective system of rehabilitation to ensure that a non-violent offender remains in contact with their family and remains in employment (excepting, of course, offenders who have attack or abused family members). Families, spouses and social networks can play an important role in supporting and encouraging an offender to engage with rehabilitation programmes. Wives and children can effectively monitor an offender’s behaviour when trained staff are unavailable, integrating the reform process with the offender’s day to day life.  [i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011,   [ii] “A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Incarceration in America”. Drucker, E. The New Press  [iii] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011,

Imprisonment punishes offenders’ families  Even though liberal democratic systems of justice continue to place an emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation, sentences are still required to be proportionate to the crime that they punish. Further, a sentence must only punish those judged responsible for the crime. Collective punishment and guilt by association are not tolerated within rational, liberal systems of criminal law.  Imprisoning or fining an offender often places an intolerable burden on the offender’s family. If the offender is a breadwinner, the family is denied the income that he would otherwise provide. They may be forced to use inadequate benefit systems. Other members of the family may be forced to take up a second job, adversely affecting childcare arrangements. Any fines that an offender is ordered to pay are often impact upon his family, damaging household budgets and forcing other family members into debt.  The negative effects of a custodial sentence extend beyond the offender himself. Financial and social deprivation may have a minimal impact on an offender while his is imprisoned, but may cause considerable suffering within his family. Sudden social isolation and poverty have themselves been shown to provoke criminality and increase childhood deviance.  Corporal sentences allow a punishment to be targeted only at the criminal, not at their families.

The opposition is unable to conclusively prove that the growth in the prison population and the reduced effectiveness of rehabilitation is a direct result of over-criminalisation.  It may be true that the list of non-traditional crimes is expanding, but the harm that the resolution is seeking to address arises in the prison system, not in politician’s manifestos.  The majority of offenders imprisoned in the USA and the UK have committed genuine crimes, albeit of a petty or non violent nature. Once exposed to the prison system the criminal tendencies of these individuals are entrenched, rather than eliminated. The prison system does not transform unwitting and harmless offenders into criminals – it makes criminals out of desperate, poorly socialised or ignorant offenders. The prison system harms those placed in its care because it is no longer able to carry out its rehabilitative objectives.  The failure to rehabilitate those convicted of “ordinary” criminality impacts on the prison system itself, when recidivism and social exclusion lead to offenders being repeatedly convicted.  The root cause of the problems in the status quo is not the creation of too many crimes, but a failure to accept the contemporary reality of crime and criminal behaviour. Flogging would allow policy makers to engage with this reality, while satisfying the fundamental need to see wrongdoing punished.  The danger posed by over-inclusive corporal sentences is neatly eliminated by the balancing of judicial and legislative power in liberal democracies. Judges are given discretion in order to allow them to mitigate the effects of atavistic, unreasonable, disproportionate or populist manipulations of the law. If a judge believes that flogging would be excessive or unnecessary, given the nature of an offence, he will usually be free to hand down a different sentence

States’ duty to avoid the use of force when solving social problems  How will the severity and legality of flogging be monitored? How will it be reconciled with existing liberal democratic value sets? The majority of western liberal democracies are party to inter-governmental and supranational agreements that expressly forbid states from using torture or degrading or inhuman punishments in any capacity.  The mark of a modern, liberal state is that it uses authority and engagement rather than raw power to protect its citizens. The use of force or power by the state and its agents is harder to regulate and costlier to compensate when it is misapplied. Liberal democracies, apart from being agents of realpolitik, are also aspirational bodies that should strive to reflect and adhere to the values they were created to defend. Arbitrary, coercive force and violence is one of the core harms that a state must guard against. Violence is said to be the preserve of criminals and those acting against the values of society. Therefore, as an aspirational body, the state should hold itself to a higher standard of behaviour than such individuals.  Violence, as most liberal constitutions make clear, should only ever be employed by the state as a last resort. Where a state has the means to do so, even if those means are costly or politically contentious, it should endeavour to achieve peace and order within its own borders without wielding power.  At its broadest, the liberal democratic ideology holds that the rights and autonomy of individual citizens should be only be infringed in order to protect the rights and autonomy of other citizens. This principle would be violated if the state resorted to corporal sentencing as a way of satisfying a mob-like demand for visible and harsh criminal sentencing.  No citizen of a liberal democracy has a right to demand that another citizen, criminal or not, should be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering by the state.

There is political capital to be gained from adopting a hard line stance on law and order issues, but there is also political capital to be gained from showing that a particular policy has had a positive effect on reoffending. The Pew Foundation report cited above has also determined that some 90% of US voters were in favour of reducing the length of prison sentences and “strengthening” probation and parole systems [i] .  The opposition assumes that politicians are interested only in cheap, hollow, short term solutions to problem. However, a large number of policy makers are genuinely public spirited, with a sincere interest in solving long-standing social problems. The adversarial nature of politics tends to prevent politicians from seeking elaborate or novel solutions to such issues. Spending money on intangible rehabilitation programmes will always provoke more criticism than spending money on training more police officers.  The resolution allows politicians to engage with the novel solution to criminality offered by rehabilitation while at the same time meeting a general demand for criminals to be visibly and strictly punished for their actions.  There will be a cynical minority of politicians who will see the dramatic nature of flogging as an opportunity to disguise cuts to reform programmes. Equally, there will be others who will use corporal sentences as an opportunity to address and resolve the politically intractable problem of criminal deviance.  [i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011,

Migrations for economic reasons is part of the modern global economy. Tibet in 1950 was massively underdeveloped with very low literacy rates, and little modern economic infrastructure. Given the determination of the Chinese government to modernize Tibet, the importation of workers was vital. Educated Chinese were needed to run the administration in the absence of qualified local elites willing to work with them, while Chinese teachers were needed to run the schools. In turn, they brought their families, and a host of businesses followed.  By the same token, teaching Mandarin is not an issue. There are 6 million Tibetans surrounded by 1 billion Chinese who speak Mandarin, teaching the language of commerce is an effort to integrate the Tibetans.  And integration is what the Chinese are after, as while no exact figures are published, it is overwhelmingly clear that Tibet is a net loser financially for them, and has been consistently since the 1950s. The costs of subsidizing a largely unemployed populous along with educational and infrastructure improvements has cost far more than the revenue coming in. If Tibet is a colony, China is not in it for the money. [1]  [1] Coonan, Clifford, ‘Behind the façade of Chinese rule in Tibet’, The Intependent, 3 July 2010,

Tibetans are rapidly becoming a minority in their own country  Due to systematic campaign of Sinocization, millions of Han Chinese have been encouraged to settle in Tibet, and with the support of the government they now dominate the economy and upper echelons of the administration. Demographically Tibetans are rapidly becoming a minority within their own country, and administratively this has already taken place.  While short of open genocide, the intent of the Chinese government is quite clearly the elimination of the Tibetan people as a distinct national, cultural and linguistic group. Not only are they attempting to drown them through settlement, but Tibetan students are forced to learn Mandarin in the schools and are being taught that they are Chinese.  While there may well have been past periods of Chinese sovereignty, the policies of the current Beijing government seem designed to produce an outcome far more permanent than those past efforts which respected Tibetan identity and culture.

On the contrary, this situation almost ensures that the Tibetans will become a puppet of one or another foreign power. Weak states almost invariably need allies to maintain their independence. An independent Tibet, especially one that has inherited the history of the last sixty years would likely be dominated by politicians who are militantly anti-Chinese, but would be too weak to defend itself against China. It would almost certainly become an Indian proxy, as its only hope of survival would be to attempt to gain the support of the United States and India against China.  In effect the creation of an independent Tibet, rather than avoiding conflict, would make it more pressing by moving the effective frontline hundreds of miles northward. Right now China and India may not like each other, but the Tibetan-Indian border is sufficiently mountainous as to make military action difficult if not impossible. By contrast, its northern border is much more easily crossed as the Chinese themselves showed in 1950. An independent Tibet would be a security threat to China and the region.

Tibet is a distinct nation with a distinct history that China illegally invaded  Tibet has a long history of independence going back more than 1500 years. Even in times of Chinese “domination”, Tibetans largely governed themselves independently of the small number of Chinese officials in Lhasa. [1]  Tibet at most was a tributary of China, and was no more part of it than Thailand, Myanmar or Korea. And from 1911 until 1950 it was entirely independent and conducted its foreign relations as such, for example remaining neutral in World War II despite both its neighbours the Republic of China and the British Empire being on the side of the Allies.  Tibet’s annexation by China occurred under the guns of 40,000 Chinese soldiers, and the precedent begun by the invasion stands as one of the few post-1945 cases in which the national principle was abandoned and the only one in which a fully independent state vanished from the map.  When one notes that Tibetans have their own language, and a history that includes far more wars with the Chinese than examples of kinship, Chinese arguments of sovereignty have little bearing on the reality. [2]  [1] van Walt, Michael C., ‘The legal status of Tibet’, Cultural Survival Quarterly (Vol. 12, 1988),   [2] Tsering, Lhasang, ‘India’s Tibet: A Case for Policy Review’, 17 March 2000,

In order for Tibet to have traditionally been viewed as part of the Chinese nation, there is no requirement that it have been under Chinese rule continuously. Like many other parts of “China”, it was ruled by China during times of imperial strength, and when governments weakened, so too did central authority. In this sense Tibet has a lot in common with Manchuria, another region that tended to drift towards autonomy during times of dynastic weakness.  One thing however has been clear – the variation in sovereignty in Tibet has been between autonomy and Chinese sovereignty. Even in the 9th century when Tibetan armies were outside the gates of the Tang Dynasty Capital of Chang’an, the Tibetans remained nominally the Emperor’s subjects as proclaimed by a monument from 823 stating “their territories be united as one”. [1]  Tibet’s independence between 1904/11 and 1950 was consistent with this cycle. Tibet gained autonomy when China weakened, and this autonomy was as much a product of British influence as it was of any Tibetan desires themselves. In 1950, with China reunited under a strong government, Chinese sovereignty returned. It was undoubtedly the case that the local elites who were displaced resented this change, just as their predecessors did the previous times throughout history when Chinese sovereignty was restored, but this does not justify independence, especially when Tibetan independence in the past has always been a product of the dual factors of Chinese weakness and the strength of foreign powers in the region, neither of which is operative right now.  [1] China Daily, ‘From dynasty to republic’, 9 April 2008

Everything is comparative. The major reason why China does not face more serious domestic unrest is that its international and economic progress have allowed it to appeal to Chinese nationalism. Withdrawing from Tibet would be viewed as an act of weakness, one which would do far more to undermine the Communist party’s legitimacy and support base than remaining there.  Secondly, attacks on China’s Human Rights record matter less and less each year as trade with the PRC becomes more and more valuable to the West. It barely affected the Olympics and increasingly it is viewed as an effort by the West to divide China.  Thirdly, the cost of the province has to be compared against the potential security risks an independent Tibet, especially one under anti-Chinese leadership, would pose to Chinese security.

An independent Tibet would serve as a buffer state between India and China, reducing the chances of a regional clash  An independent Tibet would serve a useful purpose as a neutral and demilitarized buffer state between India and China. Given the rising economic and military clout of both powers, a future conflict is becoming ever more likely, and they already fought one war against one another in 1962.  An independent Tibet would mean that the two nations would no longer have a common border, making their rivalry less practical and far less pressing. This would reduce military obligations for both, and prevent the Tibetans from being caught in the middle of a future conflict.

Tibet presents an explosive domestic political issue for China which the latter would benefit from eliminating  Tibet, and the resistance Tibetans continue to show to Chinese rule presents a toxic domestic and international political problem that costs far more than it worth.  Domestically, violence in Tibet is the most serious domestic disturbance facing the Chinese government, and the fact that there is nearly constant violence between Han Settlers and Tibetans forces the Chinese to alienate everyone in order to contain it. Furthermore, the economic and political disenfranchisement of the Tibetan people is an enormous domestic problem, as it has led to large numbers becoming unemployed and moving to other parts of China where they form an underclass.  Internationally, the Tibetan issue keeps China’s Human Rights record in the news and almost torpedoed the 2008 Olympic games. Given that China is already losing money on the province, it may well be worth it for China to jettison it in order to gain much greater international benefits.

While of obvious interest, it is hard to see how Chinese opinion is of vital relevance to whether or not Tibet should enjoy independence. Serbian opinion was almost certainly overwhelmingly against Kosovar claims in 1998, and it can be assumed that Southern Sudanese Secession may have been less than popular on the streets of Khartoum than Juba.  Furthermore, a large part of the reason for the reaction of the Chinese Public is that the Communist Party has consistently encouraged nationalist sentiment in an effort to deflect its own population from their lack of human and political rights. An independent Tibet would serve as a beacon of freedom in the region and might well inspire Chinese citizens to begin to make demands of their own for political and social freedoms.

Such progress has been self-serving, with many of the economic gains made by Han Settlers. Secondly it has come at the cost of Tibetan culture and the very national identity that Tibetans hold dear.  It is also absurd to suggest that these gains would disappear upon independence. Tibet would likely seek to continue to trade with China, and if that is not possible, there would be opportunities to gain investment from India or the West. The benefits of such trade could then be used to help the Tibetans themselves rather than Han settlers. As Ten Zin Samphel, a leader of the Tibetan community in Britain remarks "At the moment, the economic development is for the benefit of the Chinese… If Tibet were free, we could develop it ourselves." [1]  [1] McGivering, Jill, ‘China’s quandary over Tibet’s future’, BBC News, 20 March 2008,

Tibet is almost 50% Han Chinese and they dominate the economy. Expelling them would be catastrophic  Whatever the reasons or the moral legitimacy behind the move, Tibet is a very different place today than it was in 1950. According to the 2000 census, 2.3 million of Tibet’s 7.3 Million citizens are Han Chinese, and if temporary residents are added the numbers nearly double.  In the event Tibet achieves independence it is likely that these Han residents will face discrimination if not open pogroms. Already they are a constant target of riots launched by Tibetan Nationalists, events that often end in the destruction of Han businesses and property.  Such an outcome would not only be morally abhorrent – it would also be catastrophic for Tibet’s economic and political position.  This minority plays a key role in the Tibetan economy, and their departure would create a vacuum that could lead to an economic collapse.  Furthermore, any mistreatment of the Han Minority would likely push Chinese opinion, already of the view that the Tibetans are coddled according to Faread Zakaria, into support for military intervention.  The Economist’s James Miles remarked of the 2008 riots that "What I saw was calculated targeted violence against an ethnic group, or I should say two ethnic groups, primarily ethnic Han Chinese living in Lhasa, but also members of the Muslim Hui minority in Lhasa." [1]  [1] ‘Transcript: James Miles interview on Tibet’, CNN, 20 March 2008,

Tibet could never be a viable independent state and would either become a Chinese puppet or a launching pad for American and Indian power against China.  Given the realities of geography, Tibet has little prospect of real independence. Landlocked, with few natural resources, and no clear way to get any resources it does have out, Tibet would be poor, and overshadowed by its much larger neighbours, China and India.  It would be faced with the choice of either becoming a prize to be fought over between those two powers or aligning itself with one or the other, most likely India given its difficult recent history over the last few decades.  The consequence would be that rather than giving the Tibetans greater freedom, independence would render them pawns, and rather than reducing tensions in the region, it would likely increase those between India, Pakistan and China. Tibet would be in the same position it was at the end of the 19th Century when it was a weak power at the mercy of the British and Chinese having to toe the line for whichever neighbour was stronger at the time.  Its hard to see how the United States could avoid being drawn into such a geopolitical quagmire, with likely negative consequences for the Sino-American relationship as well. The US having played a key role in gaining freedom for Tibet could hardly stand aside if that freedom was threatened, and the Chinese in turn would view any US influence in a free Tibet as further evidence of the existence of an American hand behind the Tibetan Freedom Movement.

China has viewed the last century and a half as non-stop efforts by Westerners to divide China. This looks like another.  The last century and a half of relations between China and the West have from the Chinese perspective been one long period of national dismemberment. In 1842 the British took control of Hong Kong after the first Opium war, and after its sequel, China lost control of Shanghai and its own customs service. Efforts were made to sever Manchuria, Taiwan from China in the 20th, and Korea and Vietnam were fully removed from Chinese authority.  As a consequence the Chinese are quite paranoid about outside efforts to divide Chinese territory, and support for the Tibetan Independence, due to the fact that the West has no clear interests in the region, is interpreted chiefly as an effort to divide and weaken China. [1]  As a consequence, western condemnation tends to be counterproductive, leading to public sentiment in China turning far nastier towards legitimate Tibetan demands.  These sorts of views on the part of the Chinese Public are far from unwarranted given the likely consequences of Tibetan independence, namely the creation of a Pro-Western, anti-Chinese state on their borders, and the Chinese are therefore likely to respond to future moves in favour of Tibetan independence the same way Americans would have reacted to Pro-Confederate moves on the part of Great Britain or France during the US Civil War.  [1] II. Origins of So-Called ‘Tibetan Independence’,

Tibet has made enormous strides under Chinese rule  Contrary to the impressions forwarded by the proposition, Tibet has made enormous strides under Chinese rule. The urban population has increased seven-fold since 1950, [1] literacy has increased from the teens to being as high as 95%, [2] and the average life expectancy has increased from the low 30s to the 60s.  Furthermore, with few natural resources and the economy in Han hands, there is a need for investment capital, and that capital can only come from China. Even the Dalai Llama acknowledged this in 2006, suggesting that a relationship with China similar to that between EU countries would be ideal. [3]  [1] European Space Agency, ‘The Himalayan region’, esa.int, 18 February 2010,   [2] Literacy rate among young people climbs in Tibet, People’s Daily Online, 31 July 2008,   [3] Liu, Melinda, ‘Fears and Tears’, Newsweek, 19 May 2008,

Simple geography makes a general conflict over Tibet unlikely. Located on some of the most mountainous terrain in the world, moving large armies would be next to impossible in the region, with the consequence that conflicts like the Sino-Indian war of 1962 were contained by the simple inability of the combatants to bring supplies and reinforcements to the front.  Making Tibet a neutral buffer state would simply exacerbate these challenges by denying the likely combatants a common border behind which to build up military infrastructure. It may well be that China and India would become rivals for influence in Lhasa, but this would be a diplomatic war of shadows rather than a physical one, just like the current competition for influence in Myanmar which is in a similar position, [1] and it would be a conflict which would provide Tibet with the opportunity to play the rivals off against each other in a way that would safeguard its independence as well as peace in the region.  [1] Kuppuswamy, C.S., ‘MYANMAR: Sandwiched between China &amp; India and gaining from both’, South Asia Analysis Group, 31 January 2008, Paper no. 2574,

First of all it is worth noting that the Chinese settlers are themselves the product of deliberate campaign of cultural genocide on the part of the Chinese government. While individually they may be innocent, by their participation they have become targets. In this sense there is little difference between them and Israeli settlers in the West Bank or the former French settlers in Algeria.  But even granting that, there is no reason to assume this violence would continue if Tibet became independent and the major cause of conflict, namely the Chinese occupation, was removed as a major issue of contention. It could be expected that a new Tibetan government would have an incentive to avoid all of the harms outlined by the opposition.  Symbolic of this is the Dalai Llama’s remarks that Tibet’s future is linked to China’s and that an independent Tibet would benefit from a close relationship with China.

This simply shows a need to either expand the law enforcement agencies or else have locals who are deputised. There is no need to turn schools into an armed environment in order to ensure that someone who is responsible who is armed is close enough to respond to any crisis at a school.

Not all schools have police available to protect them.  All schools and schoolchildren need to be protected yet not all schools are anywhere near a source of protection. Arming some teachers is most urgent in areas police provision is scarce due to diminished funds. Places like Harrold county in Texas have a sheriff’s office situated 17 miles away, and unlike more urban areas they cannot afford to hire district police officers. With the law enforcement officers so far away a lot of children could be killed before there could be any possibility of response from any police of law enforcement agencies. Arming teachers in predominantly rural areas of the USA is therefore a logical and necessary step to protect schools that do not already have dedicated protection. [1]  [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,

Why shouldn’t they carry guns if teachers can? Surely in such uncertain situations as Columbine they should also carry the right to protect their classmates? Even if children aren’t legally meant to carry them anyway then what’s to stop moral gray areas from occurring in situations of self-protection for an entire class/school?  Taking this to its natural conclusion, what is to stop teachers’ guns simply falling into the wrong hands? A child could steal a teacher’s gun and use it against a classmate, causing unintentional or intentional fatalities, arming teachers simply makes such events possible rather than protecting against them. [1] The logic of trying to make schools less vulnerable to violent attacks by introducing more firearms is hugely flawed.  [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,

Arming teachers would mean safer schools  If school teachers, as people in positions of authority over vulnerable groups, were permitted to carry arms then it would guarantee greater protection for children. Incidents in recent years such as the massacre at Columbine High School have proven that a significant risk exists of school children gaining access to guns and using them against their classmates. The carnage could have been prevented if the teachers present had been able to defend themselves and the children in their care as teachers would be able to act as a first line of defence. [1] Furthermore, having schools as arms-free environments specifically makes them a target, those looking for targets are more likely to choose schools because they are less likely to meet armed resistance. Incidents include a school in Lincoln, Nebraska where a 17-year-old shot his vice-principal before killing himself. Lawmaker Mark Christensen, who had previously been opposed to teachers carrying arms, introduced legislation in January this year after the incident. [2] It illustrates how the potential for harm could be reduced if adults in responsible positions could defend themselves and those in their care.  [1] Hernandez, Selena, ‘Should Teachers Carry Guns On Campus’, CBS 11 News, 21 January 2011,   [2] Huffington Post, ‘Teachers Carrying Guns: Nebraska Senator Mark Christensen Introduces Bill To Keep Schools Safe’, 18 January 2011,

The logical fallacy here is the assumption that teachers will always have pupils’ best interests at heart. There’s little to stop children from becoming extremely vulnerable if they are under the supervision of someone who could turn on them. Gun attacks like Columbine and Virginia Tech are often by people whose potential for violence was not spotted by anyone until it was too late. People in positions of authority are not always reliable or rational, and no amount of safety checks can guarantee that some teachers will not abuse the powers they have. This measure would simply increase the potential threat from those who have been authorised to carry guns in schools.

That teachers may also sometimes need protection does not alter the debate. They could equally be protected by having better police services and officers closer to schools. If teacher needs a gun for protection from someone threatening them then they are putting the children they are responsible for in danger. If Jane Doe’s ex husband had come after her and both had been armed her students could very easily have been caught in the crossfire.

The Second Amendment  When it comes down to it, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the American constitution. This right applies just as much to teachers as it does to anyone else. Having a right to bear arms means there is always going to the threat that one person can draw and use a weapon against another. The best way to counter-act such a danger is to meet it with equal means, as the culture of arms-bearing in the USA is too entrenched to try methods that involving scaling back gun-usage or enforcing much stricter arms control. Any attempt to do so would likely be struck down by the United States Supreme Court just as it declared the restrictions on handguns that were in place in Washington DC. [1] Therefore the best way to protect the most vulnerable in US society is to deploy the means that are encouraged and protected by the constitution.  [1] Supreme Court of the United States, ‘District of Columbia et al. v. Heller’, 26 June 2008,

Teachers need protection just as much as students  An incident in Medford, Oregon in 2007 illustrated how teachers need to be able to protect themselves as well as their students. Gun lobbyists claimed teacher Jane Doe’s reasons for wanting to be armed while teaching were based on the restraining order against her ex-husband, who had made threats against her and her children. Although local laws dictated that only law enforcement officers could brings guns onto a school campus, she challenged it on the grounds of her own personal safety. [1] In a country like the USA where ordinary civilians can own guns, people often feel the need to carry arms for the sake of self-protection. If people are allowed to do this in their own homes, then if the threats persist while they are at work by extension they should still be allowed to exercise self-protection.  [1] Knickerbocker, Brad, ‘Should teachers be allowed to pack a gun?’, Christian Science Monitor, 18 September 2007,

Teachers in places where the scheme has already been piloted have received training from private security firms. In Harrold county, teachers have also been provided with special ammunition that avoids ricocheting and therefore minimises the threat of students being caught in crossfire. [1] Other schools in more urban parts of states like Texas, particularly those suffering a high level of gang violence, already have their own police forces. Many American schools are therefore used to having an environment where arms usage is the norm. It is therefore hard to argue that introducing armed protection in a different form, aka through teachers rather than police officers, would result in an increased level of risk.  [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,

Schools such as those in the county of Harrold, TX [1] have already introduced laws allowing teachers to carry pistols, but largely in a concealed fashion. This therefore leaves children unawares and thus not distracted by seeing teachers prominently carrying guns. Furthermore, with teachers carrying concealed arms, any would-be attackers would be thrown by not knowing who to shoot first, which would not be the case if police officers were the first on the scene.  [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,

Guns in schools might be used in circumstances other than defense.  Having guns in the classroom will more than likely increase the chances of gun related violence in schools. It would increase the chance of gun related accidents; although only a very small chance there would previously have been no chance. It may well also increase the number of shootings; people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot, [1] although there is no way of knowing if the effect would be the same in the classroom as on the street. Finally it is ignoring the possibility that those who are to carry guns for the school children’s protection may at some point turn the gun on their charges. Teaching can be a very frustrating job and the teacher may get very angry with individual students, allowing teachers to carry guns would greatly increase the risk of an unpremeditated shooting against on a schoolchild.  [1] Callaway, Ewen, ‘Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed’, NewScientist, 6 October 2009,

How could arming teachers be regulated?  If teachers can bear arms, then what’s to stop other people in the school environment in contact with children, such as janitors, from demanding they should too, or even getting hold of them illicitly? Many of them won’t have been certified or checked, and as such there is no guarantee that the system of only allowing teaching staff to carry them could be fully regulated. This is particularly the case if janitors, cafeteria workers or cleaning staff have private gun licences of their own. The result is that children could be in an environment where those not licensed to carry arms around them would have greater opportunities to do so, thereby increasing the threat to children. It would be difficult to monitor which staff are bringing guns into school without a lot of investment in searches and detectors – money that could have paid for professional security. It is thus arguable that the proposition’s mechanism does not stand.

Children would be caught in the crossfire  We need to remember that we’re most likely dealing with threats to young people by other young people here. If teachers were granted the right of ‘shoot to kill,’ as the mechanism would imply, of anyone they found threatening, the consequences to completely innocent people in a crossfire, or merely troubled youngsters that could be rehabilitated if simply subdued, could be tragic and fatal. Ultimately, teachers are not police officers and are thus not equipped to take out an armed criminal in the same way. As the legislative director of the Houston Association of Teachers out it, “We are trained to teach and educate – not to tame the Wild West.” [1]  [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,

Children are impressionable  Allowing teachers to carry arms in school could mean that very young children could easily become acclimatised to the idea that carrying a gun and ultimately gun usage is ok. Surely the way to prevent incidents like Columbine from happening is to teach children about the potentially destructive and fatal consequences of gun usage? For elementary/primary school-age children, it would be difficult to separate the idea that it’s ok for teachers to always carry guns but not for anyone else.

The opposition’s point is a rather speculative one, as you could apply this argument to teachers in general, or anyone in positions of power over more vulnerable groups, such as nurses or doctors. Just because a minority choose to abuse (such as with the paedophile scandals in reported in some public US high schools) [1] that does not mean everyone in the teaching profession should have the right to protect those in their care revoked.  [1] Irvine, Martha, and Tanner, Robert, ‘AP: Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools’, The Washington Post, 21 October 2007,

The chances of accidents would be miniscule as teacher would be trained to carry the gun and would keep it with them at all times when in the classroom so there would be no chance of the students playing with the gun. The deterrence effect of having guns in school is likely to mean that the number of shootings will go down rather than up. Finally if it was an armed teacher who perpetrated the shooting then they would have been able to commit that atrocity regardless of whether s/he was allowed to carry a gun in school.

Victims of any form of crime, regardless of their life choices, are free to come to the police for protection and will be provided with the same protections as anyone else. The fact that people who commit crimes may feel less comfortable going to the police to avoid self-incrimination is not a reason to remove those laws.

Decriminalisation will protect practitioners of sadomasochism  The criminalisation of S&amp;M removes legal protection from individuals who suffer an abuse of consent while submitting to sadistic practices. Where a dominant partner ignores safe words or pushes a session too far, the criminal status of S&amp;M may lead to a victim being prosecuted alongside a perpetrator. Alternately, victims may be disincentivised from approaching the police altogether.  Although it is not possible to be prosecuted for being the victim of a crime, individuals who are harmed during sadomasochistic sex many not be able to engage in a rational assessment of their own criminal liability. Even though laws against sadomasochistic acts pin liability only on the sadistic partner, they also serve to criminalize the act itself. Victims of abuses of consent may therefore become wary of informing the police that they have participated in such activity, for fear that they will be publicly stigmatized or subjected to police investigation themselves.  The only time S&amp;M can be problematic is when someone does not listen to their partner when they withdraw their consent and ask for the session to end. Individuals will not stop engaging in S&amp;M simply because the state says so, but victims of over-aggressive partners will lose recourse or protection under the law if they try to approach the police about such an incident. Where an S&amp;M session goes awry, victims of an abuse of consent will have to admit to engaging in a criminal act. In the same way prostitutes have no real protection from assault and rape due to the criminality of their acts, victims of assault and rape in S&amp;M are no longer protected.  The opposition may attempt to claim that there will be a clear distinction between a sadistic “criminal” and a submissive “victim” whenever a complaint is raised. This is not true. Many sadomasochistic relationships are based around fluctuating and interchangeable roles. Both partners may engage in sadistic acts at different times.

The notion of consent cannot apply to a practice in which participants lack the ability to withdraw at any given time. Rape cases are easier to prosecute as it is clear and evident that the victim did not consent to the activity. The legalization of sadomasochism would create situations in which consent has been given beforehand but cannot be withdrawn during the activity.  There may be genuine confusion between participants in a situation where one party wishes to withdraw their consent but is unable due to the activities already underway. In that case, it would appear unreasonable to prosecute despite the victim’s anguish. To spare such horrible situations arising, the practice must remain illegal.  Finally, a number of criminal cases, including the English case of R v Dica, have held that intentionally or recklessly exposing a partner to a sexually transmitted infection by refusing to wear a condom can be a criminally action. Where an individual is aware that certain sexual interactions carry a risk of harm, and he does not obtain his partner’s full and informed acknowledgment of that risk, in English law at least, he commits a crime [i] .  If a man forces sex on a woman who has rejected his advances on the basis that he will not wear a condom, a rape is committed. If a man deceives a woman into having unprotected sex by lying about his sexual health, the decision in R v Dica will hold him liable for any resulting harm.  [i] R v Dica [2004] QB 1257

The criminalisation of sadomasochism infringes on individual liberty  Control of one’s own body is the most fundamental of human rights. No government should be permitted to define how its citizens can express themselves. The distinction between the permissible and the impermissible should be drawn at the line of consent. This is not a novel distinction. Your property cannot be stolen from you if you agree to give it away. You have no legal remedy if your property is damaged by another with your consent, or if you damage it yourself. Why should there be a moral difference when this property is flesh and blood? Paternalism in this instance only protects those who do not want to be protected.  The prohibition of sadomasochism is simply inconsistent with the liberty that governments already permit their citizens to exercise to injure each other and themselves. When people are entitled to risk pain, serious injury, or even death in sporting activity, why should they not also be permitted to suffer some discomfort in consensual sexual activity? The same piercing of flesh which attracts criminal liability in a fetishistic context can be performed legally in a chemist’s shop or tattooist’s parlor. The distinction between the rugby scrum, the bungee tower and the bedroom is an arbitrary one.  Some of the pleasure that is inherent in contact sports is derived from the adrenal thrill of flirting with injury. It is widely known that a significant proportion of individuals find jeopardy and danger as enjoyable as decadence. A sport purged of all risk would be unwatched and unplayed. Comparably, a corpus of law that did not acknowledge or protect the diversity of human sexual experience would needlessly limit individual sexual freedom, and would probably be ignored.

Every government has a duty to protect the moral and physical health of all its citizens. Firstly, the defining characteristic of sadomasochism is that it does harm to others. The activity has a victim. It is not a simple question of one individual being permitted to harm himself. Secondly, the fact of the victim’s consent is immaterial. The use of seatbelts is mandatory because citizens should not be allowed to risk their bodies for such a nugatory freedom. Citizens are allowed to lose or jeopardize their material assets through foolishness, since the assets are replaceable, or at least not critical to survival. Paternalism exists to protect people from themselves.  As noted below, governments are able to exercise varying degrees of regulation over potentially harmful activities according to the contexts that they occur in. Under these circumstances, the beneficial aspects of contact sports, risky performance arts and non-essential medical procedures can be balanced against the harms they might cause. Dangerous sporting activities invariably occur in public, are supervised by coaches and referees, and are subject to rule-sets agreed on by players and overseen by professional bodies. Under such circumstances, it is possible for the state to be satisfied that risk to the individual has been minimized as far as possible, and that there can be no confusion over which risks an individual consents to.  Where altercations on the sports field result in criminal prosecutions, much discussion is focused on the risks that the victim foresaw he would be exposed to. Hockey players have previously been held to have implicitly accepted the possibility that they might be deliberately struck with a hockey stick in the course of a match [i] . A recent English case ruled that a rugby player does not impliedly consent to run the risk that another player might bite and tear at his ear during a match [ii] .  [i] R v Green (1971) 16 DLR 93d) 164  [ii] R v Johnson (1986) 8 Cr App R (Sentencing) 343

When less painful but equally effective variations on existing beauty treatments enter the market, they quickly assume a position of dominance. Women and men who want to enhance their physical appearance do not automatically seek out the most painful way of doing so.  The proposition conflates a means of achieving sexual gratification with the gratifying act itself. A masochist finds erotic pleasure in being subjected to pain, irrespective of the ultimate purpose of that pain. Likewise, a sadist will inflict pain to achieve pleasure, without feeling that his actions require further justification or purpose.  A surgeon will design his procedures so that a patient will suffer an absolute minimum of pain and discomfort. A medical professional would likely be subjected to professional disciplinary measures if it were to become apparent that he derived gratification from the unavoidable pain sometimes endured by his patients. The consequences of a medical intervention sometimes mean that a patient will experience pain, but this is not evidence for the existence of underlying sadomasochistic motives.  Put simply, individuals with more typical sets of sexual desires regard cosmetic treatments as a means of achieving gratification, not the end in itself. Pain and infirmity take on great significance when an individual decides whether he wants to undergo cosmetic enhancement. The psychological screening that cosmetic surgeons employ is likely to detect individuals for whom pain and sexual pleasure have become interchangeable.  As side opposition’s third point will demonstrate, states permit individuals to consent to dangerous cosmetic procedures precisely because the risks inherent in these practices can easily be subjected to third party scrutiny.  Cosmetic surgery and beauty products exist in public, and are open to regulation and oversight. The bedroom, the basement and the private members club are, by contrast, concealed and secretive.

Sadomasochistic practices should be legal between informed, consenting adults.  It is sufficient for the decriminalization of sadomasochism that each participant is aware of the hazards inherent in the fetishes they will be exploring and consents to them. No law prohibits people from refusing to wear a condom during sexual intercourse, notwithstanding the peril of infection.  Furthermore, all cases where an individual withdraws their consent for the activity can be arbitrated and prosecuted like every other situation of consensual sex where an individual withdraws consent and their partner does not respect that wish. The police and courts will investigate it in the same way and will prosecute those who commit rape under the guise of S&amp;M just as they prosecute those who commit rape under the guise of consensual intercourse.

Western ideals of beauty already permit individual to endure intense physical pain in order to achieve sexual gratification  The idealization of physical beauty within American and European culture has created a demand for increasingly interventionist forms of cosmetic enhancement. Women and men are prepared to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to have their faces, breasts and genitals maimed and modified by surgeons, to have their skin bleached or their facial muscles temporarily paralyzed by “beauticians” and to be badgered, bullied and blackmailed into complying with restrictive diets and extensive regimes of physical exertion by domineering personal trainers. Except in the most extreme and obvious cases of emotional or psychological disturbance, adults are automatically assumed to be capable of consenting to these acts.  Further, the western ideal of physical beauty is closely associated with the cultural norms that influence and control sexual attraction, compatibility and enjoyment. The erotic is almost inextricably linked with the aesthetically idealized. The intense pain and extensive physical injuries that individuals endure in the pursuit of physical beauty are also endured in the pursuit of sexual gratification.  The risks inherent in invasive cosmetic treatments are poorly explained. The expense of these products and services and the pervasiveness of idealized physical forms combine to create parallel markets comprising cheaper, poorly regulated forms of “beauty enhancement”, including intensive tanning and skin bleaching lotions.  The ultimate objective of these physically painful and dangerous activities is sexual pleasure. Even if the heightening of sexual pleasure that results from physical modification is less direct than in a sadomasochistic encounter, many cosmetic surgery patients find the aesthetic pleasure attendant on successful surgery to be satisfying too.  It seems hypocritical and perverse for a supposedly liberal system of law to allow individuals who are openly pursuing a sexual objective to consent to the harms and risks of cosmetic surgery, while limiting the legality of sadomasochistic acts. Both activities have the same underlying purpose, and both produce dangerous externalities. Rational, consenting adults should have as much freedom to engage in S&amp;M play as they currently have to submit to cosmetic surgery.

Where should the line between sadomasochistc and “conventional” sexual activity be drawn? The English appeal case of R v Slingsby [i] concerned the accidental death of an individual who had consented to an inherently risky sexual act (the insertion of her partner’s fist into her anus) that was considered “vigorous” but not masochistic. As noted above, conventional sexual interaction is just as susceptible to subversion as S&amp;M encounters, and can just as easily collapse into a non-consensual act.  In effect, “normal” sexual expression is as difficult to regulate, and as likely to incorporate violence (or “vigorous activity” as the judge in Slingsby would have it) and to cause harm, as sadomasochism. Society at large does not demand that all private sexual activity is as tightly regulated as professional sport, nor does it attempt to outlaw sexual activity. Instead, it is acknowledged that personal freedom outweighs the occasional harms that private sexual relationships produce. Existing legal safeguards are seen as providing victims of abusive conventional relationships with adequate protection and recompense.  Indeed, the dangers that accompany conventional sex may be less obvious to the participants in a relationship than the dangers posed by a poorly tied knot or an inexpertly wielded crop. Sexually transmitted infections, concealed personality disorders, infidelity or jealous former partners all constitute significant and easily overlooked sources of harm.  [i] R v Slingsby [1995] Crim LR 570

The state has no right to decide what is “moral” or “immoral” for society. Each and every individual through their freedom of conscience is allowed to determine for themselves what a moral act would be as the government has no way of determining that with any certainty.  Moreover, there is no evidence that suggests any link between S&amp;M and propensity or escalation of criminality. Simply because someone enjoys the infliction or the feeling of pain does not mean that they will become a criminal who inflicts pain on other, un-consenting people in the future. Further, it could be argued that allowing people a consensual outlet for such urges reduces the probability that such escalation and criminality will occur.

It is not possible to meaningfully consent to sadomasochistic sex  Meaningful consent requires both that the person is informed and of age when consenting, but also requires the ability to withdraw consent at any point in time. Sadomasochism does not afford this crucial requisite of consent to the individual, and therefore no individual can legitimately and fully consent to the act.  Safe words are ludicrously impractical. Their utility is dependent upon their actually being agreed and committed to memory in advance and their declaration being heeded by the individuals who are under the influence of intense sexual desire. The passive ‘victim’ might be subject to the physical constraints, characteristic of bondage, that make speech or even flight impossible. It might be difficult to distinguish between an injunction to cease and an exclamation of pain, which presumably is a relatively regular occurrence.  Even where a number of individuals are able to demonstrate that their sadomasochistic encounters are conducted on a safe, regulated and consensual basis, it is not possible to give a concurrent guarantee that S&amp;M is generally safe and cannot be used to perpetrate rape or abuse. The existence of a group of individuals able to interact safely in a sadomasochistic context does not mean that S&amp;M does not present a risk to the wider population, nor that ordinary individuals are not excessively vulnerable to harm when engaged in S&amp;M activities.

The right to privacy counterbalances the state's obligation to ban sadomasochistic sex  y the proposition, those who want to engage in violent sexual activities will do so, irrespective of laws to the contrary. Without undermining core liberal concepts of privacy and freedom of association, the state will be unable to regulate private sexual interaction. This being the case, when is violent activity most likely to be detected and prosecuted under the status quo? When such acts become too visible, too public or too risky. When the bonds of trust and consent that (as the proposition has agreed) are so vital to a sadomasochistic relationship break down.  Liberal principles of privacy and autonomy allow individuals to engage in consensual activities that may fall outside established boundaries of social acceptance. In this way individual liberty is satisfied, while the risk of others being exposed to harmful externalities is limited. In the words of the anthropologist and lawyer Sally Falk-Moore, “the law can only ever be a piecemeal intervention in the life of society” [i] .  The prosecution of a large and organized community of sadomasochistic homosexual men in the English criminal case of R v Brown was in part motivated by the distribution of video footage of their activities [ii] . Doubts were also raised at trial as to whether or not some of the relationships within the group were entirely free of coercion. Their activities had become too public, and the bond of consent between the sadistic and masochistic partners too attenuated for the group to remain concealed.  Individuals break the law, in minor and significant ways, all the time. Due to the legal protection of private life, due to an absence of coercion, due to a consensual relationship between a “perpetrator” and a “victim”, such breaches go entirely undetected. The general right to privacy balances out the obligation placed on the state to ensure that individuals who encounter abuse and exploitation within sadomasochistic relationships can be protected.  The protection afforded by privacy incentivizes individuals engaged in S&amp;M activities to ensure that they follow the highest standards of safety and caution. Arguably, where “victims” have consented to being injured, but have then been forced to seek medical treatment due to their partner’s incompetence or lack of restraint, complaints to the police by doctors and nurses have helped to identify and halt reckless, negligent or dangerous sadomasochistic behavior.  Correctly and safely conducted, a sadomasochistic relationship need never enter the public domain, and need never be at risk of prosecution. However, without the existence of legal sanctions the state will have no power to intervene in high-risk or coercive S&amp;M partnerships.  [i] “Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa”, Werner Menski, Cambridge University Press, 2006  [ii] Annette Houlihan, ‘When “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means Harm: Gender, Sexuality and Sadomasochism Criminality’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of Law &amp; Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legal Issues 31

The state permits individuals to risk harming themselves only where such risks can be independently scrutinised and regulated  A distinction should be made between socially legitimatized recreational violence- such as rugby or boxing- and stigmatized recreational violence- such as S&amp;M [i] . Rugby, ice hockey or motor racing must, of necessity, occur in public. Each of these events incorporates large numbers of competitors and is regulated by a referee. It is not possible for a Rugby player to be forced to play a match against his will, nor will he be prevented from leaving the field if he is injured or feels threatened. Indeed, referees can force players to withdraw if they believe they are at risk.  Where violent sports events take place without any form of official sanction or oversight, their size makes them easy to detect, and legal principles such as negligence and ineffective consent make them easy to prosecute.  Society permits violent public events such as rugby, while condemning violent private entertainments such as S&amp;M partly because consent, capacity and safety are much easier to determine in a public context.  In short, individuals are allowed to consent to the risks inherent in participating in a rugby match because the state- and society at large- is satisfied that sufficient safeguards exist to ensure that players’ consent is informed – that the risks they will be exposed to are foreseeable. This level of control and accountability cannot be generally guaranteed within individuals’ private sexual relationships.  Although S&amp;M practices, when properly conducted, do not carry a risk of permanent harm and are not likely to result in non-consensual activity, oversight of participant’s behavior is simply not possible. Sexuality is inherently private and individual sexual acts are closed off from public discussion.  [i] Farrugia, Paul, ‘The Consent Defence in Sport and Sadomasochism’ (1997) Auckland University Law Review, 8 (2), 472

The pursuit of pain for the purpose of achieving pleasure is an immoral act  Not only does the state have the right and obligation to uphold the morals of society and stop deviant behavior, but it also has an obligation to prevent escalation of deviance. Acts such as sadomasochism are good indicators of the propensity for escalation to further deviant acts.  With the passing of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 [i] in the UK, a legal precedent has been established where the government has the right and obligation to tackle minor deviant behavior as it can be a precursor to larger and more harmful deviance in the future. Even if S&amp;M was “victim-less”, it demonstrates a propensity to inflict pain to gain pleasure and thus indicates high risk for developing a craving for infliction of pain of higher magnitude and scope in the future, which could be even more damaging to society.  [i] Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003." legislation.gov.uk. The National Archives, n.d. Web. 20 Jun 2011.

It should first be observed that accidents and inadvertent harm can befall S&amp;M practitioners irrespective of the level of caution that they exercise. It is unacceptable to require responsible adults to run the risk of prosecution whenever they engage in a consensual act of sexual expression.  Further, relationships, even sadomasochistic relationships, can break down and become acrimonious. There is a risk that an embittered partner who formerly consented to prohibited S&amp;M activity might try to use that fact to blackmail or persecute his or her ex-lover.  The opposition state that the freedom to dissent from laws regulating one’s private conduct begins to break down when the number of people engaging in a “private” activity grows. Why should the freedom to engage in a particular sexual activity imply a trade off against the freedom to choose how many people we engage in that activity with? Interacting with multiple sexual partners is not, in itself, illegal in the majority of western liberal states, but it does not exclude other sexual fetishes, such as S&amp;M. The opposition is disguising a further limitation on sexual freedom- the freedom to engage in group S&amp;M- as a concession to liberalism.  Finally, the awareness that a particular activity is proscribed can affect an individual’s ability to enjoy that activity. The pleasure inherent in free expression of sexual identity is compromised by the knowledge that discovery will lead to prosecution and stigmatization. As numerous accounts by those involved in the LGBT liberation movement have demonstrated, knowing that one’s sexuality is seen as something immoral and socially destructive is inhibiting and upsetting, even in private contexts.

Sadomasochism need not be rendered completely free of risk. It is sufficient that each participant is aware of the hazards and consents to them. Moreover, no government can legislate for the most reckless of its citizens. If an individual is so disturbed as to place a plastic bag over his head for the purpose of sexual stimulation, the contrary opinion of the law will not be a great deterrent. [i]  Nevertheless, Sadomasochism can be rendered relatively free of physical risk for its participants. ‘Safe words’ can be agreed in advance, and then announced to end an S&amp;M session immediately. Where participants are restrained or prevented from speaking, movement signals or the dropping of a marble held in the hand can be used to indicate withdrawal of consent. This simple device ensures that participants continue to agree to the terms on which their encounters take place.  It is patronizing to assume that participants in S&amp;M scenarios have not considered the possibility that expressions of pain and reluctance will be a regular occurrence during such activity. Deliberately quixotic ‘safe words’ and stop signals are used in order to avoid inadvertent abuses of consent.  [i] Annette Houlihan, ‘When “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means Harm: Gender, Sexuality and Sadomasochism Criminality’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of Law &amp; Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legal Issues 31

Although it is true that Bashar al-Assad has very strong entrenched powers of control in Syria, there are less risky and damaging ways to undermine this to help support the domestic opposition movements if this is your aim. The crux of this case comes down to the capacity of the government to outspend the opposition movements, international sanctions and freezing of state and personal assets of high-ranking leaders in Syria combined with funding of the opposition movements in Syria would gain this same end without involving Western troops on the ground.

Success depends on military intervention.  There is no reasonable chance of success for the opposition movement absent substantial military re-enforcement by the West.  The Syrian government is uniquely placed for several reasons to be able to quell any opposition movement and to rule by fear and force for an indefinite amount of time. Bashar al-Assad’s legitimacy is and never has been based on any type of democratic mandate or popular support. He rules based on control and, as such, has built up many institutions to entrench this capacity to control the Syrian public over the years. Oil revenues are high and Assad has very deep monetary reserves that allow him to buy loyalty from his military and equip himself beyond the capacity of any domestic opposition group could feasibly do.  Due to these two factors, the only way that Assad will fall is by force and by force that is far greater than can be attained without the support of the West. Therefore, for the humanitarian situation to be solved, the West must invade Syria.

We have a duty to launch a humanitarian intervention in Syria.  Widespread indiscriminate killing of human beings is something that everyone in the world has an obligation to end. Mass killing of people is something that affronts the very basic meaning of what it is to be human. It denies the basic empathy and value we afford to each person on the basis of simple personhood and its occurrence is a black mark on all human beings who allow it to occur when they hold the power to end it.  In Syria today, the government forces are making their people live in fear of death and are routinely taking the lives of innocent people in order to control their population through fear. This week alone, 33 people were slaughtered by government forces include 6 children [1] .  The West has the moral obligation to intervene in Syria to protect the lives of the innocent people and end the reign of terror of Bashar al-Assad.  [1] "Syria: UN Human Rights Committee Condemns Crackdown." BBC News 23 Nov 2011.

Even if we do have an obligation to end mass suffering and indiscriminate killing, invasion is not the way to do so. Western intervention will inevitably increase the collateral damage by escalating the conflict into a full-scale war. Moreover, there is no guarantee that intervention will solve this conflict in the long-run instead of simply causing another endless war like the one in Afghanistan or Iraq. Therefore, even if we have an obligation to intervention, invasion is not the way to do it.

There is no obligation to try every other option if the other options are unlikely to work. People are unjustly suffering now, and we have an obligation to end that suffering as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Sanctions and asset-freezing are notoriously ineffective on oil-producing countries like Syria. Going through the motions of attempting to pass authorization for these actions through the United Nations Security Council, attempting to get the entire world to comply with the sanctions and then watching these actions not help anything. All this will do is prolong the suffering of the Syrian people.

The nature of the opposition movements makes this an unwinnable war.  The lack of coherent and unified opposition in Syria means that a Western invasion force will have very low chances of meaningful success.  Western intervention always carries the risk of fracturing a conflict by splintering opposition movements into those who do and those who do not support Western involvement in achieving their cause. This is problematic at best. With Syria specifically, this issue is augmented further still due to already existing lack of coherence and unity in the opposition movements. Absent a proper hierarchy and structure the opposition movement is going to be near impossible to cooperate with and will quickly splinter into an insurgent-style conflict.  There are multiple issues with this. First, there is very low chance of success in such a situation. Second, this set-up is the type that is most likely to lead to a long, protracted conflict that does not serve the interests of the West or the people of Syria.

Invasion is not yet justified.  Invasion is an option of very last resort, especially when dealing with a country of such strategic importance such as Syria.  Invasion is an option of last resort because of the collateral damage it necessarily leads to, the impediment on sovereignty it entails and the escalation of conflict it entails. It’s the nuclear option that is reserved for the very last resort due to the severity and unpredictability of its results.  With regards to Syria, we simply aren’t at the point of last resort yet. The UN hasn’t even levied sanctions against the Syrian government yet [1] , never mind frozen Assad’s assets, tried negotiations or mediations, assisted domestic opposition groups or applied strong diplomatic pressure beyond a general condemnation.  The danger you expose the citizens of Syria to combined with the unknowable outcome of an invasion means that it simply isn’t justified to even consider invasion until all other means have been exhausted, which they haven’t been.  [1] "Syria: UN Human Rights Committee Condemns Crackdown." BBC News 23 Nov 2011.

The disunity of the opposition movements is the exact reason why we need to invade Syria. The other measures that are usually used to avoid war to aid opposition movements in oppressive dictatorships such as Syria, as outlined in Opposition Argument One, will not work. The only way we can end the slaughter of the Syrian people is through an invasion for this very reason. Although it may be messy, we have a very real obligation to invade. This is one of the reasons that underpinned the decision of the international community to authorize intervention in Libya, an intervention that can be seen to be broadly successful in ending the brutal oppression in Libya [1] .  [1] Clark, David. "Libyan Intervention was a success, despite the aftermath's atrocities." Guardian 28 Oct 2011.

ASBOs offer a wide flexibility to the sentencing authority as they are not only a punishment for past actions but also a form of restraint to prevent future misbehaviour. They permit the judge or magistrate to forbid the offender to go to a certain place, avoid a certain person, and ban them from participating in a particular activity. Without such powers, our courts will never be able to deal with the rising tide of yobbish behaviour that is, whilst not criminal, hugely damaging our communities.

ASBOS encourage antisocial behavour  ASBOs are explicitly intended to deal with bad juvenile behaviour. But they encourage rather than deal with such problems. They are viewed as badges of honour that boosts street credibility amongst young gangs – the ‘naming and shaming’ just increases this. [1] They push people that could be helped by social work or proper attention into an unenviable category of ‘offender’ – they criminalise people for behaviour that isn’t criminal.  [1] BBC News, ‘Asbos viewed as ‘badge of honour’, 2 November 2006,

The problem of service and enforcement of ASBOs is identical that of all other court orders and can be solved the same way – in the proposition example the obvious solution would be to ensure that the youth in question had had the order fully explained to him on service.  An ASBO can only be made after a court hearing where both sides have the opportunity to have their say. The burden of proof remains on the person seeking the order to show why it is necessary. An impartial magistrate oversees the hearing. People subject to ASBOs are typically allowed to breach it several times before serious enforcement action is taken against them.  The fact is that the system of ASBOs is perfectly just and a much more liberal alternative to simply criminalising minor anti-social behaviour altogether

ASBOs do not address the real problem  ASBOs address the symptom, not the condition. Their powers are wide and undefined – too wide, meaning that Judges and magistrates can do pretty much whatever they like. Certainly there are problems in the way people conduct themselves – but if such behaviour isn’t criminal, then it’s up to families and communities to fix it. The ASBO is the latest example of excessive state interference in the lives of citizens. Either conduct is criminal, or it is not. The law of nuisance exists. Restraining orders exist. ASBOs aren’t intended to deal with that kind of problem: they’re the tool of the state controlling behaviour. Just because a problem exists, doesn’t mean it’s the job of the state to try and fix it. The powers granted to the state in its efforts are disproportionate to the problems concerned.  Indeed, the current trend is against such interference both as shown by the potential replacement of ASBOs and by court decisions such as one that people should not be punished for hurling obscenities. [1]  [1] Kelly, Jon, ‘Should swearing be against the law?’, BBC News Magazine, 21 November 2011,

Something meaningful has to exist to punish actions that don’t merit criminal punishment, but damage the quality of life of others, especially through constant repetition. The ASBO is such a tool. It is intended to be the primary weapon in a ‘zero tolerance’ environment. ASBOs allow communities to take back their streets and estates from intimidating and out of control youths, and to establish proper norms of behaviour. In this way a slide into more serious lawlessness and criminality can be prevented, and the rights of the law-abiding majority to walk the streets and live peacefully with their neighbours can be secured.

The wackier examples of ASBOs are actually demonstrations of what the order can do and other laws cannot. The woman who has an ASBO restraining her from jumping into rivers shows that the order can help with the thorny problem of actions that aren’t illegal, but place huge burdens on the emergency services and place the police and other citizens at risk.

ASBOS breach basic principles of justice  “A youth recently appeared in Court in Manchester for breach of his ASBO. The Order had been made in the youth's absence without his being able to give his side of the story (one of the main concerns about ASBOs and one that can lead to misuse). The day after the Order was made someone came to his house to "serve" it on him. This consisted of his being handed a copy of what was a fairly bulky document running to several dozen pages with no attempt to explain it or even to ascertain if he was literate enough to read it. The Order included an restriction preventing him entering a particular estate nearby and another preventing him from associating with certain others. Unfortunately, he went out before reading the Order and beached it twice that day. The next day he went out again and breached it three times by mistake as he had not read the part covering the particular restriction. He now faces possibly custody although he has never been convicted of a criminal offence.” [1]  The issuing of ASBOs is inconsistent and almost amounts to a geographical lottery. People can be jailed for breaching an ASBO where the original offence was itself non-imprisonable – i.e. A civil procedure is being used to create and expand criminal sanctions. ASBOs have also been imposed on people with mental health problems where treatment would have been more appropriate.  [1] Select Committee on Home Affairs, ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Orders – Analysis of the First Six Years’

There is no respect among the population for ASBOS  Newspapers are full of examples of absurd ASBOs. They make an ass of the law and show that the nanny state is overreaching. People trying to kill themselves really aren’t going to be put off by the prospect of breaching their ASBO. [1]  Other examples include a prostitute who was prohibited from carrying condoms in an area that included her drug clinic, a prohibition on mobile soup vans that fed the homeless and a deaf girl who was banned from spitting in public. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Suicide woman banned from river’, 25 February 2005,   [2] Select Committee on Home Affairs, ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Orders – Analysis of the First Six Years’

Criminal behaviour ought to be dealt with by the ordinary criminal law – not through various forms of civil order.  While much discussed, criminality is criminality, and non-criminal anti-social behaviour, while anti-social, should not be criminalized directly or indirectly.

Sentencing shouldn’t be affected by such considerations. If we need more prisons, we should build them. The point is that offenders should get the punishment they deserve. If they only need light punishment, fine – but don’t argue that those who should otherwise go to prison must get ASBOs for economic reasons – this is an affront to victims and to society and dilutes the disincentive to offend.

No system is perfect  Of course, some ASBOs fail. But no aspect of the justice system has a 100% success rate, and by their nature ASBOs are more likely to be abused because (unlike prison) the offender remains in his own environment. Should more in breach of ASBOs be punished? Sure. That’s not an argument against ASBOs though, is it? Neither is the fact that not enough are handed down. Although the use of ASBOs around the country is still patchy, some authorities have made very effective use of them to improve life in many local communities.

Useful tool to combat anti-social behaviour  ASBOs are a useful tool in the armoury in order to combat anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour is a serious problem in the wider community (76% thinking it is a moderate or big problem in 2006 [1] ) – abolishing them would send out a message that such behaviour is acceptable.  [1] Weaver, Matt, ‘UK ‘has worst behaviour problem in Europe’’, theguardian.com, 9 May 2006,

We need to imprison fewer people  The prison population is soaring, to 87749 on 5th November 2011 in England and Wales, and we have to find ways to keep it down, or at least slow the speed of its rise. Talking about crushing sentences for all may arouse the passions of a certain type of voter but we have to have a pragmatic look at the pressures on the system. The UK has the second highest incarceration rate in western Europe and 63% of prisons overcrowded in September 2011 and several times over the few years the prison population has come close to going over the capacity of the prison service resulting in having to use cells in police stations. [1] ASBOs are one way to punish offenders while still ensuring they have continuing access to education, family support, job opportunities, etc., and they are much cheaper than the alternative of prison.  [1] Berman, Gavin, ‘Prison population statistics’, House of Commons Library, 7 November 2011, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04334.pdf

58% of ASBOs have been breached, [1] with little resulting punishment. Only 2% of those who breach their ASBO are currently punished with a prison sentence. [2] This brings the justice system into disrepute. It doesn’t seem to matter if they’re breached – so people don’t care about getting them. Furthermore, they’re not granted in anything like the proportions needed to have an effect: 5,000 were supposed to be imposed every year, but instead only 3,800 were used in the first five years.  [1] ‘Statistical Notice: Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) Statistics - England and Wales 2012’, gov.uk, 2013,   [2] ‘No prison for Asbo-breaching yobs’, Metro,

Many of these so-called “stunts” may actually be legitimate accusations that deserve to be heard in a court. If an accusation is unfounded, charges will not be brought (or not confirmed at the ICC, for example), or a verdict of not guilty returned.  Just because a person is high profile does not mean that they are innocent of wrongdoing. In the Livni case she as Foreign Minister may have been the wrong target. A more appropriate one would be the Defense minister or Prime Minister but it is understandable that there should be an effort to make ministers accountable for military actions they initiate.

Helps avoid political stunt trials  Heads of state and senior politicians are targets for political stunts. This could be seeking to get a political opponent locked up so as to benefit from the removal of an opponent. Alternatively it may be as part of a publicity stunt to highlight their own issue of concern or organisation. In both cases the trial does not need to convict as the figure being in a trial will be enough to damage them and provide publicity.  In 2009, following a request by supporters of Palestine, an arrest warrant was sought at Westminster magistrates’ court for the arrest of Tzipi Livni, who was Foreign Minister of Israel during Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of the Gaza Strip, also known as Operation Cast Lead. At the time of the attempted arrest Livni was no longer in office but the action was clearly a stunt.  Livni was not arrested in the end, because she cancelled her trip to the UK, and the warrant was dropped by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer [1] . However, a needless diplomatic incident was still caused.  [1] Hastings, Rob, ‘DPP blocks bid to arrest Tzipi Livni for war crimes’, The Independent, 7 October 2011,

That’s equally an argument against international criminal law as head of state immunity. While there may be instances where the head of state or government has to take decisions that might be criminal for the greater good – for example ordering the abduction or assassination of a terrorist – these instances are rare and most of the time the courts will take into account the good as well as the bad. However there are equally times where it is good that someone fears prosecution, if they do it is a sign that what they are doing is wrong. Bombing of Germany could have ended when all military targets had been hit, it need not have involved incendiary bombing of civilian targets. In Japan there was a third option of accepting a conditional surrender – one that guaranteed the position of the Emperor, since the Allies ultimately agreed this anyway there would have been little loss.

Necessity for diplomatic relations  International diplomacy involves visits by both diplomats and government figures to other states. This can even include states where relations are tense or even hostile. India and Pakistan, who have a very tense relationship and share one of the most fortified borders in the world, the line of control that divides Kashmir, have embassies in each other. Even throughout the Cold War, the USA and Soviet Union had a full and normal diplomatic relations.  Just as diplomatic immunity prevents politically motivated arrests of diplomats, head of state immunity is necessary to “grease the wheels” of international diplomacy to allow international summits to take place without campaigns for the arrest and trial before domestic courts of foreign politicians.  If a head of state were to be arrested for trial before a foreign domestic court, it would cause immense damage to diplomatic relations between those two countries, Russia recently got into a row over the arrest of one of its diplomats in the Netherlands. The diplomat was quickly released but Russia still demanded the ‘guilty parties’ be punished. [1] The reaction to the arrest of a head of state or government would be much greater and would likely mean the breaking of diplomatic ties. Leaders would be much less willing to visit the country where the arrest occurred in the future for fear it would happen to them and would damage the world diplomatic system by challenging the idea of diplomatic immunity.  [1] ‘Moscow not satisfied with 'sorry' after diplomat arrest’, DutchNews.nl, 17 October 2013,

Whatever the justification, impunity is unacceptable. It is a key part of the rule of law that everyone is subject to the law. To grant individuals impunity for whatever reason is unacceptable.  Even if diplomatic immunity is accepted, diplomats are less likely in their role to commit international crimes that a head of state or government is because diplomats do not have access to the coercive machinery that enable these crimes. Diplomatic relations can carry on very well without senior government figures being able to travel wherever they want to. Summits are a luxury not a necessity and most of the deals they make have been hammered out by the diplomats beforehand.

Greater good – fear of prosecution problematic  Sometimes people will do bad things in order to achieve good and necessary results. For example, the Allied bombing campaigns in the Second World War would be highly likely to amount to a war crime under the Rome Statute if they were done today. They were indiscriminate, they targeted civilians, and additionally even at the time were recognised as having little military value. Instead the idea was to terrorise the civilian population. [1] Yet they were considered to be necessary as showing the allies were doing something to aid the Soviet Union. The same might be the case with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they clearly targeted civilians, yet if they helped end the war without a ground invasion of Japan then this war crime might have been for the greater good. [2]  Head of state immunity allows individuals to take unpopular and difficult decisions that are necessary for a greater good in government without fear of prosecution for their actions. We need our leaders to be able to take decisions based on the national interest, not based upon their concern for their life after office.  [1] Grayling, A.C., ‘Bombing civilians is not only immoral, it’s ineffective’, The Guardian, 27 March 2006,   [2] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified ’

There is no evidence as a whole to suggest international criminal law as a whole is a deterrent. Risk of prosecution or no risk of prosecution, there will always be leaders who commit horrible acts. Those who reach leadership positions where they can carry out acts that are considered to be heinous enough that they are prosecuted internationally clearly don’t believe that they will ever be brought to trial so likely consider whether or not they have immunity to be irrelevant.

Even though it does effectively create impunity, this is not a unique phenomenon. Decisions on who to prosecute will always happen, and some form of bias against prosecuting powerful people is to some extent inevitable. So in practice not everyone is equal before the law.  The ICC specifically builds in a way of deferring prosecutions if needed in Article 16 of the Rome Statute. This shows that the ICC accepts the need to postpone cases, possibly indefinitely. The ICC therefore in practice accepts it cannot prosecute in every case where there may be a case to answer.

Legal precedent for prosecution of heads of government  The prosecution of high ranking government officials is part of the Nuremberg precedent that international criminal law largely dates back to. Hideki Tojo, the Prime Minister of Imperial Japan in the Second World War, was tried, convicted and executed as part of the Tokyo trials for Japan’s acts of aggression in going to war. Karl Doenitz was prosecuted despite having briefly been Germany’s head of state; that position did not nullify the crimes he carried out as commander of Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare campaign.  Following that, the ICTY tried Slobodan Milosevic, who died before the trial finished, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone convicted Charles Taylor.  It is nothing new that international criminals can be prosecuted. While leaders have, and often still are, able to prevent themselves from being tied in their own country while they are in charge this should not apply the world over.

Head of State immunity reduces the deterrent effect of international criminal law  International criminal law, like any other form of criminal law, is supposed to be a deterrent. By giving a class of individuals impunity, these people cannot be deterred by International Criminal Law from committing some of the worst crimes known to humanity, including genocide. It is plain that many people who reach the heights of political power will use any method to remain in power – thus the resort to intimidation where it can be used to affect the vote, or in the case of Silvio Berlusconi the attempt to put in place an immunity law to prevent himself from being prosecuted for corruption. [1] Immunity will enable both large and small criminal acts, neither of which should be allowed.  [1] Kennedy, Duncan, ‘Berlusconi immunity law overruled’, BBC News, 8 October 2009,

Impunity is repugnant to the rule of law  A key principle of the rule of law is that everyone is subject to the law – even the agents of states [1] . It must apply equally to the most as well as the least powerful.  This must apply to international criminal law as well as the domestic criminal law. It would be unjustifiable for one individual to be able to face prosecution as a private citizen for genocide, but not a head of state who has much greater capacity to engage in such acts. It effectively would allow genocide, which is prohibited by a convention the vast majority of states have signed and ratified, as an expression of national sovereignty.  [1] ‘What is the rule of law?’, United Nations Rule of Law,

No head of state was successfully prosecuted by a partially international court until Charles Taylor was convicted by the hybrid Special Court for Sierra Leone, the first to go on trial was in 1994. None of the post WW2 Allied trials featured a significant head of state; Hitler was dead and the entire Japanese imperial family was not charged, including emperor Hirohito, who continued serving as Japanese head of state until his death in 1989.  The charges against Doenitz all pertained to his actions prior to him taking the leadership of Germany so they cannot be said to be actions taken in the role of head of state.

The reason why the death penalty is so expensive – 13 executions since 1978 in California costing around $4bn [1] - is the “super due process” that is necessary in capital cases, especially with the large flaws in the US justice system.  Blacker makes no coherent proposal on how he would modify the appeals system. Removing or reducing it would make it very likely that more innocent people would be executed.  To accuse people who want to prevent criminals deaths of wasting money is more or less victim blaming.  [1] Alarcon, Arthur and Mitchell, Paula, “Executing the will of the voters? A roadmap to mend or end the California legislature’s multi-billion dollar death penalty debacle”, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2011,

Could be cheaper  While budget should not be the primary concern of the justice system, The death penalty, when applied properly, can be cheaper. A lethal injection, or a few bullets, costs far less than keeping a person incarcerated for a long time, especially if they need long term health or other care in old age. The longer someone is in jail the greater the cost to the state.  The costs of the implementation of the death penalty are driven up by anti-death penalty activists using the appeals system. Since the death penalty would only be applied to the worst of the worst when there is absolute moral certainty there would be less need for extensive appeals because there would be less marginal cases.

While Blecker proposes a three step test in a draft statute, it does not feature much legal certainty – it features a large amount of jury discretion, which was deemed to be a violation of the US constitution [1] . Any such elastic definition would allow prosecutors to make an argument that pretty much any case is within such a category.  It also continues due use of “death qualified juries”, exclusively made up of death penalty supporters [2] , which are racially skewed toward being whiter. Would this then end up really being for the worst of the worst?  [1] See Furman v Georgia, 408 US 238 (1972)   [2] See Witherspoon v Illinois, 391 US 510 (1968)

Necessary for punitive justice  The concept of punishment is inherently based on retribution. “We don’t punish to prevent crime or remake criminals. We inflict pain-suffering, discomfort-to the degree they deserve to feel it.” [1] Retribution can be distinguished from revenge – retribution does not always seek to impose punishment that is the same as the original act, and never more.  The punishment must fit the crime so capital punishment is therefore an appropriate punishment for the worst of the worst – an eye for an eye.  [1] Blecker, p.28

By keeping a person locked up for life, which may well be appropriate for the “worst of the worst”, they are incapacitated for life. It similarly satisfied any retributive instinct, providing a total punishment, a form of internal banishment and total civil death – if one considers retributive justice desirable.  Moreover this is inconsistent. If we are inflicting an eye for an eye because they deserve it then why should the death penalty reserved for the worst of the worst? Should it not be exactly proportional – which would mean all murderers should face the death penalty.

Those who are murdered are not some public resource – they are not our relatives. We may feel sorrow for the victims and their family but uninvolved members of society have no reason to demand punishment on account of them being members of ‘our family’. What of all those who do not feel such resentment, should society enact a death penalty simply to gratify a part of the population that feels this way. This is not a rational grounds for a death penalty even for the very worst. In order to claim that the society wants the criminals' blood, you have to make sure that a)everyone does; b)the person killed deserves to be avenged.

Can be reserved for the worst of the worst  For those who are concerned about some of the practical objections to the American death penalty, it is possible to restrict the death penalty to those most deserving of it: “the worst of the worst”, those like Anders Behring Breivik, Charles Manson and Harold Shipman. The death penalty should not be for people who are convicted as a result of three strikes - in 2004, someone was convicted of first degree murder with a whole life sentence for lending a friend a car [1] – it should not be a default sentence. [2]  [1] Liptak, Adam, “Serving Life for Providing Car to Killers”, The New York Times, 4th December 2007,   [2] Blecker, p.210

Killers must die to satisfy society  Those who have damaged society by robbing it of one of its members must pay for their crime. Adam Smith argued “We feel that resentment which we imagine he ought to feel, and which he would feel, if in his cold and lifeless body there remained any consciousness of what passes upon earth. His blood, we think, calls aloud for vengeance.” [1] It is not just the wronged individual who needs there to be retribution but society as a whole. Everyone in society is wronged by particularly heinous crimes as Blecker says of two horrific crimes “Those were my children, my wife that Coker raped and murdered, my sister Speck killed”. [2]  [1] Smith, Adam, ‘The theory of Moral Sentiments”, MetaLibri Sixth Edition, 1790,  p.62  [2] Blecker, p.30

This is not a higher discrepancy than imprisonment, meaning the problems may well be socio-economic rather than justice related.  A reason for this discrepancy may be the felony murder rule – that any death caused by a felony, even if it would normally amount to manslaughter, constitutes murder (in some cases, first degree murder) – if that is the case, the felony murder rule should be abolished. If capital punishment were reserved for the worst of the worst then this racial bias would be almost eliminated. [1]  [1] Blecker, p.237

The state using the legal process being trusted to do something is different between an individual doing so. The state executing people is the only way that justice can be achieved; there is a moral difference between execution in support of society and murder against society.  There is an immense difference between a murder and a lawful killing by the state. If the death penalty makes the state no better than a murderer then a soldier is one too. In a more absolutist view, if capital punishment devalues life, do fines for theft devalue property?

Too many innocents killed  Capital punishment in the US kills too many innocent people. Over 143 people who were innocent were exonerated from death row since 1973 [1] . One person executed is too many – it has already happened in the US, with Carlos DeLuna [2] . It is likely that many innocent people have been executed in the US – it is a price not worth paying.  [1] Death Penalty Information Centre, “Innocence list”, DPIC.org, 2013,   [2] Pilkington, Ed, “The wrong Carlos: how Texas sent an innocent man to his death”, The Guardian, 15 May 2012,

Who are the worst of the worst?  Killing the worst of the worst is essentially arbitrary. Even with a list of aggravators balanced by mitigations the death penalty is hardly going to be left to just the very worst. In the case of Daryl Holton who killed his four children Blecker decides “I remain convinced, but not morally certain, that he deserved to die.” [1] This shows there will always be cases that are borderline. Moreover everyone’s views of the worst of the worst are different. Is Holton the “worst of the worst” or should that category be reserved for Hitler and Pol Pot?  [1] Blecker, p.197

The death penalty is racist  Like the rest of the American criminal justice system, capital punishment in America is institutionally racist: black men make up 6% of the US population as a whole but 40% of those on Death Row [1] . In the US, African-Americans and White people are murdered in almost equal numbers, but 80% of those executed since 1977 were convicted of the murder of a white [2] .  [1] Blecker, p.237  [2] Amnesty International, “United States of America: Death by Discrimination – the continuing role of race in capital cases”, Amnesty International, 2003,

Hypocrisy  Suggesting the death penalty should be used as a deterrent is nothing other than arguing that people should be killed to show that people killing people is wrong. There is little evidence that it works; when Canada abolished the death penalty nationally in 1976, the homicide rate fell from 3.09 in 1975 to 2.31 in 1980. [1]  In that sense, imposing the death penalty makes the state no better than the murderer, and a murderer in itself by killing a person in such circumstances. If we are using the death penalty to punish the murderer then what should we use to punish the state for its actions?  [1] Amnesty International, ‘Document – The Death Penalty, Questions and Answers’, accessed 3rd January 2014,

Regardless of the categorisation there are some who are worst of the worst. It is up to individual states and societies to determine who qualifies as the worst of the worst for them.

As in any activity in life, a risk will exist in any justice system – many innocent people are in prisons. But there are also risks inherent in being too lenient and letting the worst of the worst out again in the future.  However, capital punishment can be used less, and a higher standard of proof can be used in capital cases. “In the end, we must risk a minuscule possibility of error for the near certainty of justice.” [1]  [1] Blecker, p.275

The database is immaterial to the acquittal or exclusion of non-offenders. Where a primary suspect has been identified, a DNA profile ought to be created and compared to the crime scene data. Likewise, where suspicions persist concerning the guilt or innocence of a convicted individual, a sample of DNA can be taken. The database has predominant application in 'non-suspect' cases, and not the circumstances where the suspect or felon is already identified. It is also important to keep claims regarding the efficacy of DNA matching in context, Chief Constable Sims of the British Metropolitan Police stated that of '4.9 million crimes reported each year, of which 1.3 million are 'detected' (lead to charges)' only 33,000 involve DNA matching1. 1 Home Affairs Committee. (2010, March 4). The National DNA Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from UK Parliament:

DNA evidence would reduce the risk of wrongful conviction  The increased use of DNA evidence will minimize the risk of future wrongful convictions. An FBI study indicates that since 1989 DNA evidence has excluded the primary candidate in 25% of sexual assault cases1. This not only saves valuable police time, but ensures suspects are not called in for unnecessary and stressful questioning. Moreover, forensically valuable DNA can be found on evidence that has existed for decades, and thus assist in reversing previous miscarriages of justice. There have been a number of recent, high-profile cases of death row inmates being released on the grounds of DNA evidence, unavailable when they were first convicted. A DNA database would not merely render wrong verdicts right, but prevent such verdicts ever being made. 1 U.S. Department of Justice. (1996, June). Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from U.S. Department of Justice:

There is no such guarantee that a DNA database would have such an effect. In fact, there is a serious risk that genetic evidence will be used to the exclusion of material that might prove the innocence of the suspect. It is further likely that more crimes will be prosecuted on account of largely circumstantial evidence. Moreover, there is the possibility that not only the police, but also the jury, will be blinded by science. It seems unlikely that juries will be able to comprehend, or more importantly, to question, the genetic information that is yielded by the database. The irony is that forensic evidence has been instrumental in establishing the miscarriages of British justice in the 1970s, but might now serve to create miscarriages of its own.

A DNA database would lead to more convictions, particularly in cases of violent crime  Although overall levels of crime in England and Wales have decreased over the previous decade, the number of violent crimes against the person has markedly increased. These are the offences which raise most grave public concern and which are unlikely to leave conventional fingerprints. The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence estimates that thirty per cent of crime scenes contain the blood, semen, or saliva of the perpetrator1. DNA detection will be best equipped to identify the guilty. A full database ought to allow the use of DNA as an investigative tool where no suspect has yet been identified. Studies support this assertion; 'the overall detection rate for crimes of 23.5% rises to 38% where DNA is successfully recovered'2. Furthermore, in the United States, the number of reported rapes dropped to its lowest level in two decades due in large part to the use of DNA evidence3 1 Weathersbee, F. (1999, March 1). National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Institute of Justice: 2 Phillipson, G. (2009, November 19). The case for a complete DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian: 3 McGreal, C. (2009, October 8). Number of reported rapes in US drops to lowest level in two decades. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:

The most serious violent crimes, notably the offences of rape and murder, are most commonly committed by individuals known to the victim. When the suspects for the commission of a crime are obvious, DNA detection is superfluous. Moreover, it is invidious to propagate the belief in the public that crimes can be solved, or criminals deterred, by computer wizardry; evidence collected by a UK Parliamentary Commission suggests DNA matching led to crime detection in as little as 0.3% of cases1. Ultimately, unless the DNA is used to identify a genetic cause for aggression, violent crimes will continue to be committed 1 Home Affairs Committee. (2010, March 4). The National DNA Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from UK Parliament:

A DNA database would reduce the time spent tracking down suspects  A DNA database is not intended to replace conventional criminal investigation. The database ought to identify the potential suspects, each of whom can then be investigated by more conventional means. During 2008/09 in the United Kingdom, 'almost 6 in 10 crime scene profiles loaded to the National DNA Database were matched to a subject profile'1. There is no possibility of escaping the provision of technical evidence before a court. Doctors, ballistics experts, forensic scientists are already a common feature of the large criminal trial. The jury system is actually a bastion against conviction on account of complicated scientific facts. The British jury is instructed to acquit a defendant where they find reasonable doubt. If the genetic data and associated evidence is insufficiently conclusive, or presented without sufficient clarity, the jury is obliged to find the defendant not guilty. 1 NDNAD. (2009). National DNA Database: Annual Report 2007-09. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from

The use of a DNA fingerprint can scarcely be regarded as an affront to civil liberties and therefore requiring consent. Firstly, as a British Home Office spokeswoman noted, 'before a person's profile can be added to (the database), the person must have been arrested for a recordable offence. That is a significant threshold'2. Furthermore, the procedure for taking a sample of DNA is less invasive than that required for the removal of blood. The police already possess a vast volume of information relating to the citizenry. The National Crime Information Center Computer in the United States contains files relating to fifteen million Americans and receives approximately seven million queries each day2. The availability of a DNA fingerprint to the police should be seen in the context of the personal information that is already held by outside agencies. Insurance brokers commonly require an extensive medical history of their clients. Employers subject their employees to random urine tests for drug and alcohol consumption. If we are prepared to place our personal information in the private sector, why can we not trust it to the public authority of the police? The DNA will only be utilised in the detection of crime. In short, the innocent citizen should have nothing to fear. 1 Doward, J. (2009, August 9). 'Racist bias' blamed for disparity in police DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from The Observer: 2 National Crime Information Center. (2009). About Us. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Federal Bureau of Investigation:

Retaining the DNA of unconvicted suspects is not unlawful, only retaining it indefinitely. New British proposals to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights' judgment are to ensure the DNA of the unconvicted remains on the database for just 6 years. The law has to be laid down in a set manner rather than imprecise terms. Loopholes are often found but in the long run, they are what create a fair and just legal system. We cannot have loose laws, everything must turn on the wording. The ruling stated that the DNA of the innocent could not be saved indefinitely, so the British government is proposing that this DNA only be kept on the system for 6 years. They have done what the Court has asked them to do, to take away the permanency; a DNA database remains.

DNA testing is fallible, and therefore should not be used as the basis of convictions  Although DNA detection might have advantages over fingerprint dusting, the test is nevertheless fallible. Environmental factors at the crime scene such as heat, sunlight, or bacteria can corrupt any genetic data. Any DNA evidence must be stored in sterile and temperature controlled conditions. Criminals have been suspected of contaminating samples by swapping saliva. There is room for human error or fraud in comparing samples taken from suspects with those removed from a crime scene. The accuracy of any genetic profile is dependent upon the number of genes examined. Where less than four or five genes can be investigated, the PCR technique serves only to exaggerate any defects or omissions in the sample. In 1995 an 18 month investigation was launched into allegations that the FBI Crime Lab was 'dry-labbing' or faking results of DNA comparisons1. Furthermore, in the United Kingdom, the company used by police to analyse its DNA samples was shown to have secretly kept the genetic samples and personal details of 'hundreds of thousands' of arrested people, stoking fears that, if lost, they could be planted as evidence2. The mere creation of a database cannot be the panacea for crime detection. 1 Johnston, D. (1997, April 16). Report criticizes scientific testing at F.B.I Crime Lab. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from New York Times: 2 Barnett, A. (2006, July 16). Police DNA database 'is spiralling out of control'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:

Having a DNA database should require individual consent  The invasiveness of the database resides in the information being maintained on file, rather than in the procedure for obtaining the genetic data. The decision to pass personal information to mortgage or insurance agencies is governed by individual consent. When the citizen releases information to outside agencies he receives a service in return. In being compelled to give a sample of DNA the innocent citizen would receive the scant benefit of being eliminated from a police investigation. Moreover, medical records are already subject to a significant degree of statutory protection from investigation. The use of genetic tests by insurance companies remains highly controversial. There is considerable potential for abuse of information that is so private, the person giving the sample will probably not know its contents and they will certainly not know the possible ways the information may be used1. Finally, there is a subtle yet significant difference in the attitude of government towards the citizen that is conveyed by the creation of a database. Every citizen, some from the moment of their birth, would be treated as a potential criminal. 1 BBC News. (2007, September 5). All UK 'must be on DNA database'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC News:

Retaining the DNA of unconvicted suspects is unlawful  The European Court of Human Rights was quite clear when it stated that retaining indefinitely the DNA and fingerprint records of unconvicted suspects is unlawful1. The Strasbourg court made a unanimous decision that the UK keeping the DNA of the unconvicted on a database permanently was contrary to human rights and therefore illegal. They stated that due to the high level of disruption to human rights, on this issue the court would not have much "margin of appreciation" or leeway. Subsequent attempts to justify the database have been dismissed by the Commission as failing to provide 'clear, justifiable reasons for holding on to the DNA data from people who had not been convicted of a crime'2. The Commission also felt the retention of DNA profiles 'failed to recognise there were a disproportionate number of young black men, vulnerable people and children on the database'2 1 BBC News. (2007, September 5). All UK 'must be on DNA database'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC News: 2 Doward, J. (2009, August 9). 'Racist bias' blamed for disparity in police DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from The Observer:

DNA fingerprinting has considerable advantages over conventional means of forensic crime detection, advantages that render any slight fallibility irrelevant. Conventional fingerprints attach only to hard surfaces, can be smeared, or avoided by the use of gloves. Even a clear print requires a significant degree of interpretation by investigating officers. The standard technique of comparing fourteen points between the print taken at the crime scene and the print of the accused has been subject to severe criticism. The novel 'polymerase chain reaction' (PCR) amplification technique facilitates an accurate DNA profile from very small amounts of genetic data. The fingerprint can be constructed notwithstanding contamination from oil, water or acid in the crime scene environment. The innocent and the accused should appreciate a novel fingerprinting technique that is both objective and accurate. Lastly, fears of wrongful conviction are misguided, a 2002 study found only 'two cases worldwide'1. 1 Phillipson, G. (2009, November 19). The case for a complete DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:

Although protecting children domestic abuse is of vital importance curfews are not the most appropriate way of doing so. Problems at home may be the reason the young person spends so much time out on the streets in the first place. If that is the case, it could be dangerous to force them to stay where they may be at risk of abuse. Also, curfews infringe upon the rights of parents to bring up their children as they choose. Simply because we dislike the way some parents treat their children should not mean that we intervene to stop it; should we intervene in families where conservative religious beliefs are preached? 1  1 Hidden Hurt

Curfews also have an important role in the protection of vulnerable children  The use of child curfews can help to protect vulnerable children. Although responsible parents do not let young children out in the streets after dark, not all parents are responsible and inevitably their children suffer, both from crime and in accidents, and are likely to fall into bad habits. Sir Ian Blair former chief commissioner of the Metropolitan police argued that curfews were aimed at safeguarding youngsters and stopping gangs causing trouble.1 Society should ensure that such neglected children are returned home safely and that their parents are made to face up to their responsibilities.2  1. Rosie Cowan, 2004,  2. Ward, 2000,

Curfews are not enforceable even if they are well known by residents and anyone can report those breaking curfew. It simply means that young people are trying to avoid the police so that they do not get fined. The police are only ever likely to catch a small number of those who are violating the curfew resulting in there being little deterrence.

It is best for children to be at home in the evening.  There is no good reason for children to be out unaccompanied late at night, so a curfew is not really a restriction upon their liberty. Where the child does have good reasons to be out they can be covered by the exceptions. They would be better off at home doing schoolwork, schools often set more than an hour a night which the children should be doing. The time would also be better spent interacting with the rest of their family.

The main objective of curfews is usually crime prevention.  Youth crime is a major and growing problem, often involving both drugs and violence. Particularly worrying is the rise of youth gangs who can terrorise urban areas and create a social climate in which criminality becomes a norm. Imposing youth curfews can help to solve these problems, as they keep young people off the street, and therefore out of trouble, and prevent them from congregating in the hours of darkness. Police in Philadelphia have found curfews effective in the prevention of gang violence: ‘the measure has been successful in helping to curb violent attacks by teen mobs that had severely injured several people in recent months, city officials said.’ 1  1. Associated Press, 2011,

Curfews are largely ineffective in preventing crime. Curfews do not target the right times of day as most juvenile crime appears to take place between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m., after the end of school and before working parents return home, rather than in the hours covered by curfews. There are many reports providing evidence that juvenile curfews do not have a significant effect upon crime figures.  In addition, although society does have a problem with youth behaviour, although it is not as bad as the newspapers make out. What is often labelled anti-social behaviour today was considered normal for kids in the past – things like playing football in the street, going around in groups without an adult in charge, making a bit of noise sometimes, etc. We need to be careful to draw a line between things that some people don’t like, and actual crime.1  1 Adams, 2010.

Children in their mid-teens have many legitimate reasons to be out at night without adults. Many will have part-time jobs, for example in fast-food restaurants or delivering newspapers. Others will wish to participate in activities such as church groups, youth clubs or school trip. Whilst there are clauses for allowing such activity, the fear of not being believed would be a serious chilling effect on uptake. Requiring adults always to take them to and from such activities is unreasonable and will ensure that many never take place in the first place, either because adults are unwilling, or are unable to do so.1  1. NYRA,

A number of alternative strategies exist which are likely to do more to reduce youth crime. For example, rather than a blanket curfew covering all young people, individual curfews could be imposed upon particular trouble-makers, perhaps involving electronic tagging, breaking up gangs without labelling an entire age-group as criminal. A Scottish scheme puts plenty of police officers on the streets at night with a brief to engage with young people, deterring crime while steering them towards a range of youth activities available at clubs set up by the local council.

A curfew is practical.  Very few children are going to be out late at night without an adult or very good reason. This helps make curfews enforceable as the police will be patrolling anyway, and any responsible adult can report children who are out after curfew. The curfew could therefore be for all young people, defined as those under the age of 18, beginning at 10pm on both weeknights and weekends and ending at sunrise, with the exceptions like those noted in the introduction. Curfew violations are punishable by fines and penalty assessments. In Los Angeles these total $675, and violations may also result in community service and driver's license restrictions. The amount can vary with Philadelphia only having a $250 fine. 1  1. Findlaw

Curfews are most effective when used a short-term aid to other policing measures.  Other schemes aimed at reducing youth crime are highly effective but work best in conjunction with curfews. As the National Crime Prevention Council states: ‘A curfew alone won’t stop crime. More preventive measures, including recreational activities and job opportunities, are needed to reach out to young people and keep them from committing crimes.’ 1 In areas with a whole culture of lawlessness a curfew takes the basically law-abiding majority off the streets, allowing the police to engage with the most difficult element. Curfews are a tool in the struggle to improve lives in run-down areas; they often used for relatively short periods of a few weeks or months in order to bring a situation under control so that other measures can be put in place and given a chance to work.

Child curfews are an important form of zero tolerance policing, showing that a community will not allow an atmosphere of lawlessness to develop. Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation in England and Wales, argues that: ‘“It would send out the message that we are serious that the criminal justice system has the power to impose immediate sanctions for bad behaviour and that “no” will mean “no”. At the moment no is negotiable.1”The idea of zero tolerance comes from the theory that if low-level crimes, like graffiti-spraying, window breaking and drug-dealing (all common juvenile offences) are not acted against swiftly and effectively by the police, then a permissive atmosphere is created where violence and other serious crimes flourish and law and order breaks down entirely.  1. McKeever, 2009

Curfews are easy to police compared to other forms of crime prevention, and are therefore effective. Child curfews can help to the police to establish a climate of zero tolerance and to create a safer community for everyone.

Curfews compromise children's rights.  Youth curfews infringe upon individual rights and liberties. Children have a right to freedom of movement and assembly which curfews directly undermine, by criminalising their simple presence in a public space. They are also subject to blanket discrimination on the grounds of age and the underlying assumption that all young people are potential law-breakers. It has been established in US law in the 1976 case of Missouri v Danforth that everyone has full constitutional rights regardless of age. Thus, curfews violate the fifth amendment which guarantees a right to free movement and due process. Comparable legal principles exist in most liberal states, and there is no reason to treat children as having less substantive rights to free movement. 1  Youth curfews have great potential for abuse, raising civil rights issues. Evidence from U.S. cities suggests that police arrest far more black children than white for curfew violations. Curfews will tend to be imposed upon poor areas in inner cities with few places for children to amuse themselves safely and within the law, compounding social exclusion with physical exclusion from public spaces. These problems will also be made worse by the inevitable deterioration in relations between the police and the young people subject to the curfew.  1. Vissing, Y. (2011). Curfews. In: Chambliss, W., eds. Juvenile Crime and Justice. London, SAGE publications, Ch. 5. P.62

Positive engagement would be more effective than curfews.  Other successful schemes aim to work individually with young troublemakers, in order to cut their reoffending rate, for example by requiring them to meet with victims of crime so that they understand the consequences of their actions, and by pairing them with trained mentors. Overall, governments need to ensure good educational opportunities and employment prospects in order to bring optimism to communities where youngsters feel that their futures are pretty hopeless.  Rather than trying to scare kids into good behaviour, why don’t we offer them a better life? Most areas with anti-social behaviour problems are poor, with bad schools, few jobs and little for kids to do with themselves. With little hope for the future, no wonder some kids go off the rails. So instead of threatening punishment, we should invest in better schools, places for kids to play and socialise, and the chance of a job.1  1. The Observer, 2004

Curfews are counter-productive.  Imposing child curfews would actually be counter-productive, as it would increase juvenile offending by turning millions of generally law-abiding young people into criminals. The Executive director of D.C. Alliance of Youth Advocates argues that ‘"This tells young people they're the problem, not part of the solution".’ 1Already in the USA, more children are charged with curfew offences than with any other crime. Yet once children acquire a criminal record they cross a psychological boundary, making it much more likely that they will perceive themselves as criminal and have much less respect for the law in general, leading to more serious forms of offending. At the same time a criminal record harms their opportunities in employment and so increases the social deprivation and desperation which breed crime.  1. Dvorak and Greenwell, 2006

Curfews are ineffective.  Curfews are not an effective solution to the problem of youth crime; research in the USA suggests that there is no link between areas that achieved a reduction in juvenile crime and areas with youth curfews. Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation in England and Wales points out that curfews are an unrealistic scheme: ‘It is fantasy to believe the police could impose an immediate sanction for somebody to stay in their home for four weeks without any kind of due process.’ 1Although some places did see a reduction in youth crime, this often had more to do with other strategies, such as zero-tolerance policing.  1. McKeever, 2009

Child curfews can help to change a negative youth culture in which challenging the law is seen as desirable and gang membership an aspiration. Impressionable youngsters would be kept away from gang activity on the streets at night and a cycle of admiration and recruitment would be broken ‘in the hope that we can stop them from getting so far into trouble that they end up in the criminal justice system.1’ By spending more time with their families and in more positive activities, such as sports and youth clubs, which curfews make a more attractive option for bored youngsters, greater self-esteem and discipline can be developed.  1. BBC News, 2009,

Curfews do not harmfully restrict childrens’ rights to participation in activities and actually supports their right to a safe home and neighbourhood environment: ‘The curfew law has several exceptions. Youths can be out after hours if they are with a parent or guardian or doing errands at a parent or guardian's direction. They also can be at work or attending an official school, religious or recreational activity.’ 1If family breakdown means parents lose control, and in cases where parents can’t be bothered, then the police should step in. If the state has the right to take children away from cruel parents to protect them, then it also has the right to protect everyone else from dangerous youths. Most importantly, we can trust the police not to abuse this power. Our police are sworn to uphold the law and protect people, and trained to respect everyone’s rights.  1. Dvorak and Greenwell, 2006

While it seems defendable that we learn moral values at a young age, the proposition argument does not look with the factual evidence about the individuals who are most likely to get involved in criminal activity. Criminologists came up with the ‘age-crime curve’. [1] This reveals that the profile of the average criminal is a male between the ages of 15 and 25. After the age of 25, the majority of criminals desist. Presuming that this pressure of social deprivation affects everyone in society in the same way, more steps need to be taken in order to explain why predominantly males between the ages of 15 and 25 seem to respond to it in this manner. This further goes to suggest that perhaps social deprivation is not a primary cause, but that factors such as age and gender play as much of a part in the likelihood of criminal activity.  [1] Bottoms, Professor Sir Antony E., ‘Crime prevention for youth at risk: some theoretical concerns’, Resource Material Series, No.68, 129th International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts’ Papers, pp.21-34.

We acquire our knowledge of what is right and wrong through education.  We are not born with an innate sense of right and wrong, a prior knowledge of what is legal and illegal. We acquire it through education, both at home and at school. The internalization of these social norms is a crucial part of becoming a law-abiding citizen and acquiring the respect toward the law our society demands. Children from poor backgrounds are more likely to be raised in environments where such distinctions are blurred, where they are exposed to negative role models within their family or community. They may also experience very erratic or low-quality schooling, This may be because the schools have inadequate levels of funding or supplies, the classes are more likely to have disruptive children or that better teachers are more sought after and thus go to other schools. As a result, they might become desensitized to crime, or violence as a result of being exposed to it on a regular basis. They might then start to view crime not as against social order but as a part of it and that will make them more likely to break the law themselves.

The opposition to this argument is that nothing can or should be gained through crime. There are many ways of making voices heard without resulting to criminal activity. None-violent measures such as bus boycotts, freedom rides , sit-ins and mass demonstrations were used during the African American Civil Rights Movement . This movement succeeded in bringing about legislative change, and making separate seats, drinking fountains, and schools for African Americans illegal. Another example is the 2003 Women of Libya mass Action for Peace, [1] or the more current (2011) uprisings in Syria, Egypt and Tunisia. To use an example of the Tunisian uprisings, the people spoke out against huge unemployment and government corruption. Thus though many of the protesters were from poor socioeconomic backgrounds, criminal acts were not taken and yet they still achieved the freedom that followed from the 24-year-ruling president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fleeing the country a month later. [2] Therefore that people feel crime is the only outlet they have cannot be a reason to support the idea that social deprivation is the primary cause of criminal activity.  [1] Ekiyor, Thelma Aremiebi, and Gbowee, Leymah Roberta, ‘Woman’s Peace Activism in West Africa The WIPNET Experience, People Building Peace.  [2] Alexander, Christopher, ‘Tunisia’s protest wave: where it comes from and what it means’, The Middle East Channel ForeignPolicy.com, 3 January 2011.

People who are destitute are more likely to turn to crime in order to satisfy basic living necessities.  In some impoverished families there is simply no possibility of work and in many countries where there is no welfare benefits this means that the family cannot afford food, shelter or healthcare. Even in some places where there are benefits, this is often not enough to cover the family’s way (for example healthcare is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US) [1] and thus some members of the family may be driven to desperate measures in order to be able to afford provisions. If no other options are open to them this desperation can result in measures such as theft, drug dealing or blackmail (See appendix). Furthermore often extreme poverty is linked to substance abuse, often as a respite from these terrible conditions. This in turn breeds more crime as people have to fund their addictions. However in this case it seems clear that it is the desperation of poverty that causes these people to commit crimes. Many people believe racism, and therefore crimes such as incitement to racial hatred or ‘hate crimes’, are more likely to occur in areas of social deprivation. The theory suggests that a mix of poverty, unemployment and segregation causes’ high tension can cause a ‘scapegoat’ culture on either, and indeed both, sides.  [1] Tamkins, Theresa, ‘Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies’, CNN Health, 5 June 2009,

Some people counter this argument by claiming it is not that people who are in extreme poverty that are more likely to take drugs, but those who take drugs are more likely to be in extreme poverty, as drugs are expensive and many drug users are unstable and therefore unable to keep a job. This could be taken to suggest that poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but might merely be associated with other factors which cause it. Therefore to tackle the crime of drug use, we do not need to tackle social deprivation, but the drug use itself.  Furthermore the argument that poverty increases the likelihood of racism or racist crime can be refuted if we acknowledge one of the most famous cases of racist crime, apartheid in South Africa. This event is now considered a crime against humanity, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime". [1] However, it was also created and maintained by politicians and many of the upper class in a stable and well-off society, thus this hate crime cannot be attributed to social deprivation. Even racist actions that occurred in socially deprived areas at this time or later must be looked at in a wider context and it seems clear that social deprivation alone cannot be blamed.  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid’, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 30 November 1973,

People feel crime is the only way to get their frustrations heard.  Some people, particularly those from deprived social or economic backgrounds may feel that their government is not helping them or listing to/care about their problems. When this happens to a large group of people, they may feel crime is the only way they can have their frustrations heard. One example of this would be the Brixton riots in 1981 (See Appendix). [1] In some states where government criticism is itself against the law, breaking the law is in fact the only way to have your feeling heard. However, this is of particular importance to those from socially deprived back grounds for three reasons, firstly they are often the ones most ignored by their government and secondly they are the ones who would benefit most if society were to change. Finally, for some people from poor social or economic backgrounds, crime is the only outlet they have to vent their anger or frustration as all other options have been blocked for them.  [1] BBC News, ‘Brixton riots: Archive’, 10 April 2011.

This is ridiculous. Why is the drug dealer a drug dealer? Because he is poor and has few other prospects. He is not poor just because he is a criminal as something had to get him in to crime in the first place. In many cases that initial motivating factor was poverty or a lack of prospects. If it was true that the causation was reversed then there would be much more social mobility because those who started poor and deprived but wanted to work and were fundamentally honest would be socially mobile.

While the figures demonstrated in this argument clearly illustrate that these large scale crimes are more often committed by those who are not suffering from social deprivation, tax evasion constitutes a small percentage of the world wide crime rate, and thus should not be taken to prove that social deprivation is not the primary source of crime.

In an age of consumerism, the primary cause of crime is a greed or desperation to ‘fit in’, or ‘have it all’.  We live in a culture where success and personal achievement is measured on a material scale - what you own, how much you make, what car you drive, what clothes you wear. This means that it is the way society is structured to make us crave material objects which is the primary cause of crime. As society values wealth and material goods over everything else people might turn to crime in order to acquire these much-vaunted markers of personal achievement, to which they feel entitled. Seeing no other avenue for personal and financial success, they might easily choose to get involved in illegal but somewhat profitable activities — like drug dealing, theft or burglary, running prostitution rings, racketeering, etc. However if society was to value traits such as honesty, hard work or loyalty over personal holdings then perhaps the levels of crime would not be so high.

The statistics about poverty and crime show correlation, not causation.  While it is true that crime is correlated with people coming from poorer socio-economic backgrounds this does not in itself prove that poverty itself is the cause of crime. A lack of education or bad parenting might be equally, if not more convincing explanations for both phenomena. The causation may even be reversed, with those who indulge in violent behaviour and who seek illegal short-cuts to success rather than being prepared to hold down a steady job being more likely to end up poor. For example, recent studies have found that street-level drug dealers make less than the minimum wage. [1] So poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but might merely be associated with other factors which cause it. In order to tackle crime, therefore, we don’t need to eradicate poverty, but improve people’s internalization of social norms through law enforcement and education.  [1] Levitt, Steven D. and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh, ‘An Economic Analysis of a Drug-Selling Gang's Finances’, The National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 6592, (1998).

Some of the biggest crimes that affect society the most are committed by huge multinational companies or wealthy individuals.  Tax evasion is costing the developing world around $160 billion a year [1] to those who most need it (incidentally this is more than the entire global aid budget). These are huge, global crimes that have effects of billions of people. It does not take a stretch of the imagination to illustrate how some of the tax evaders can cause poverty, illness and even death to others; as the money they do not pay in tax can therefore not be used for road safety, pensions, healthcare, world aid or many other institutions (that the tax evaders are still able to make use of). This illustrates how the crime of tax evasion can have serious consequences. In the US the most common tax evader is a male, under 50 and of the highest earning bracket. Globally the most common tax evaders are large multi-national companies. This illustrates that these large scale crimes are not being committed by those from deprived backgrounds, but rather from the greed of the wealthy to have more wealth.  [1] Christian Aid, ‘Christian Aid urges G20 to crach down on tax dodging pinstripe ‘pirates’, 3 September 2009.

This opposition argument two is not as clear cut as it seems. While it is true that society encourages us to value material goods, and that this encourages crime, it is also clear that this effects those from socially deprived areas much more than those from stable or wealthy backgrounds. In many socially deprived societies, the lack of education and resources invested in the younger generation mean that the poverty cycle continues to define how well these young people will do as adults. The family they are born into is still the biggest predictor of a person’s life trajectory. If social mobility is not a truly viable option for young people from impoverished backgrounds to succeed, they may see crime as the only way to reach the material goods that so commonly are associated with personal achievement. One current example of this is the riots that occurred in major cities throughout the UK in 2011. Perhaps one of the most notable acts of the riots was the looting, particularly as the majority of looting was from high street stores not for necessities or for high end goods, but rather for average things the looters wanted. Zoe Williams explains the riots as such ‘this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it’. [1] Therefore in this case criminality is caused by consumerism as the opposition argument two suggests, but this is compounded by the cyclical nature of social deprivation that looks unlikely to be solved.  [1] Williams, Zoe, ‘The UK riots: the psychology of looting’, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011.

Minimum sentences have only a theoretical impact on crime rates; in reality they make no difference. The pro makes two major assumptions; first, that criminals have reasonably accurate perceptions of the legal code. Second, the pro assumes that harsh penalties have a psychological impact on potential criminals. Interviews with convicted felons found that a mere 22% even thought they knew what the punishment would be. Another 18% did not know at all, and more than a third reported that they had not thought about punishment at all at the time of the crime. [1] Thus minimum sentences are not sufficiently well publicized to have a significant deterrent effect. Furthermore, substantial evidence demonstrates that additional severity has a relatively small deterrent effect. Criminals respond much more to the chance of getting caught rather than the consequences that occur if they get caught; if a criminal’s chance of getting caught is 10%, the deterrent effect is virtually zero. [2] Thus mandatory sentences do not have a substantial deterrent effect.  [1] Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America, Russell Sage Foundation, NY, 2006, 178.  [2] Western, 179.

Mandatory minimum sentences increase deterrence.  Deterrence works through several mechanisms; likelihood of getting caught, severity of punishment, and perceived public disapproval. Mandatory minimum sentences increase the effectiveness of severity as a deterrent. If potential criminals know a mild sentence is possible, they are more likely to commit crime in the hopes that they may charm a judge into sympathetically lowering their sentence. By establishing a set minimum punishment, a potential criminal with any knowledge of the penal code knows that, if caught, he/she will face a substantial punishment for his/her crime. The pro need not demonstrate that every, or even a strong majority, of would-be criminals will be deterred by mandatory minimum sentences; so long as the mandate has a reasonable deterrent effect, it will reduce crime and therefore improve the overall standard of living.

Safety valves are simply a reflection of the problem with mandatory sentencing. Safety valves are proof that the inflexibility of minimum sentencing leads to injustice. Safety valves are a step in the right direction, but are themselves an inflexible form of relief. For example, safety valves often do not apply if the defendant has a history of more than one very minor offense, such as passing a bad check. [1] The better way to reduce the injustice of mandatory minimum sentences would be to eliminate the system and allow judicial discretion.  [1] “Federal Mandatory Minimum Reforms: Improve and Expand the Federal ‘Safety Valve,’” Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Next Administration and Congress, 2008. [

Mandatory sentencing increases consistency in the justice system.  Former Supreme Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once said, “liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” [1] Without mandates, judges may have radically different ideas of just sentences. Michael Simons gives the example of Mutt and Jim- two criminals of identical background who commit the same crime. Judge Lenient sentences Mutt, while Judge Harsh sentences Jeff. Mutt might receive one day in prison while Jeff receives a sentence of twenty-five years. [2] While such an extreme is unlikely, it is noteworthy that the legal system emphasizes the importance of consistency. Consistent precedent is essential because citizens need to be able to make decisions knowing the legal consequences of their actions. Mandatory sentencing need not be overly harsh, but there should be some sort of rigidity to establish reliability in the legal system.  [1] Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 83, (1992).   [2] Michael A. Simons, “Departing Ways: Uniformity, Disparity, and Cooperation in Federal Drug Sentences,” Villanova Law Review, Vol. 47, Issue 2, 2002, 926.

Mandatory minimum sentences remove undue judicial discretion.  Discretion allows for both intentional and unintentional bias. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard a case concerning alleged corruption when a West Virginia judge ruled in favor of a plaintiff that had donated over $3 million to the judge’s election campaign. [1] Though this case is not directly linked to minimum sentences, it demonstrates that judicial corruption is an issue in the legal system today; mandatory sentencing reduces the discretion that allows unethical judicial action. Furthermore, judges may attempt to be impartial, but data shows that humans are inclined to be more sympathetic towards particular groups. For example, female defendants are less likely to receive a death sentence than male defendants, while defendants in general are seven times more likely to receive the death penalty if the victim is female; scholars suggest that these disparities are caused by societal perceptions that women need greater protection rather than any actual difference in the severity of the crime. [2] Thus even decisions that seem impartial are often not. Strict sentencing mandates are more likely to yield just decisions because they are less vulnerable to individual bias.  [1] Dahlia Lithwick, “The Great Caperton Caper: The Supreme Court Talks About Judicial Bias. Kinda,” Slate, June 8, 2009.  [2] “Studies: Gender Bias in Death Sentencing,” Death Penalty Information Center, 2011.

Mandatory sentences do not eliminate undue discretion; they merely shift the power from judges to prosecutors. Prosecutors may decide whether or not to charge defendants for violations other than the main charge. For example, a prosecutor may add weapons possession to a charge for drug sales- this additional count can drastically increase the defendant’s sentence. In the United States, defendants often cooperate with prosecutors and provide information in order to avoid such hefty sentences. Michael Simmons explains, “[…] A cooperation departure is usually the only significant sentencing factor over which a defendant has any control and– because the average cooperation departure cuts a defendant’s sentence in half- it is often a defendant’s only hope for a reduced sentence. Thus, it is not surprising that cooperation departures have fundamentally changed federal prosecutions.” [1] Prosecutors may wield this power to coerce defendants into accepting a plea bargain in cases where they might reasonably be acquitted at trial. Because prosecutors are part of the executive branch, they are more susceptible to political influence than federal judges, who are often appointed, not elected. Thus for a balance of power, it is better to allow judges to have discretion.  Debaters might instead argue that mandatory sentences are not an effective means of subduing corrupt judges, as a judge has many venues for disrupting a trial.  [1] Michael A. Simons, “Departing Ways: Uniformity, Disparity, and Cooperation in Federal Drug Sentences,” Villanova Law Review, Vol. 47, Issue 2, 2002, 935.

Judges are capable of delivering consistency. Judges are trained professionals and must demonstrate competence in order to be appointed- they are unlikely to administer completely random sentences. In order to further reduce inconsistency, the Con supports government-issued sentencing guidelines so that judges are aware of the precedent concerning sentencing for a particular crime, so long as these guidelines are not compulsory. In the unusual occurrence that a judge administers an unjustly harsh sentence, defendants may appeal their case to a higher court. Thus judicial discretion is unlikely to result in widespread inconsistent sentencing.

Imprisonment only yields the benefits of incapacitation if the offenders are a likely threat to society. If the criminal that is given an extensive prison sentence was unlikely to commit another crime, then his/her incapacitation did not actually protect society. Studies within prison populations demonstrate that most offenders commit relatively little crime, while a core group commits a large portion of the crime. For example, a Rand Corporation survey found that half of all burglars committed fewer than six crimes per year, while the top 10% committed over two hundred. [1] Thus society is not particularly well serve when the bottom half of burglars face long prison sentences; few burglaries are avoided, and these criminals will now have more difficulty rejoining society.  [1] Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America, Russell Sage Foundation, NY, 2006, 178.

Mandatory minimum sentencing can be designed to avoid injustices.  The negative side effects of minimum sentencing guidelines can be avoided via “safety valves.” The U.S. federal government introduced safety valves in 1994; mandatory sentencing is suspended if the defendant meets certain criteria, such as being a low-level participant or having no prior criminal history. The safety valve allows flexibility so that low-risk offenders do not receive excessively harsh punishment. Thus mandatory sentencing guidelines have enough flexibility to recognize varying circumstances, while retaining enough rigidity to deliver consistent punishment.

Minimum sentences increase the effectiveness of incapacitation.  Incapacitation is one of the 4 basic reasons for punishment. Mandatory minimum sentences keep criminals out of society for a longer period of time than they might otherwise be in jail, thereby reducing their window of opportunity to commit crime. The criminal justice system is obligated to refrain from cruel or unusual punishment, but its main purpose is to protect society from law-breakers through various means of preventing and punishing illegal activity. Mandatory minimum sentences should be proportionate to the severity of the crime, thus satisfying the requirement of humane punishment. Thus mandatory minimum sentencing is a just method of protecting the public.

Mandatory sentences need not be excessively harsh. The Pro supports mandatory sentences that account for a criminal’s prior history and the severity of the crime; mandatory sentences can be proportionate to the scope of the crime. A crime such as murder, which poses a serious threat to public safety, should have a greater minimum punishment than petty theft. But by arguing that we should not have minimum sentences for low-level criminals, the con is essentially arguing that we should not imprison offenders unless they singlehandedly pose a dire threat to society at large. All crimes are violations of the law; if the government ignores crime on the basis that the offense is “not that serious,” it signals that laws against such offenses are not legitimate and may be ignored. Thus mandatory minimum sentences are relevant and beneficial to reducing low-level crime.

Mandatory sentencing does not provide prosecutors any additional power to do anything unethical. “Stacking charges” is another way of saying the prosecutor charges the defendant for each crime he/she committed, meaning that the defendant is being held accountable for all of his/her actions. The Con fails to demonstrate why this is problematic. Furthermore, having democratic checks ensures that the prosecution will not bring trumped-up charges. First, a jury will dismiss such charges, and possibly dismiss all charges if they feel the prosecutor is being abusive. Second, the public is unlikely to respond positively to a district attorney that wastes time and resources on putting low-level criminals in prison for long sentences rather than focusing on serious threats to public safety. Thus the ability to “stack charges” is unlikely to have an adverse impact on justice.

Mandatory minimum sentences make juries reluctant to convict guilty defendants.  The most publicized form of jury nullification is in the case of the death penalty, wherein jurors are reluctant to sentence a person to death. However, Nancy King of the University of Chicago finds that juries are increasingly likely to acquit if a defendant might receive an unduly harsh sentence under mandatory sentencing laws or “three-strike” laws. [1] This kind of jury nullification has two implications. First, it is harmful because defendants that are guilty and ought to go to prison (albeit not for the term demanded by sentencing laws) are not held accountable for their actions at all. Second, jury nullification (a contested practice in and of itself) is a signal in a democratic society that the public considers current legislation to be unjust. Thus the jury nullification demonstrates public opposition to the unintentionally unjust consequences of mandatory sentencing.  [1] Nancy King, “Silencing Nullification Advocacy Inside the Jury Room and Outside the Courtroom,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 2, 1998, 438.

Minimum mandatory sentences are unjust.  In the United States, federal minimum sentences for narcotics-related offences have forced judges on countless occasions to deliver sentences of 20 year, 30 years, or even life imprisonment to offenders that were tangentially connected to the offense. Often, such offenders are low-income young adults that turn to drug sales for a month or two out of desperation. [1] Sometimes defendants find themselves entangled in drug busts because they are living with family members that are involved in the drug trade. [2] In a well-publicized case, Weldon Angelos was sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling marijuana because he was also in possession of a firearm. [3] All criminals are not the same; there are significant differences in the level of threat that individuals pose to society, as well as the likelihood of rehabilitation. Rigid mandatory sentences are unjust because they inevitably lead to numerous cases of disproportionate punishment. These harsh punishments consequently have disastrous impacts on the individuals, as well as their family and community.  [1] “DeJarion Echols,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.  [2] “Hamedah Hasan,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.  [3] “Weldon Angelos,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

Minimum mandatory sentences reduce the chance of rehabilitation.  Minimum sentences force minor criminals to spend more time in prison, thereby increasing their exposure to more hardened criminals. This exposure reduces their chance of rehabilitation- other inmates act as a “bad influence.” [1] Furthermore, studies of labor market participation demonstrate that the more time a person spends outside the labor force, the more their human capital (i.e. marketable skills) deteriorate; their chance of finding well-paid work decreases with more time outside the labor force. [2] Longer prison sentences keep people from working, thereby keeping them in a cycle of unemployment that leads them back into crime.  [1] Craig Haney, “Prison Overcrowding: Harmful Consequences and Dysfunctional Reactions,” Vera Institute of Justice, 8.   [2] Francine Blau, Mariannne Ferber, and Anne Winkler, The Economics of Women, Men, and Work, 5th Edition, Pearson, NJ, 2006.

Mandatory sentencing fills the system with “small fish.”  As noted above in response to the Pro, most convicts are not high-repeat criminals; a study similar to the one mentioned above found that in a sample of a cohort of teenage boys in Philadelphia, 33% had engaged in delinquent behavior at some point, but 60% of the crime was committed by a group of recidivists that made up only 7% of the population. [1] Harsh punishments for all offenders have led to an overcrowded prison system; overcrowding decreases safety within prisons and reduces the chance of rehabilitation because prisons have fewer resources per prisoner to provide educational and work training. [2] By filling the system with “small fish,” the Pro reduce the prison system’s ability to address serious threats to society.  [1] Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America, Russell Sage Foundation, NY, 2006, 176.  [2] Craig Haney, “Prison Overcrowding: Harmful Consequences and Dysfunctional Reactions,” Vera Institute of Justice, 6. [

Mandatory sentences are fairer than judicial discretion. The Con assumes that individual judges will deliver fair and proportionate punishment. However, as is discussed in the Pro arguments, judges are susceptible to many forms of implicit and explicit bias. For example, studies consistently show that minorities receive longer sentences than whites in the U.S. for comparable offenses. Mandatory sentencing eliminates the danger of individual partiality and replaces it with consistent standards. The Pro advocates a well-defined set of sentencing standards that account for factors such as prior history and cooperation so as to avoid the injustices discussed in the Con’s argument. The Pro acknowledges that sentencing standards may be imperfect, however, the flaws of these imperfections are outweighed by the elimination of personal judicial bias.

Mandatory sentencing gives prosecutors undue power.  Prosecutors can stack charges, which they can use to scare a defendant into accepting a plea bargain. Prosecutors are part of the executive branch; they are directly answerable to elected officials (and are often elected themselves), whereas judges are generally more removed from political influence. Politicians often promote themselves as being “tough on crime.” [1] In order to make good on this claim, they may pressure prosecutors to increase conviction rates, get longer sentences, etc. Thus political pressure may lead prosecutors to handle cases in a way that makes them more popular with the public, rather than one which gives the criminal their fair due. Because judges are less susceptible to public pressure, it is safer to entrust discretion to them.  [1] Michael A. Simons, “Departing Ways: Uniformity, Disparity, and Cooperation in Federal Drug Sentences,” Villanova Law Review, Vol. 47, Issue 2, 2002, 923.

Minimum mandatory sentences increase the chance of rehabilitation. If a person receives a light punishment for his/her action, he/she sees that the action has a low cost. Conversely, if a person has firsthand experience with strong punishment for an action, they will be more reluctant to take that action in the future. Furthermore, prisons have literacy and work training programs to benefit criminals; the majority of (American) prisoners are functionally illiterate. [1] If these criminals are in prison for a short period of time, they will not be able to reap the benefits of these rehabilitating programs. Thus longer sentences (within reason) can actually be beneficial to inmates.  [1] Craig Haney, “Prison Overcrowding: Harmful Consequences and Dysfunctional Reactions,” Vera Institute of Justice, 85.

1) There are checks against jury nullification. The judicial system can reduce the impact of jury nullification by explaining to juries that their responsibility is to determine the guilt of the defendant. The judge can explain that nullification is not a legally acceptable form of dissenting from a law that one perceives as unjust. While King makes the observations noted by the Pro, she also notes that prosecutors may dismiss potential jurors that admit they will consider the severity of the punishment. [1]  (2) A careful jury is a good jury. When juries are reluctant to convict because of the death penalty, they are often asking themselves, “am I so sure that this person committed this crime that I am willing to bet their life on it?” Such hesitation is beneficial to the justice system- it reduces the number of wrongful convictions. Similarly, mandatory minimum sentences make juries realize the significance of their decisions. While this may allow some lucky criminals to evade justice, it also prevents innocent civilians from suffering punishments they do not deserve.  [1] Nancy King, “Silencing Nullification Advocacy Inside the Jury Room and Outside the Courtroom,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 2, 1998,435.

The Second Amendment was not designed for only self defense and hunting. The idea that the common man should be reasonably able to protect themselves from tyranny, foreign invasion, and insurrection is a reasonable and just cause. But even if we were to accept that self defense and hunting are the only legitimate reasons for owning a gun then why should the state get to decide what weapons someone should use when hunting or defending themselves? That a gun may not be the best choice for these activities does not mean that it should not be a possible choice.

Assault weapons are not necessary for self defence or hunting.  As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg argues "We've got to really question whether military-style weapons with big magazines belong on the streets of America in this day and age.” [1] Police chiefs such as Ralph Godbee of Detroit argue "We're talking about weapons that are made for war… you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a minute.” [2] In a self defense scenario the person defending themselves need to have enough ammunition to provide deterrence, however they would have to be unwise to take on several assailants so there should be little need to have more than 10 rounds in the magazine. Law enforcement expert Leonard J. Supenski has testified “because of potential harm to others in the household, passersby, and bystanders, too much firepower is a hazard” as in self defense, the defenders will often fire until they have expended all the bullets in their magazine. To use an assault weapon would to spray an assailant with bullets from an assault weapon would be using disproportionate force that will not only harm the assailant but will likely hit anyone else nearby.  Even those who are against an assault weapons ban such as David Kopel concede that for the most part these are not useful weapons for hunting. These weapons are “intended to wound rather than to kill” so would certainly not be useful in taking down a deer. Moreover he also concedes “a hunter will carry only a few rounds” so the large capacity magazine is also useless for sport. [3]  [1] Simpson, Connor, ‘Dianne Feinstein Wants to Ban Assault Weapons’, the Atlantic Wire, 16 December 2012,   [2] Jackson, Jesse, ‘Police Chiefs Are Right: Ban Assault Weapons’, Huffington Post, 3 August 2012,   [3] Kopel, David B., ‘Rational Basis Analysis of “Assault Weapon” Prohibition’, Journal of Contemporary Law, Vol.20, 1994 pp.381-417, p.393,

Banning assault weapons is an infringement on Americans freedom to protect themselves; what minor civil liberties advances may be gained pale by comparison to this.  It is also unlikely that the police and the FBI would recognise the linkage between fewer guns in the civilian population and reducing the firepower of the police. Similarly the FBI is unlikely to monitor civilians less simply because there is one less reason. The justification of “preventing homegrown attacks before they are hatched” will still remain just as strong as before they will simply be looking for different things.

A ban would save lives  Put simply assault weapons are designed for assault, therefore their proliferation should be prohibited in law. To put things into the general context of gun crime within the United States every year 17,000 people are killed, 70 percent of them with guns and nearly 20,000 people commit suicide by shooting themselves [1] . Murder by gunfire particularly affects children, in total well over a million Americans have died in this manner and 80 people continue to be shot in the states every day. So some form of gun control is necessary and a ban on assault weapons is a good starting point.  Out of 62 mass murders since 1982 almost half the weapons used, 67 out of 142, were semi-automatic handguns and more than 30 were assault weapons. [2] The period of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 with the exception of 1999, the year of the Columbine massacre (which notably involved a semi-automatic produced before the ban), was also a peaceful period in terms of numbers of mass shootings. [3] While assault weapons are responsible for a relatively small amount of total gun deaths in the USA that is not a good reason for not banning them; any life saved is worthwhile. Taking the low estimate of 1% of deaths from assault weapons that still means 90-100 people a year while the high 7% [4] means 630-700 lives that could be saved.  Australia shows the advantages on implementing restrictions on guns (in Australia’s case much stricter than anything being contemplated in this debate so the effect would not be as pronounced). In the wake of a mass shooting in Port Arthur in 1996 strict gun laws were implemented. An evaluation by the Australian National University found laws saved $500 million and halved the number of people killed by guns saving 200 lives every year. [5]  [1] Masters, Brian, ‘America’s deadly obsession with guns’ The Telegraph 16 December 2012,   [2] Follman, Mark, et al., ‘A Guide to Mass Shootings in America’, Mother Jones, 15 December 2012,   [3] Wang, Sam, ‘Did the federal ban on assault weapons matter?’, Princeton Election Consortium, 14 December 2012,   [4] Matthews, Jake, ‘For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America’, Harvard University Institute of Politics, 2012,   [5] Peters, Rebecca, ‘Will Sandy Hook massacre be America’s tipping point’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 December 2012,

It is exactly correct that deaths as a result of assault weapons are a tiny portion of the total firearms deaths. There is also no way to know if those who were killed by these weapons would have been saved or whether their assailant would not simply have killed them with a handgun instead. Therefore to ban only certain types of guns does not address the issue satisfactorily because it does not take into consideration that any gun can kill.

Black plastic on a gun does not make it any more lethal than other guns with wood stocks. Stopping the manufacture of such guns would hand over a lucrative market to the Russians and Chinese rather than reducing the number of assault weapons in the world. [1] Drugs cartels would simply find new routes to get the weapons they need, after all they are already dealing in illegal activities making the guns they want illegal on both sides of the border rather than just one is unlikely to stop them.  [1] Falconer, Bruce, ‘Semiautomatic for the people’, Mother Jones, July/August 2008,

Banning assault weapons increases liberty and security  Many who are pro guns argue that it would be illegitimate for assault weapons to be banned while the police have them. Police forces, however, are going to be much more likely, and able to give them up when a ban is in place. The police don’t want to be involved in an arms race with criminals to have the biggest guns; just look at the British police force where there is little gun crime and few shootings of police officers it is not felt that there is the need to have police armed with more than a taser or even truncheon. [1] Put simply a ban on assault weapons can help reverse the arms race between police and criminals.  Civil liberties would also be enhanced as law enforcement agencies would not need to devote so many resources into monitoring assault weapons purchases and those who have done the purchasing. Instead they would be able to simply target all assault weapons purchases as needing immediate attention. [2]  Finally we must remember that this ban enhances the highest liberty at all; life. Today as Justice Breyer says “gun possession presents a greater risk of taking innocent lives” than not having a gun. [3]  [1] Keating, Ruth, ‘This House would arm the police’, Peter Squires ed., Debatabase, 2011,   [2] Matthews, Jake, ‘For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America’, Harvard University Institute of Politics, 2012,   [3] Masters, Brian, ‘America’s deadly obsession with guns’, The Telegraph, 16 December 2012,

An assault weapons ban would stop the manufacture of many of the deadliest guns.  Yes a ban would not immediately take assault weapons off the streets but there would be significant long term benefits as highlighted by Connecticut Senator Joe Liberman "We ought to restore the assault weapons ban -- not to take anybody's guns away that they have now, but to stop the manufacturing of these weapons." [1] The ban would stop manufacturers from making the weapons and with the legislation improved from the 1994 version it would be possible to prevent the cosmetic changes that were made to keep guns on the market. [2] This would mean that prices both in the USA and globally would increase as there would be less supply. One positive result might also be help to change the United States’ position on the arms trade treaty which would further restrict global supply. [3] This would answer Mexican calls to cut off the supply of guns into the country that helps make the drugs violence in the country so deadly both by meaning less of the weapons are made and by helping to cut off the route through which weapons get into Mexico. [4] A ban on assault weapons would not fix Mexico but it would deprive arms smugglers of the closest, easiest and cheapest place to buy the arms used by the drugs cartels. [5]  [1] Jamieson, Dave, ‘Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy Calls For Tougher Gun Controls’, The Huffington Post, 16 December 2012,   [2] Epstein, Edward, ‘NRA clout is outgunning Feinstein / Assault weapons ban renewal in doubt’, SFGate, 28 June 2004,   [3] Urquhart, Conal, ‘Arms trade treaty failure is disappointing, says William Hague’, guardian.co.uk, 28 July 2012,   [4] ‘Mexico urges U.S. to review gun laws after Colorado shooting’, Reuters, 21 July 2012,   [5] Chertoff, Emily, ‘Regulating U.S.-Made Assault Weapons: The International Case’, The Atlantic, 19 December 2012,

There is a rational basis for banning assault weapons as they are a firearm of choice among criminals. In a study of young adult purchases of handguns in California buyers with minor criminal histories were twice as likely to purchase automatic pistols as those with no criminal history. This was even higher at five times as likely for those who had been charged with two or more serious violent offenses. [1] This means those purchasing assault weapons intend for them to be used for violent ends.  It is true that assault weapons are used in a small percentage of crimes, although 1% is disputable in Miami for example 15 out of 79 homicides in 2006 involved assault weapons, [2] but the opposition ignore that large capacity magazines are used in a much higher percentage of crimes; between 14 and 26% before the 1994 ban. [3]  [1] Koper, Christopher S., et al., ‘An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003’, Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, June 2004, p.17   [2] Associated Press, ‘Assault-weapon attacks on rise in Miami area’, MSNBC, 14 September 2007,   [3] Koper, Christopher S., et al., ‘An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003’, Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, June 2004, p.18

Supreme court rulings have been overturned before. This is an area where the bill of rights is clearly outdated and out of touch; today’s militia is clearly the standing army and so this should just be interpreted as only granting members of the army the right to carry arms. The maintenance of “the security of a free state” clearly is not something that today is done through the citizenry having access to guns, whether assault weapons or not. Moreover it is difficult to see why if there is a right to bear arms that is unconnected with the security of the state these arms should be these particular assault weapons rather than types of weapon that we are not looking to ban. Would a rifle not be as useful in the event of invasion as a semi-automatic? The Bill of Rights was written at the end of the eighteenth century when the weapons were muzzle loading muskets it was not conceived with powerful, accurate, modern weapons that are capable of mass murder without reloading.

It is incoherent to ban some guns  It is incoherent to attempt to ban assault weapons while allowing other weapons to remain on the streets. As professor Jacobs from New York University argues “Pistols are dangerous because they are easily carried and concealed; shotguns because they spray metal projectiles over a wide area; certain hunting rifles because they fire large calibre bullets, and certain "sniper rifles" because they are accurate over great distances. Assault rifles are not remarkable by any of these criteria.” [1] Indeed the previous ban simply used a list of guns that were banned rather than a specific definition that could then be applied universally showing the difficulty of classifying these weapons. [2] It should also be remembered that this will not affect assault weapons that are already legal in the United States so this would not even be banning all assault weapons so would leave millions in private hands, while it might be argued there is some slight difference between an assault weapon and another gun there is certainly no difference betweena a new and an old assault weapon.  [1] Kopel, David B., ‘Rational Basis Analysis of “Assault Weapon” Prohibition’, Journal of Contemporary Law, Vol.20, 1994 pp.381-417, p.404,   [2] Kobayashi, Bruce H., and Olson, Joseph E., ‘In Re 101 California Street: A legal and economic analysis of strict liability for the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons”’, Stanford Law and Policy Review, vol.8 No.1, 1997,

A ban on assault weapons would not work, it will simply encourage a black market  It has already been demonstrated that most crime already takes place using other guns or even without firearms at all so it is illogical to think that this ban would make any difference to crime. For a start as the ban would not be retroactive large numbers of assault weapons would remain legally in the United States. It would create a black market in the weapons which would enrich organised crime which would simply mean that those who are intending to use those guns for ill have access to them while those who want them for self defense don’t. [1] As a response to Obama’s reelection some gun owners are already purchasing more guns and bullets, in some cases with the intention of selling them on the black market should a ban come into force. [2] It is clear therefore that the ban would do little to reduce the number of assault weapons in the United States and would likely even do little to impact on their availability.  [1] Wohlferd, Clark A., ‘Much ado about not very much: The expiration of the assault weapons ban as an act of legislative responsibility’, Legislation and Public Policy, vol.8, 2005, pp.471-484, p.480   [2] Hagler, Frank, ‘Gun Sales at Record High: Sales Soar Over Fear of the Black President’, Policy Mic, November 2012,

Assault weapons are not used in most crimes  There is little point in banning a type of weapon that is not used in most violence; assault rifles are used in fewer than 1 percent of all violent crimes in the united states at a time when gun violence is falling. [1] If assault weapons are not used in most crime then there is no rational basis for banning them. When the previous assault weapons ban expired in 2004 far from there being an increase in crime as predicted the number of murders declined by 3.6%. [2]  [1] La Jeunesse, William, ‘Debate answer on assault weapons ban could cause problems for Obama’, Fox News, 1 November 2012,   [2] Lott, John R., ‘The Big Lie of the Assault Weapons Ban’, Los Angeles Times, 28 June 2005,

An assault weapons ban would violate the second amendment  The Second amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” [1] would be violated by a ban on assault weapons. This right clearly does not limit what arms a citizen may bear. The ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller clearly reaffirmed that the government can’t ban certain classes of arms and also that this right is not connected with service in a militia.  [1] ‘Second Amendment – Bearing Arms’, Findlaw,

Of course a ban will not completely eliminate these weapons but it would reduce the supply and make it much easier for the police to seize the weapons so taking them off the streets. It would also be a step in the right direction in attempting to change public perceptions and amend the American attitude. It is understated just how relaxed American laws are in comparison to the rest of the world, even states such as Switzerland and Israel that are often highlighted by the NRA as being model states that allow gun ownership with few resulting shootings are much more restrictive than the USA. [1]  There is no reason to think that a black market is somehow going to result in more of these weapons being available so the fact that it will exist after a ban is not a reason not to go ahead with the ban. It is not ideal that a ban is not retroactive so leaving a large number of such guns in private hands but this number will slowly diminish over time rather than continuing to rise as it would under the status quo.  [1] Rosenbaum, Janet, ‘A League of Our Own’, Foreign Policy, 19 December 2012,

The point of an assault weapons ban is not to completely ban guns but to ban guns that can fire large numbers of bullets rapidly and have no purpose other than to shoot people. The ban targets those weapons that are not useful for self defence or hunting. The opposition argument is essentially that because some guns are legal all guns should be legal; the line has to be drawn somewhere and there is little reason why the line at assault weapons is less logical than a line that allows some grenade launchers and shotguns while banning others? [1] Since this line is clearly arbitrary then we should move to the only non-arbitrary line, a full ban, a move towards which this ban is a step towards.  [1] Laurence, Charles, ‘Semi-automatics and grenade launchers are legal again in US’, The Telegraph, 19 September 2004,

While the world is globalizing, it is still in the interest of states to retain their relative competitive advantages. After all, the first duty of a state is to its own citizens. By translating these works and offering them to academics, students, and professionals, the developed world serves to erode one of its only advantages over the cheaper labour and industrial production markets of the developing world. The developed world relies on its advantage in technology particularly to maintain its position in the world and to have a competitive edge. Giving that edge up, which giving access to their information more readily does, is to increase the pace at which the developed world will be outmatched.

Translation gives access to students to learn valuable information and develop their human capital and to become academically and economically competitive  The ability to access the wealth of knowledge being generated in the developed world would greatly impact the ability of students and budding academics in the developing world to develop their human capital and keep abreast of the most recent developments in the various fields of academic research. Lag is a serious problem in an academic world where the knowledge base is constantly developing and expanding. In many of the sciences, particularly those focused on high technology, information rapidly becomes obsolete as new developments supplant the old. The lag that occurs because developing countries' academics and professionals cannot readily access this new information results in their always being behind the curve. [1] Coupled with the fact that they possess fewer resources than their developed world counterparts, developing world institutions are locked in a constant game of catch-up they have found difficult, if not impossible, to break free of. By subsidizing this translation effort, students in these countries are able to learn with the most up-to-date information, academics are able to work with and build upon the most relevant areas of research, and professionals can keep with the curve of knowledge to remain competitive in an ever more global marketplace. An example of what can happen to a country cut off from the global stream of knowledge can be found in the Soviet Union. For decades Soviet academics were cut off from the rest of the world, and the result was a significant stunting of their academic development. [2] This translation would be a major boon for all the academic and professional bodies in developing countries.  [1] Hide, W., ‘I Can No Longer Work for a System that Puts Profit Over Access to Research’, The Guardian. 2012.   [2] Shuster, S. “Putin’s PhD: Can a Plagiarism Probe Upend Russian Politics?”. Time. 28 February 2013,

This translation effort does not pave the future with gold. Intellectual property law still persists and these countries would still be forced to deal with the technologies' originators in the developed world. By instead striving to engage on an even footing without special provisions and charity of translation, developing countries' academics can more effectively win the respect and cooperation of their developed world counterparts. In so doing they gain greater access to, and participation in, the developments of the more technologically advanced countries. They should strive to do so as equals, not supplicants.

Translation allows greater participation by academics in global academia and global marketplace of ideas  Communication in academia is necessary to effectively engage with the work of their colleagues elsewhere in the world, and in sciences in particular there has become a lingua franca in English. [1] Any academic without the language is at a severe disadvantage. Institutions and governments of the Global North have the resources and wherewithal to translate any research that might strike their fancy. The same is not true for states and universities in the Global South which have far more limited financial and human capital resources. By subsidizing the translation of academic literature into the languages of developing countries the developed world can expand the reach and impact of its institutions' research. Enabling access to all the best academic research in multiple languages will mean greater cross-pollination of ideas and knowledge. Newton is supposed to have said we “stand upon the shoulders of giants” as all ideas are ultimately built upon a foundation of past work. [2] Language is often a barrier to understanding so translation helps to broaden the shoulders upon which academics stand.  By subsidizing the publication of their work into other significant languages, institutions can have a powerful impact on improving their own reputation and academic impact. Academic rankings such as the rankings by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, [3] and the Times Higher Education magazine [4] include research and paper citations as part of the criteria. Just as importantly it opens the door to an improved free flowing dialogue between academics around the world. This is particularly important today as the developing world becomes a centre of economic and scientific development. [5] This translation project will serve to aid in the development of relations between research institutes, such as in the case of American institutions developing partnerships with Chinese and Indian universities.  [1] Meneghini, Rogerio, and Packer, Abel L., ‘Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down language barriers in scientific communication’, EMBO Report, February 2007, Vol.8 No.2, pp.112-116,   [2] Yong, Ed, ‘Why humans stand on giant shoulders, but chimps and monkeys don’t’, Discover, 1 March 2012,   [3] ‘Ranking Methodology’, Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2012,   [4] Baty, Phil, ‘World University Rankings subject tables: Robust, transparent and sophisticated’, Times Higher Education, 16 September 2010,   [5] ‘Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012’. National Science Foundation. 2012,

Translating academic work for the developed world will not succeed in creating a dialogue between developed and developing world because the effort is inherently unidirectional. The developing world academics will be able to use the translated work, but will lack the ability to respond in a way that could be readily understood or accepted by their developed world counterparts. The only way to become a truly respected academic community is to engage with the global academic world on an even footing, even if that means devoting more resources to learning the dominant global academic languages, particularly English. This is what is currently happening and is what should be the trend for the future. [1] So long as they rely on subsidized work, the academics of the developing world remain subject and subordinate to those of the developed world.  [1] Meneghini, Rogerio, and Packer, Abel L., ‘Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down language barriers in scientific communication’, EMBO Report, February 2007, Vol.8 No.2, pp.112-116,

Translation expands the knowledge base of citizens to help solve local problems  It is often the case that science and technology produced in the developed world finds its greatest application in the developing world. Sometimes new developments are meant for such use, as was the case with Norman Borlaug's engineering of dwarf wheat in order to end the Indian food crisis. Other times it is serendipitous, as academic work not meant of practical use, or tools that could not be best applied in developed world economies find ready application elsewhere, as citizens of the developing world turn the technologies to their needs. [1] By translating academic journals into the languages of developing countries, academics and governments can open a gold mine of ideas and innovation. The developing world still mostly lacks the infrastructure for large scale research and relies heavily on research produced in the developed world for its sustenance. Having access to the body of academic literature makes these countries less dependent on the academic mainstream, or to the few who can translate the work themselves. Having access to this research allows developing countries to study work done in the developed world and look at how the advances may be applicable to them. The more people are able to engage in this study the more likely it is that other uses for the research will be found.  [1] Global Health Innovation Blog. ‘The East Meets West Foundation: Expanding Organizational Capacity”. Stanford Graduate School of Business. 18 October 2012,

In the status quo there is already some translation, due largely to current demands and academic relationships. Even if translation of all academic work the world over could not be translated into every conceivable language, expanding the number of articles and number of languages is certainly a good thing. While cost will limit the extent of the policy, it is still worth pursuing to further open the world of academic discourse.

If it is true that people cannot easily get jobs in the developed world for lack of language skills then there will surely still be a pressure to learn the language or languages of international discourse. What this policy offers is access by a much wider audience to the various benefits that expanded academic knowledge can offer. It will expand the developing world's knowledge base and not in any way diminish the desire to learn English and other dominant languages. It should be remembered that it is not just academics that use academic papers; students do as well, as do professionals in everyday life. Clearly there cannot be an expectation that everyone learns English to be able to access research. While there may be fewer languages in academic use there is not such a narrowing of language for everyone else.

The West has no particular obligation to undergo such a sweeping policy  Governments and academic institutions have no special duty to give full access to all information that they generate and publish in academic journals to anyone who might want it. If they want to make their research public that is their prerogative, but it does not follow that they should then be expected to translate that work into an endless stream of different languages. If there is a desire by governments and institutions to aid in the academic development of the developing world, there are other ways to go about it than indiscriminately publishing their results and research into developing world languages. Taking on promising students through scholarships, or developing strategic partnerships with institutions in the global south are more targeted, less piecemeal means of sharing the body of global knowledge for example the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences funds junior scientists from the developing world working in their labs. [1] States owe their first duty to their own citizens, and when the research they produce is not only made available to citizens of other countries but translated at some expense, they are not serving that duty well. It will prove to be a fairly ineffective education policy.  [1] ‘Building Research Capacity in Developing Nations’, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 114, No. 10, October 2006,

It is prohibitively expensive to translate everything and difficult to prioritize what to translate  Ultimately any policy of translation of academic work must rely on a degree of prioritization on the part of the translators since there is no way that all academic work of any kind could be translated into other major languages, let alone into all the multitude of languages extant in the world today. In 2009, for example, the number of published research papers on science and technology exceeded 700,000. [1] That is a gigantic amount of research. Translating all of these articles seems to be an obvious waste of time and resources for any government or institution to pursue and increasingly so when one considers the more than 30,000 languages in current use today. Translations today currently exist for articles and research that is considered useful. Any blanket policy is infeasible. The end result will be only a small number of articles translated into a finite number of languages. This is the status quo. Expanding it only serves to further confuse the academic community and to divert useful energies away from positive research to the quixotic task of translation.  [1] ‘Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012’. National Science Foundation. 2012,

It is better to have fewer languages in common use in global academic and economic interrelations  A proliferation of languages in academia will serve to fracture the interrelations of academics, not unify them. As more and more academics and innovators interested in new academic developments find it possible to obtain information wholly in their native languages, then the impetus toward unification in a primary language of academia and commerce will be slowed or entirely thwarted. Through history there have been movements toward this sort of linguistic unity, because it reduces the physical and temporal costs of information exchange; for example scholars throughout Early Modern Europe communicated in Latin. [1] This policy serves only to dampen this movement, which will, even if helpful to people in the short-run, serve to limit the capacity of developing world academics to engage with the developed world. Today English has become the definitive language of both international academic discourse and commerce. In France for example, a country known for its protective stance towards its language, journals have been changing to publishing in English rather than French; the journal Research in Virology changed in 1989 as almost 100% of their articles were submitted in English compared to only 15% in 1973. [2]  The trend towards one language is a positive one, because it has meant more movers and shakers in various countries have all been able to better and more quickly understand one another's desires and actions leading to more profitable and peaceful outcomes generally. [3] Also important is the fact that while academics and other interested parties in the developing world may be able to grapple with academic work more effectively once translated for them, they now have a greater disadvantage due to the enervating effects this translation produces. Without the positive impetus to learn the major language or languages of international discourse, developing world academics will never be able to get posts and lectureships at institutions in the developed world, or to take part in joint research in real time. The convergence of language ultimately serves to promote common understanding, which means people from the developing world can more effectively move between their home country and others. It also helps build a common lexicon of terms that will be more robust for international use, as opposed to translations, which are often imperfect due to divergences of linguistic concepts and thus susceptible to mistake.  [1] Koenigsberger, H. G., Mosse, George L., and Bowler, G. Q., Europe in the Sixteenth Century, London, 2nd Edn, 1989, p.377  [2] Garfield, Eugene, ‘The English Language: The Lingua Franca Of International Science’, The Ceisntist, 15 May 1989,   [3] Bakopoulos, D. ‘English as Universal Academic Language: Good or Bad?’. The University Record, 1997, Available:

Wealthy states do feel an obligation to less fortunate countries, as is demonstrated through their frequent use of aid and loans to poorer governments. This is a way to help countries stop being dependent on aid and hand-outs and instead develop their own human capital and livelihood by being able to engage with the cutting edge of technology and research.

The cost of extending the period of compulsory education is just too high. The increase in numbers would require a huge investment in teachers, books, new school buildings, computers, etc. As well as these direct costs there is also a huge amount of losses that a country would face. Young people who leave school and enter the workforce contribute to the economy through taxes and contributions to pensions which the country would no longer receive if people remained in school. It is impossible to spend more while also earning less. This means that raising the school leaving age is not something that countries can afford to do because they won’t have the money to cover the short term cost even if there are some long term gains.

Raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society’s future  Increasing the school leaving age means that society will produce a workforce that is higher skilled, attracts more investment to the country, and earns more money. A study for the UK government estimated the economic benefit was £2.4billion for each year group that has 18 as the leaving age rather than 16[4]. When there is more money in the economy more taxes are paid, this means the extra cost of keeping people in school will be covered by these taxes. In some countries the cost of keeping young people in school will, at first, be difficult to manage. However, in many countries a large majority of people voluntarily choose to remain in education longer than they have to. In the UK for example 84% of pupils in year 10 stated that they would remain in education after the age of 16 [5].

Unfortunately equality in the job market is unlikely to emerge simply because everyone now stays in school for the same amount of time. As noted above not everyone will get the same out of school just because they are there for the same amount of time. Those who achieve the best exam results will still be the most employable, especially if they go to university before finding a job.

More Education Brings More Opportunities  More education allows young people to develop greater skills so provides more options when they do leave education. It has been shown many times that those people who have more education find jobs easier and are more likely to find work that is satisfying. Extra education for young people also has a positive effect for the economy of a country. The impact of longer education is higher levels of productivity and earnings in later years. This is because longer in education helps workers to become more specialized, in todays ‘knowledge economy’ analytical thinking is highly valued and this is something that is increasingly taught from 16 to 18. Raising the leaving age has in the past had a significant impact on grades. The previous increase in the school leaving age in England, by a year to 16 in 1972, resulted in an improvement worth one grade higher in two subjects. The result is many fewer people leaving with no qualifications. [3]

If schools are failing to teach children basic skills by the time they are 16 it makes no sense to make them stay at school for an extra two years. If the children are forced to sit in the classroom for longer it does not necessarily mean that the results of education will change. Forcing young people to remain in school against their wishes is a reinforcement of the failure of the educational system. If climbing a mountain on your hands and knees is not working then simply doing it for longer makes no difference. The same is true of education: there is no point in keeping students who are failing in schools for longer periods when there is no evidence to show that they will succeed, instead something new needs to be tried.

Raising the school leaving age promotes equal opportunities  Making sure that everyone gets the same amount of time at school promotes equality. At the moment leaving school early is linked to economic and social disadvantage: those from poorer areas and families are more likely to leave school early than those from wealthier families. Parents who left school at a young age are also more likely to have children who leave school early (only 60% of those children stay in education past 16) [6]. Forcing all children to stay in school longer will help break this cycle of disadvantage.[7]

Leaving school early is not necessary. Instead, what is needed is government help to ensure that if young people remain in school then they can afford to do so. If children are unqualified at 16 then there is a real need to use the extra years to teach them the basics. There could also be certain people who have special circumstances which mean they do not need to stay in school. For example, in Britain, under 18’s that are caring for parents, relatives are exempt from extra schooling. [13]

UK statistics show “There is no evidence that raising the minimum school leaving age made people who had not intended to leave school at the minimum age raise their educational standard. This is consistent with the view that education raises productivity and not with the view that productive people get more education." [9]

Not All Skills are Best Learnt in a Classroom Environment  Practical skills (for example, carpentry, cookery, gardening etc.), are often best learnt ‘on the job’ or through an apprenticeship. Both of these routes place young people into contact with professionals in these areas and give them access to a wider range of tools, materials, and experiences than they would have access to in school. For many young people who want to work in these areas there is no need for them to stay in school for extra time. Forcing those who would rather learn on the job to remain in school is simply wasting their time by depriving them of taking that route for a few more years. This means that it will take much longer to produce highly skilled workers in these practical areas. This is why the UK along with raising its school leaving age allowed the option of taking an apprenticeship as an alternative to continuing in school.

There Are Cases Where Leaving School Early is Necessary  Working at an early age can be an advantage in certain circumstances. Many families, particularly in countries with little welfare, need their children to bring income into the household. Working at an earlier age can help these families to survive. Furthermore, anyone who is having difficulties getting educational qualifications can gain an advantage by leaving school and gaining work experience. If they are forced to stay in school then they will simply lose two years. The British government recognized this and introduced 21 000 extra apprenticeships in 2009. This was an attempt to make sure that those who are not suited to school learning do not fall behind when it comes to finding a job and a sustainable income. [12]

Forced Education Achieves Little  Being in school does not guarantee that a student is actually learning. If the student lacks interest or ability then the extra time spent in school is unlikely to benefit them, especially if they would not have chosen to be there. This applies even more to the problem of how to deal with those who are disruptive. If they are excluded from school then they are disadvantaged for a longer period of their life. However, if they are included then they continue to disrupt the learning of other students. As Henry Phibbs argues: “Increasing the school leaving age will not result in more being learned – just more broken windows in the locality of the school. Children fed up with school need an escape route, not an extension of their sentence." [8]

Practical skills can be taught in school. Many school systems have practical skills schools. For example, in Germany, ‘vocational schools’ (schools which teach practical skills) have been around since the 19th century. In these schools students spend part of their time in practical training and part of their time ‘on the job’. These schools are attended until the age of 18[10], and have been lauded for training highly skilled workers for German manufacturing[11]. It is therefore possible to create a system which is flexible and gives students the option to train in different ways while still staying in school until 18.

On the contrary, poetry is helpful to teaching English. Learning poetry involves chanting, exploration of syllables and vowel sounds. As the pupils chant the syllables, they read the letters that go into making that sound and so spelling will be improved. Reading poetry aloud improves reading ability because the student is vocalising the building blocks that form certain sounds to make words. Public speaking ability will also be improved from a vocal exploration of poetry.

In schools where many pupils are failing the basics of English language, they cannot be expected to progress to a more complex level of English study like poetry before the basics have been mastered.  It is like asking a student who cannot count to solve a highly complex algebraic equation; completely impossible because the groundwork remains a nemesis. If the pupils cannot understand the basics of reading, writing and grammar, they will certainly struggle to with more complex concepts fundamental to the study of poetry such as similies, personifications, metaphors and extended metaphors. Let us take the UK as an example, for it is a country in which many students do not make progress in basic English. A report in 2011 voiced concern at the number of school children struggling with English and the published some horrifying statistics; "Hundreds of thousands of pupils are falling behind in the basics after starting secondary school, official figures suggest … three in 10 are not making enough progress in English, according to Department for Education data.160,000 did not make enough progress in English.”1  1Press Association, “Many secondary school pupils failing to meet expectations, report reveals”, guardian.co.uk, 9 June 2011,  , accessed 1 September 2011

Musicians have for some time been awarded poet status. The artist and their personal lifestyle choices can and must be regarded equally. Bob Dylan was originally described thus; "He sounded like a lung cancer victim singing Woody Gutherie. Now he's a Rolling Stone singing Emmanuel Kant" (page 36, Uncut Legends [magazine] #1: Dylan, September 2003). In 1992, he was described as "as good as Keats" (Ibid). If Bob Dylan can graduate from folk to electric to poet status, modern day musicians must also be allowed to follow suite; to gain the recognition they deserve and become similarly promoted. The poet and their personal lifestyle choices is separable from the poetry they produce. Dylan Thomas, Wales' national poet who is greatly and proudly upheld was an adulterer and an alcoholic. However, this does not make his impressive poetry any less credible. We must not sanitise all the great artists, but accept that the great art they offer as artists forgives them their wrongdoing as people. If we applied the policy of disregarding the art of every artist who has ever done wrong, we would soon lose many canonised ones and several of those who are held in very high esteem.

Poetry is a notoriously difficult concept. It is a highly challenging subject to teach, for its identity as an art form is constantly changing and being debated  If top academics and those highly informed about the subject take issue with poetry, school pupils cannot be expected to fathom it. On December 7th, 2007, The Guardian, a British newspaper affiliated to the Left, noted that this ambiguous identity of poetry renders it very difficult to teach;"But until education theory asks itself what poetry itself is, and therefore what the teacher is trying to get across, poems will continue largely to figure as teaching aids, exercises and - for teenagers - increasingly tedious, somewhat arbitrary puzzles".1 The canonised poets and their poetry are concerned with adult life experiences, e.g. love, life, work, history and politics, solitude, loneliness, etc. For this reason, widely acclaimed poetry is deep and requires an adult mind and mature emotional depth to understand, or at least draw something from, this famous poetry. 1 Sampson, Fiona, "Poetry is not a tool for teaching other things", guardian.co.uk Books Blog, 7 December 2007, 1 September 2011

While great poetry may deal with adult experiences there is poetry that targets a younger audience and methods available to teach this type of poetry. Children’s poetry, for instance, is not complex or dark in subject matter and uses very regular rhythm and rhyme schemes, which young students will enjoy. If age-appropriate poetry is taught in schools then it gives young people the chance to develop an appreciation for poetry and its various techniques. This means that in later years young people will have the skills necessary to properly understand great poetry. Poems that require more mature minds to understand can, and should, be used to stretch students to teach about these contexts as well as about the kind of imagry and analogy used in the poems. Using more difficult poems to stretch puplils will ensure they keep improving.

It is unthinkable that a school pupil does not know who his/her national poet is. English school pupils should be familiar with William Shakespeare, Scottish school pupils with Robert Burns and Welsh pupils with Dylan Thomas, Irish ones with James Joyce. Familiarity with one's own national poet is a basic.

The future of poetry teaching looks dismal. It is falling into disrepute by citing rappers as modern day poets.  Given that the highly respected Royal Holloway University of London is one such institution that supports this, the future of poetry education and even poetry itself does not look hopeful. Sir Andrew Motion, Professor of Creative writing at Royal Holloway, University of London, specified that; "Poetry is a house of many mansions. It does pupils a disservice only to tell them things they already know. Rap has its own challenges and opportunities - but so do many other kinds of poetry, many of which are neglected in schools".1 Eminem has caused much offence and controversy over the years with his homophobic lyrics. This is just one example of why rap is not to be encouraged at all, let alone awarded a label of (so-called) "poetry". Rappers like him must not be promoted as great artists in the classroom. It is unthinkable that rappers who promote gun crime, drugs and degrade women should be given a platform and even promoted in classrooms. These are simply not the values education can possibly support. 1 Edwards, Paul, "Why rap should be taught in schools", Royal Holloway University of London, 28 January 2010, accessed 1 September 2011

In countries where students are failing basic literacy, new measures to improve basic literacy skills in schools are required as a matter of urgency. In such cases, schools cannot justify wasting time by teaching poetry.  In the UK, The Labour Party introduced The Literacy Hour, a programme that meant schools were obliged to dedicate more time to basic literacy (and numeracy) upon their election in 1997. However, as the aforementioned statistics have shown, all that has increased is the number of pupils failing in this basic subject. There are 5 million illiterate people in Scotland alone. All we know is that more time does need to be spent learning the basic literacy and numeracy. Appreciating literature and poetry, the artistic side of the English language, cannot be addressed until learners have fully understood and grasped the tools of reading, writing and vowel sounds that allow for fiction and poetry to be produced. We need an educational programme that recognises reading and writing as a matter of urgency and literary and poetry appreciation as a luxury in order to reduce the number of illiterate pupils.

In failing schools, it IS justifiable to separate art from education. When a high number of students are struggling with basic literacy and numeracy, this is what needs to be addressed. Artistic studies will simply have to take a backseat while teaching of the basics is improved. This is a temporary measure, once teaching and abilities in basic literacy and numeracy improve, schools which have previously been failing can expand back into artistic studies. If this is not the case, and art and poetry continue to have a high profile in failing schools, what will result is a mass of very cultured high school leavers (not necessarily graduates) unable to add up in their head and with poor vocabulary, able to quote Shakespeare effortlessly but no idea how to spell his name.

Learning the basics of literature and language is not designed to be fun or enjoyable, it is an essential requirement. It is important that students can get to grips with the basics of their home language and a standard 'look, cover, write, check' method for learning spelling and expanding vocabulary is effective, for it requires the learner to write the words themselves. Simply reading them is not enough, especially not in the context of a poem- unconventional, even strange concepts typical of poetry may well be too demanding for the pupil, whose priority is to learn writing and reading. They can still learn reading through the cultural means of reading novels, in which the extended prose used by the author is far easier to follow.

It is important to honour the memory of the men who fell in the wars in the defence of their nation. War poetry is a fundamental tool to this end.  War poetry, although foreign to our own experiences of peacetime, enables us as readers to gain insight into the minds of the terrified men who fought for our freedom. Wilfred Owen suffered from shellshock as a result of fighting in the war. In his poem Mental Cases, he describes his time and experiences at Craiglockhart psychiatric hospital in Scotland, where he and Siegfried Sassoon (another WW1 poet) were treated for the condition; "Who are these? Why sit they here in twilight? Wherefore rock they, purgatorial shadows" (lines 1-2)1In our time of peace, we will never be able to fully empathise with their terrifying experiences, or successfully decode every observation, but we must read some of their poetry in order to appreciate the true and full horrors of war. We must do this out of respect for those who died for our freedom, and as such war poetry must be taught in schools. 1 Owen Owen, Wilfred, "Mental Cases", Wilfred Owen,accessed 1 September 2011.

Not teaching poetry in schools opens the gate to eradicating all artistic and creative subjects from the curriculum, which means the entire population would be Spartan and philistines.  We want cultured people to graduate from high schools. It is undesirable that all high school graduates, who are an educated group of people, will have no knowledge of art and no desire to ever immerse themselves in anything cultural such as a museum, or art gallery. This is what will happen if poetry and other art subjects are not respected in schools. As it is, English literature is the only cultural subject that is compulsory at GCSE level. Because it is the only obligatory cultural GCSE subject, as much culture must be channelled into it as possible i.e. novels and much poetry.

Poetry is art, art is inseparable from education; art is what makes us human, and that which makes us human is certainly to be taught in schools.  It is fundamental that education teaches students about the human condition in order to enable an understanding of humanity. High school students must therefore gain awareness of not only human ideas but also an awareness of how humans choose to express these ideas, which means they must learn about art. One of the ways in which humans choose to express their emotions is through literature, language and speech- poetry. For example, many Victorian poets such as William Wordsworth and Sir Walter Scott, who spent much time in the Lake District, turned to writing nature poetry, such as Wordsworth's famous poem Daffodils, because they wanted to "see into the life of things",1 and the best way to both investigate and express this was through nature poetry. 1 Lefebure, Molly, The Illustrated Lake Poets, Windward, 1987, p. 144

If any art is to be taught in schools, it has to be Poetry, for poetry is the only artistic form of a core subject.  It is an enjoyable way to teach the core subject of home language and literature written therein; interesting and obscure concepts hold the learner's interest when studying their home language and its landmark literature, while simultaneously expanding vocabulary and improving spelling. Poetry offers a fun method of teaching subjects that can otherwise easily be exhaustive and repetitive For examples; Shirley Hughes' poems for young readers such as Best friends introduce young readers to the vowel sounds of their home language. The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson teaches the reader about a great historical landmark. The war poetry of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon et al teaches students about the First World War and the horrors thereof. Zoe's Earrings by Kit Wright teaches pre-GCSE students about accents.1 1 Wright, Kit, "Zoe's Earrings", BBC Learning Zone, accessed 1 September 2011

We must be realistic in education; we need to prepare our students for the difficulties of the real world. It is those subjects that are vocational in nature and/or life skills, home language (not literature), maths and science and modern languages, business studies, law that must take priority in schools. We must equip and train the new generation to successfully gain employment. Therefore, art subjects like poetry are no priority.

An appreciation for the true horrors of war can be gained through factual reading. Factual books about the horrors of the First World War offer better understanding the true extent of the atrocities than poetry. Firstly, they are factual and not based upon opinion. Secondly, they are more modern and have been written in the aftermath of the First World War. Therefore, they tell its full story and provide a panoramic view of the Greta War. Thirdly, many of the men who wrote war poetry went mad with shellshock. Trying to find sense in the nonsensical lyrics of poetry by those poor men sent mad is an impossible task; knowledge of and research into shellshock is a relatively new development.

Compulsory vaccination is an example of the tyranny of the majority even if it is made by a democratic government. And in a community that praises itself as democratic and respectful to wishes of others it is in no way acceptable that the rights of some get abused by the wishes of others.  John Stuart Mill has set philosophical basics: “the majority… the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power… In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. [1]  The state (or the majority) can only dictate to the individual is if that individual’s actions adversely affect the collective. Therefore the question is ‘what is the purpose of the vaccination?’ if it is to provide individuals with their own protection then autonomy of decision-making and individual liberty should predominate as guiding principles.  Under these circumstances there can be little justification of any coercion on the part of public health officials, in particular the use of mandatory vaccination legislation. If it is more based upon public harm i.e. the more chance of the virus infecting from one human to another then the less this defense can be used. [2]  [1] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts &amp; Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, 1999. www.bartleby.com/130/ . 2nd October, 2009, Chapter 1, paragraph 9  [2] University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Medical ethics experts identify, address key issues in H1N1 pandemic, FirstScience News 23rd September 2009  , accessed 05/29/2011

Duty to protect the child  As article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “State parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health services.” [1]  Each year millions of children worldwide die of preventable diseases before the age of five.  The argument presented here is that the state needs to protect the child and immunize him or her from preventable diseases as obviously the child does not have the capabilities at this stage to make informed decisions of their own.  The United Nations Right to Liberty and Security of the Person treaty, article 6.2 supports this view - State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. [2]  It is up to the State to decide if a child is to be immunized, as overall it will be the State who would benefit from having the vast majority of its citizens vaccinated, and it will be the State who will have to pay for any treatment needed to treat a preventable disease. Whilst a child’s parents have to a certain degree the right to decide what is best for their child’s future, poor decision making in this area could result in serious medical issues for the nation. In this extremely important area, the State must have authority over the rights of the parent.  [1] Convention on the Rights of the Child.   [2] Right to Liberty and Security of Person.

Vaccines themselves are expensive to develop in the lab and to mass produce for widespread compulsory vaccination programs. In addition to these upfront costs, organizing compulsory vaccination programs across an entire country can be very complicated and expensive. For instance, mechanisms must be set in place to ensure that the program is indeed compulsory, which means establishing a database of those that have and have not received the vaccine.

It is the state’s duty to protect its community  If an age group is protected, that results in a better health conditions for the whole society.  In an industrialized country such as the USA, those choosing exemption from statutorily compulsory vaccination were 35-times more likely to contract measles than vaccinated persons; in developing countries where these viruses are still endemic, the risk would be considerably higher [1] .  Those who wish to opt-out of vaccination (often on behalf of their children, who have no say in the matter) are classic free riders, hoping to benefit from the more responsible behavior of the rest of society. As it is assumed that most of society see it as a responsibility and a duty to protect others.  After a scare about possible side effects of the MMR jab, in 2008 there was a drop in voluntary vaccinations in a part of London (Lewisham). In that part of London only 64.3 % of children were vaccine and in that year the district accounted one third of all south-east London measles cases. Unless there is a 95 % vaccination, there is a great threat to public health of infection outbreaks. [2] It is therefore the role of the state to understand these issues and possible treats and provide a duty of protection and care, in this case, in the form of immunization.  Another example of the need to protect is also given by the example of voluntary vaccination against the flu, because of its impacts on the whole population is given by Pediatric studies: ”In several studies, results indicated that a 100% vaccination rate among health care personnel in acute care settings triggered a 43% decline in risk of influenza among patients. This decrease appeared even higher — 60% — among nursing home patients.” [3]  So by giving up some of the individuals freedoms and the feeling of duty to protection, the community is much more protected and benefits from the vaccination of the community.  [1] Vaccination Critics &amp; Opponents.   [2] BBC News, Experts warn of measles outbreaks, 03/18/2008  , a  [3] Talbot TR. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol., Two medical societies back mandatory flu vaccination for health care workers , published 2010,  , accessed 05/27/2011  ccessed 05/25/2011

A great deal of health care and prevention of diseases is information and an informed decision. The United Kingdom does not have a system of compulsory health care, but disease outbreaks are still prevented due to the voluntary uptake of immunizations. The pediatrician Miriam Fine-Goulden explains: “The risk of contracting these infections is only so low at present because the voluntary uptake of immunizations has been high enough (in most cases) to reduce the chance of contact with those organisms through the process of herd immunity.” [1]  Also it can be argued that measles, mumps and rubella (one of the diseases vaccine against) are far from harmful. They are relatively minor illnesses [2] . Measles causes a rash and high fever. Mumps causes swollen glands, headache and fever. Rubella is usually mild and can go unnoticed.  Just because medical advance has been made in vaccinations it does not mean that we have to be immunized against every little disease known to man. Bearing in mind the cost of such jabs on the heavily burdened NHS, surely it would be better to not make the MMR jab compulsory. This way we keep parents happy and the NHS budget can be stretched further.  Researches also show that alternative approaches towards diseases such as better nutrition, homeopathy, etc. give very positive results. Healthier populations would not need vaccines to fight a disease. High profits that are now reserved only for the pharmaceutical industry would be spread to other areas of the economy, such as agriculture and the service sector, and more people would gain.  [1] Miriam Fine-Goulden: Should childhood vaccinations be compulsory in the UK ?, University College London,  , accessed 05/29/2011  [2] BBC News, Should the MMR vaccine be compulsory, 03/02/2002,  , accessed 05/29/2011

Compulsory vaccines are a financial relief on the health system  Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5 billion. [1]  Another aspect is also, that productivity rates remain high and less money is earmarked for social and health transfers because people are healthier. This is also supported by a WHO study, that claims: “We calculate that the average percentage increase in income for the children whose immunization coverage increases through will rise from 0.78 per cent in 2005 to 2.39 per cent by 2020. This equates to an increase in annual earnings per child of $14 by 2020. The total increase in income per year once the vaccinated cohort of children start earning will rise from $410 million in 2005 to $1.34 billion by 2020 (at a cost of $638 million in 2005 and $748 million in 2020).” [2] This study based on economic and health indicators is part of the world immunization program GAVI.  [1] Wikipedia. Vaccine Controversy.   [2] David Bloom, David Canning and Mark Weston, The value of immunization, World Economics, July – September 2005  , accessed 05/28/2011

The argument of “bad vaccines” is a very popular one. However, scientifically seen this arguments is flawed in many aspects.  First of all many of the examples used in arguments suggesting vaccination is dangerous and therefore should not be used, is very old. Many refer to examples from the 60s or 70s, which in medicine is highly flawed as science every few years significantly advances, improves the level of knowledge and reduces possible side effects. And even though many believe in the damages caused by vaccines retrospective studies disprove this point:  1. Autism  Scientists at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health's Center for Infection and Immunity and researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Trinity College Dublin, evaluated bowel tissues from 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls) by real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for the presence of measles virus RNA. Samples were analyzed in three laboratories blinded to diagnosis, including one wherein the original findings suggesting a link between measles virus and autism had been reported. [1]  "Our results are inconsistent with a causal role for MMR vaccine as a trigger or exacerbate of either GI difficulties or autism," states Mady Hornig, associate professor of Epidemiology and director of translational research in the Center for Infection and Immunity in the Mailman School, and co-corresponding author of the study. "The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that autism with GI complaints is related to MMR vaccine exposure. We found no relationship between the timing of MMR vaccine and the onset of either GI complaints or autism. [2]  Many parents came to believe that vaccines caused their children's autism because the symptoms of autism appeared after the child received a vaccination. On a psychological level, that assumption and connection makes sense; but on a logical level, it is a clear and common fallacy with a fancy Latin name: post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of it"). They just need someone to blame for the disease of their child. [3]  2. Allergies and vaccines  A recent (2011) study of a German Health Institute concludes that in comparing the occurrence of infections and allergies in vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adolescents. These include bronchitis, eczema, colds, and gastrointestinal infection. The only difference they found is that unvaccinated children and adolescents differ from their vaccinated peers merely in terms of the frequency of vaccine preventable diseases. These include pertussis, mumps, or measles. As expected, the risk of contracting these diseases is substantially lower in vaccinated children and adolescents. [4]  [1] Science Daily, No connection between Measels, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) Vaccine and Autism, Study suggests 09/05/2008 http ://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145218.htm  [2] Ibid.  [3] Benjamin Radford, Autism and sciences: Why bad Logic Trumps Science, 09/05/2008   [4] Deutsches Aerzteblatt International (2011, March 7). Vaccinated children not at higher risk of infections or allergic diseases, study suggests. ScienceDaily.  , accessed May 28, 2011

The problem with this is that those refusing vaccines on account of this effectively violate the same right for other people if, and when, there is an outbreak of the disease against which the vaccine is protecting.

It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child  Through birth, the child and the parent have a binding agreement that is supported within the society. This agreement involves a set of rights and duties aimed at, and justified by, the welfare of the child. Through that (according to texts from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): parents owe their children an “open future,” understood as one where they become adults capable of choosing their own conception of the good. As custodian, the parent is under a limited obligation to work and organize his or her life around the welfare and development of the child, for the child's sake. Concomitantly, the parent is endowed with a special kind of authority over the child. [1]  It therefore is the courtesy of a parent to decide what the best possible outcome is for a child. If the parent believes the child will be safer and better off in society without being given vaccine it is the parent’s right to decide not to give vaccination to the child.  Also the American Academy of Pediatrics reports, that refusing the immunization might not put children at risk, as long as they live in a well immunized community and can benefit from the “herd immunity”. They state: “Even in a community with high immunization rates, the risk assumed by an unimmunized child is likely to be greater than the risks associated with immunization. However, the risk remains low, and in most cases the parent who refuses immunizations on behalf of his or her child living in a well-immunized community does not place the child at substantial risk of serious harm.” [2]  [1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,  , accessed 05/28/2011  [2] Diekema Douglas, Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children,  , accessed 05/28/2011

Vaccines have severe side effects  Some of the used vaccines may have severe side effects, therefore we should let every individual asses the risk and make choices on his/her own. Besides introducing foreign proteins and even live viruses into the bloodstream, each vaccine has its own preservative, neutralizer and carrying agent, none of which are indigenous to the body. For instance, the triple antigen, DPT, which includes Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus vaccine, contains the following poisons: Formaldehyde, Mercury, and aluminum phosphate, and that's from the Physician's Desk Reference, 1980. The packet insert accompanying the vaccine, lists the following poisons: aluminum potassium sulfate, a mercury derivative called Thimersol and sodium phosphate. The packet insert for the polio vaccine lists monkey kidney cell culture, lactalbumin hydrozylate, antibiotics and calf serum. The packet insert for the MMR vaccine produced by Merck Sharp and Dhome which is for measles, mumps and rubella lists chick embryo and neomycin, which is a mixture of antibiotics. [1]  Evidence also suggests that immunizations damage the immune system itself. By focusing exclusively on increased antibody production, which is only one aspect of the immune process, immunizations isolate dysfunction and allow it to substitute for the entire immune response, because vaccines trick the body so that it will no longer initiate a generalized response. They accomplished what the entire immune system seems to have been evolved to prevent. That is, they place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.  The long-term persistence of viruses and other foreign proteins within the cells of the immune system has been implicated in a number of chronic and degenerative diseases. In 1976 Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers university addressed science writers at a seminar of the American Cancer Society, and pointed out the following. "Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio and so forth may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. These latent pro viruses could be molecules in search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer." [2]  Vaccines may cause a child who is genetically predisposed to have autism. If the trend of increased Thimerosal in vaccinations correlates so well with the trend of increased autistic diagnoses, there is a link. Thimerosal in vaccinations (which means 'contains mercury') causes autism. Too many times has a child been completely healthy, and then a vaccine containing Thimerosal is injected into the child. The child becomes ill, stops responding visually and verbally, and is then diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.  [1] Roger R. Gervais. Understanding the Vaccine Controversy. Natural MAgainse May/June 1996.   [2] Alex Loglia, Global healing center,  , accessed 28/05/2011

Compulsory vaccination violates the individuals’ right to bodily integrity  In most countries and declarations, one of the most basic human rights is the one to bodily integrity. It sets down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your body without consent.  The NHS (National Health Service) explains: “You must give your consent (permission) before you receive any type of medical treatment, from a simple blood test to deciding to donate your organs after your death. If you refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected.”  This comes from the principle, that if a person has the capacity to consent to treatment and is making an informed decision (based on pros and cons of the treatment), the decision must be respected. The NHS explains further on: “If you have enough capacity and make a voluntary and informed decision to refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected. This applies even if your decision would result in your death, or the death of your unborn child.” [1]  In the case of vaccination this principle should be also applied. Even though we recognize that children are not able to fully comprehend the consequences a refusal would have, the parents should be there to decide on behalf of children over such decisions. The state has no right to stick a needle into a child just because they see fit doing so. It might be contested that in case of life endangering illnesses, the state should override the individuals’ rights. But rejection of vaccinations is not life endangering. So it is the judgment of the individual that is important and should not under any case be violated, just because someone might get an illness that in today’s modern world is easily curable.  [1] National Health Service (NHS), Do I have a right to refuse treatment ?,  , accessed 29/05/2011

An adult vaccine refusal and a parental vaccine refusal are not the same. Parents do not have absolute right to put their child at a risk even if they themselves are willing to accept such a risk for him or herself.  Minors have a right to be protected against infectious diseases and society has the responsibility to ensure welfare of children who may be harmed by their parents’ decisions.  Counseling should form an integral part of any such legislation, as often it is not conviction but laziness of the parents in taking their child to the clinic for immunization or the parents’ inability to make an informed decision. [1]  Also the state has already protected children in cases, when their functioning later as an adult could be compromised due to parental actions. For instance: in order to promote culturally prescribed norms, parents may seek to remove their child from school, or have their daughter undergo clitoridectomy; yet the state may claim that such a decision violates the parents' trustee relationship on grounds that the state has a compelling interest in securing the full citizenship capacities and rights of each of its citizens. As trustee, the parent has a limited right to exclusivity in determining the child's life over the course of childhood, but this determination is to be aimed at shaping the child into (for instance) a productive citizen and community member. [2]  The LSU Law center also explains: “The more difficult problem is religious or cultural groups that oppose immunizations. These groups tend to cluster, reducing the effective immunization level in their neighborhoods, schools, and churches. In addition to endangering their own children, such groups pose a substantial risk to the larger community. By providing a reservoir of infection, a cluster of unimmunized persons can defeat the general herd immunity of a community. As these infected persons mix with members of the larger community, they will expose those who are susceptible to contagion.” [3]  As seen not to vaccine children can represent a danger for their future, there should be no ultimate power of parents to prevent vaccine jabs.  [1] Lahariya C, Mandatory vaccination: is it the future reality ?, Singapore medical journal (editorial) 2008,  , accessed 05/25/2011  [2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,  , accessed 05/28/2011  [3] Louisiana State University (LSU), Compulsory Immunization,  , accessed 05/29/2011

Correlation is not causation. The fact that a number of individuals with JDs are working in fields unrelated to the law does not, in and of itself, imply that they gained those positions because of a JD. A JD may help, but it has to be factored against the opportunity cost of everything else you could be doing over three years with the tuition money.  A Harvard Law degree might impress the State Department – but spending a year and a half in South Sudan and writing a book on your experiences would impress them far more. A UCLA degree might impress a movie studio, but producing your own movie, or gaining work in the field as a production assistant would likely impress them even more.  The fact is that for every individual with a JD or GDL who occupies a senior position in a non-legal field, there are many more high achieving individuals in similar fields who do not have a JD, a BPTC or an MBAs.

A legal qualification is a gateway to a number of different career paths.  A JD is not simply a gateway to the legal world. Lawyers work as corporate executives, run movie studios, hold political office, and teach academically. Holding the degree will increase your qualifications, and make it far easier to move up the ladder in whatever field you chose to enter even if it is not a legal one.

Side proposition assumes that the European and American economies will eventually improve to the point where the legal sector will begin to grow again. If it does not you may find just as hard to find a job as when you entered Law School.  Furthermore, there is a good chance that you will be in significant debt by the time you have completed your law degree, which will have a major impact on your ability to seek flexible employment within the legal field. It is quite possible that you may be forced to forgo politics or public interest law in favour of higher paying positions in less desirable fields. And if you decide to pursue options outside of the legal field, it is hard to see how there weren’t cheaper ways to spend three years, since going to Law School actively requires you to pay people to keep you unemployed.  Even if you have received scholarships or training contracts, your options may be limited by the conditions of those offers (mandatory public service, work for a specific firm) which will also inhibit your freedom.

Law school helps graduates to think more clearly making them more attractive to other employers.  Law Schools teaches you to “think” more critically, and legal work offers the opportunity to engage in a largely intellectual pursuit with other highly intellectual individuals. Law students are likely to develop a wider range of intellectual skills throughout their careers, and will be better able to transition in to different jobs and different areas of the legal industry if needed. Moreover, the level of enjoyment that individuals derive from their jobs- and thus the nature of the hedonic calculus that they engage in when determining whether a particular job will fully account for their needs- is linked partly to the variety and difficulty of the tasks they must accomplish. Law represents a sustained and engaging intellectual challenge, and a challenge ideally suited to the skills of most humanities graduates.

You need a legal qualification to be a lawyer  A law degree is first and foremost a requirement of being a lawyer. Anyone with any interest in working in the legal field, serving as a judge, or even working in a number of governmental and non-profit fields will quite simply need to attend law school at some point. If you are already a recipient of such a degree, it will increase the opportunities for advancement within your chosen career.

This argument is simultaneously both a truism, and beside the point. While it is true that someone will need a JD in order to become a lawyer, individuals pursuing those degrees need to understand that they are investing a huge sum of money for an opportunity to take a difficult series of examinations, which if you pass, allows you to apply for a job in the legal field. These positions are becoming far harder to find, as each year the number of students graduating from law schools increases, while the number of available positions either shrink or remain static. One has to take account of the entire field and its condition before making a leap.

You will rarely get the chance to interact with those intelligent individuals, either in Law School, where most of your time will be spent in the library, or at a Law Firm, where any discussions will detract from your ability to bill hours. The legal business model effectively incentivizes long-hours, with most of it going to research. You will rarely if ever see a courtroom, unless you work as a public defender and even there you will spend most of your time on research.

Pay in most fields is, to some degree or other, correlated with the cost of entry into that profession or occupation. Because becoming a Lawyer requires up to seven years of education, it does tend to pay more than many other fields. But there are many lawyers who, despite working long hours, do not make vast amounts of money, and there are, furthermore, a dozen part-time associates for every globe-trotting partner at most major firms.  Furthermore, it is unclear how correlated success within Law School is with pay. The highest paid lawyer in America for most of the 1990s and early 2000s went to the University of Mississippi, rather than an Ivy League institution, while software developers and investment bankers regularly make more than lawyers without having to pay exorbitant tuition costs.

Law School provides a safe haven from which to wait out a bad economy.  Law school is a good way to spend your time and wait out the bad economy. By the time a law degree has run its course, the economy will have improved, and you will have a lot more options available, whether you still want to be a lawyer or not. Indeed, the UK based law school BPP has previously advertised its courses as a “recession proof investment”, arguing that returns, in terms of wages, on an individual’s course fees could potentially be greater than equities or risky financial instruments.

Admissions tests such as the LNAT exaggerate small differences in performance  Lawyers are often extremely high paid, and occupy a prestigious position in society. A law degree is key to entry to the top tier of society and high income earners.

These arguments are less compelling if you have the opportunity to attend a top Law School, in which case the sky is the limit in terms of opportunities.  Furthermore, these harms are far from unique to the legal field – they apply to finance and consulting as well, where a good degree with open more doors than a less prestigious one. But individuals still regularly overcome it.  One way they do is by going to prominent local schools. In the United States, prestige matters most in New York and Boston. Outside of the East Coast, many firms prefer graduates who attended local schools since they are likely to be more familiar with the area and more likely to be able to move and find housing and a social network in the area. A UCLA degree will take you as far in Los Angeles as a Georgetown one.

Applicants should of course carefully consider whether or not they actually wish to become lawyers, and afterwards should carefully consider where they wish to enrol. But it is absurd to claim that individuals cannot decide these things for themselves, and the fact is that many individuals do go to Law School with a clear idea of what they want to do, and subsequently enjoy a highly successful experience in the workplace.  In a lot of ways these criticisms are not unique to the legal field. In fact the same argument could be made for Universities, the number of which is driven by demand for a University education and not by the demand of employers for University graduates. Nonetheless, University graduates almost uniformly make more than non-graduates, and a large number of jobs require degrees. No one could conceivably argue that gaining a college education is either not worth it or a mistake.  In addition, many individuals who have graduated from less prestigious schools can benefit enormously from getting another degree from a more prominent institution. At the point at which the choice is between a Master’s degree in an unrelated field or a law degree, a law degree opens up far more opportunities for its recipients.

The debt incurred in the pursuit of a law degree limits options both within the legal industry, and outside of it, by compelling recipients to seek out the highest paying jobs.  Legal Work is a dog-eats dog world. Law students are forced into a competition with each other for valuable internships, and then in turn face a brutal competition for summer associate positions.  Of every ten junior associates hired, one will be lucky to make partner at a major firm, and the rest will often be faced with a career dead-end at 35 or need to switch careers. For those who do make partner, the opportunities to enjoy the benefits will be limited by pressure to work even harder.

Failing a law degree can be extremely costly.  Law School as a choice has to be weighed against its opportunity cost: what else could someone do with three years and $120,000? How might the long term benefits of this activity weigh up against the consequent benefits of time spent at law school?  This is an especially important consideration for those interested in careers outside of the legal profession. Spending some of that tuition subsidizing an internship on Capitol Hill or with a Think Tank or Lobbying firm would be far more likely to lead to later employment in politics than earning a JD and likely offer a politically interested potential law student a far more entertaining and enjoyable experience. Joining the Peace Corp or working for an international non-Profit would both impress the State Department more and be far cheaper than a law degree.

The actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited.  Because of the supply and demand problems, the actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited.  This is not in fact solely due to their actual quality. It is more a consequence of the fact that the legal job market is so bad, that Firms need to use a proxy for removing applicants from the pool without further consideration, and for many, schools work well.  US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia had admitted to not hiring Clerks from outside of the top ten law schools, suggesting that he prefers to trust that the admissions offices at these schools did their job properly. He has maintained this policy despite admitting that it would have prevented the hiring of the best clerk he ever had, who had gone to Ohio State University Law School.  While the qualitative outcomes are massively different, the price differential between second and third tier law schools and their first year counterparts is next to non-existent. To the extent it exists at all, those schools on top tend to be able to offer more financial aid.

A stint at law school is of little value to those who are not pursuing a legal degree, but nonetheless many applicants treat it as a second shot at an Undergraduate degree.  Individuals increasingly treat Law School as a second shot at their Undergraduate degree. Applicants who failed to get into Russell group or Ivy League institutions the first time around compete obsessively to achieve their dreams on “second chance” while many other applicants are suckered into the image of rich, successful, attractive lawyers presented by the media. Many universities in England, including Oxford, have begun to offer accelerated undergraduate law degrees, which are highly appealing to those seeking to improve on grades received in science or humanities oriented degrees.  The result is that a large number of students are not actually thinking about the role that law plays in their communities, or what they want to do with their life, when they apply.  The result is that supply and demand in the Law School sector is not driven by the actual demand for Lawyers but instead by the demand for law school places by applicants who may or may not be interested in actually being lawyers, and may or may not have any idea of what the job entails.  The explosion in the number of Law Schools in the last ten years, and the consequent growth in the number of law school graduates has not been accompanied by significant growth in the legal sector. A large portion of Law School graduates are therefore not only unable to find gainful employment within their chosen field, but prohibited by debt from finding opportunities elsewhere.  Graduate employment has now become a buyer’s market. Law firms are now able to dictate the conditions and pay for first year associates and NQs unchallenged. The demands placed upon young lawyers now range from back-breaking to soul crushing.

It is true that there are opportunities that could stand you in better stead down the road, but those listed by the opposition are both involve a gamble on the same odds as that entailed by a legal career. For every 10 interns in a congressional office or for a lobbying firm, perhaps one gets a job offer. By contrast you will receive a Law Degree if you spend those three years on Law School.  Furthermore, financial aid can be provided for Law School whereas the jobs listed by the opposition would require a large initial investment.

Law School, especially at the elite level is an opportunity to enter an environment where intellect is valued above all else. Whereas in school or university athletic ability or other talents sometimes trumped academics, in the legal world, academic and mental skills are all that matters.  It is therefore an opportunity to succeed or fail on one’s own merits, and to meet others who are equally interested in intellectual or academic pursuits.

Yes history has to be edited as it could not all be taught but that does not mean that these are the bits that should be edited out. Rather as other nations consider these parts of Japanese history important it is all the more important for Japanese students to study them so as to learn why South Korea and China react in this way

All history is edited  To state the obvious there is an immense amount of history. There is much more history than could ever be taught in school. This means there needs to be some way to cut down everything in history into a sensible sized syllabus. There are some obvious ways to cut down history to a manageable length; such as concentrating on the history of the nation, focusing on certain key events, focusing on things of particular importance to today, or sometimes just on things that are considered fun and interesting. In the UK there have been accusations, including by the current education secretary Michael Gove, that British history is neglected in favour of Nazi Germany and the American west – something that then avoids Britain’s less than comfortable imperial past. [1]  It should therefore come as no surprise that Japan does not highlight World War II and in particular the bad parts of that conflict. Does China teach about its invasion of Tibet?  [1] Vasagar, Jeevan, ‘Michael Gove accuses exam system of neglecting British history’, guardian.co.uk, 24 November 2011,

Critical thinking must not be at the expense of objective history that imparts knowledge of what actually happened. We should not assume that teachers will supplement what is in the textbooks with other books or subject them to critical analysis.

Freedom of Speech  The Japanese government is not forcing schools to teach Japanese history in a way that whitewashes the Japanese record in World War II. In Japan the Ministry of Education screens textbooks and when they are approved makes them available. Schools are then allowed to select their textbook from a list of seven or eight textbooks that have been approved both by the ministry. [1] By making this choice schools are exercising their freedom of speech in deciding what should be taught in their classrooms. In the case of the New History Textbook (Atarashii Rekishi Kyokasho) not a single state run junior high school adopted the textbook resulting in a mere 0.03% of junior high school students using the textbook. [2] By contrast China’s textbooks and their misrepresentations are mandatory. [3] This shows that when the Japanese people are given freedom of information on the issue they exercise this right responsibly.  [1] Masalski, Kathleen Woods, ‘Examining the Japanese history textbook controversies’, Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education, November 2001,   [2] ibid  [3] Sneider, Daniel, ‘Divided Memories: History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia’, Nippon.com, 29 April 2012,

This is not and never can be a freedom of speech issue. In this case it is a teacher or school board deciding what others are to be taught so by its very nature even if that individual has freedom of speech the students do not. In a school freedom of speech is limited; students cannot say what they want when they want, and the same is true with freedom of information; they cannot learn what they want when they want. This is because school is to give them a basic grounding in everything they need to know rather than it being a place where the student can pick and choose.

While an official story or creation myth for a nation may be a useful way of binding a nation together and when this is ancient history it is unlikely to cause much harm. However this should not be brought forward into the modern era where much more objective history is necessary.

The goal is to encourage students to think  History is not about learning all history, it is not about learning particular bits of history, it is not even necessarily about learning a nations’ story, rather it is about encouraging students to think critically. It has been regularly shown that stuffing children with facts turns them off a subject instead there should be interaction, discussion, analysing texts from the time and analysing bias. [1]  The space in the textbook devoted to the issues is very limited and therefore what they mention does not matter particularly much. What matters therefore is how the teachers teach the issues as they will have to supplement the textbooks with other works and there is a wide range to choose from. [2] What matters then is how the teachers expand on the issues within the textbook rather than the textbook itself – the textbook could even be useful at studying the subject by providing a source to study bias on WWII.  [1] Savich, Carl, ‘Improving Critical Thinking in History’, Networks, Vol.11, Issue 2, Fall 2009, p.2,   [2] Inkerd, Wes, ‘The Japanese History Textbook issue’, Education in Japan community blog,  accessed 20 August 2012

Nations should be allowed an ‘official story’  To some the idea of a national story may be an anachronism but history is one of the things that bind a country together. As Benedict Anderson argues nations are ‘imagined communities’ as members of that nation will never know most of the members of that community or even hear about them but despite this there is conceived to be a comradeship between its members. [1] The creation of a national story from the history of the nation that helps create that common unit. French historian Ernest Renan went so far as to argue that ‘Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation’. [2]  South Korean President Lee Myung-bak himself has argued “A textbook of modern history should be written in a way that does not hurt our national pride,” when criticising a South Korean textbook’s interpretation of the dividing of Korea. [3] If this is the case it is difficult to see how there can be any objection to Japan using the same principle.  [1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, Verso, 17 November 2006, pp.6-7   [2] Renan, Ernest, quoted in ‘Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780’, The Nationalism Project,   [3] Sang-Hun, Choe, ‘Textbooks on Past Offend South Korea’s Conservatives’, The New York Times, 17 November 2008,

No one worries that Britain is going to attempt to recreate its empire because most school children are not taught about it; why should this be any different with Japan? Moreover in the case of the Japanese constitution while a majority of the Japanese public is for changing the constitution they are not for changing Article 9, only 30% of Japanese are in favour of changing it while 59% are against. [1] Such a change is therefore unlikely in the near future.  [1] Wallace, Corey, ‘The Japanese Constitution in 2011’, Japan Security Watch New Pacific Institute, 3 May 2011,

This dispute is obviously not just about teaching ‘facts’. China which complains about the misrepresentation of the Nanjing massacre does not teach about the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. [1]  Of course the facts should be taught but what facts? The New History Textbook at the center of the dispute only has 12 pages on the whole of WWII, if the pictures are taken out there are only 7 pages left, of which three are devoted to the European theatre. [2] It should therefore not come as a surprise that some things are missed out.  It should be noted that a study by Stanford professors Daniel Sneider and Gi-Wook Shin found that the main Japanese history textbooks are the least biased on the Second World War out of textbooks used in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the United States. [3]  [1] Bruhn, Judith, ‘The vital presence of the past’, Free Speech Debate, 7 May 2012,   [2] Inkerd, Wes, ‘The Japanese History Textbook issue’, Education in Japan community blog,  accessed 20 August 2012  [3] Sneider, Daniel, ‘Divided Memories: History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia’, Nippon.com, 29 April 2012,

Excluding these incidents is offensive  It is offensive to the comfort women and the victims of the Nanjing massacre to deny or omit that such horrific events ever happened. For these people it makes a full apology and closure a much more distant prospect. Duk-Sook Choi, a Korean woman conscripted by the Japanese said "My blood pressure shot up, and I couldn't sleep the night I heard the news about the textbooks” and argued "Not mentioning comfort women is tantamount to insulting the women the world over". [1] Similarly in response to what the New Textbook says on the Nanjing massacre survivors argued "Japanese rightists groups distort history and attempt to cover the truth of Nanjing Massacre. This makes me extremely angry". [2]  [1] Kang, K. Connie, ‘Protesters Decry Japan’s New History Textbooks’, Los Angeles Times, 18 April 2001,   [2] ‘Nanjing Massacre Survivors Protest Japan’s Approval of Distorted History Textbook’, People’s Daily, 6 April 2001,

The bad bits need to be taught so we can understand what others think of us  For millions of people around the world Britain is known for its Empire. In Britain itself this is sometimes given a positive spin, as indeed it was by the Victorian empire builders themselves, as opening up the world, bringing education, technology, and eventually democracy. Of course this did happen but those outside Britain are more likely to remember the British empire for its atrocities, for example the invention of concentration camps in the Boer wars; its destroying native cultures such as Australia’s aborigines; or its ruthless forcing of trade on others like in the aftermath of the Opium Wars. Denying one side of this history denies us the possibility of understanding what others think of us. [1] It is often touted that there should be a partnership between India and Britain on the basis of history. [2] But Britain remembers the ‘good’ Empire did while India remembers the ‘bad’.  So is the case with Japan. South Korea and Japan are natural allies; both confronted by a growing China, and aggressive, totalitarian North Korea, both are allies of the United states, and yet they won’t even share intelligence on the North with each other. [3]  [1] Monbiot, George, ‘How Britain Denies its Holocausts’, 27 December 2005,   [2] Buncombe, Andrew, and Grice, Andrew, ‘Cameron hoping to forge new special relationship with visit to India’, The Independent, 26 July 2010,   [3] Cossa, Ralph A., ‘S. Korea-Japan: Time for Outside Mediation?’, The Diplomat, 30 July 2012,

Schools should teach the controversy in history  History lessons in school are not just about providing children with some sanitised version of national history. Instead they are about teaching points that are controversial or relevant to the modern world. Both of which is the case with the issue of comfort women and Japanese imperialist aggression. They must teach why these actions were wrong and why they are now controversial.  If a non-controversial history is taught which glosses over bad actions this may lead to real political results. In Japan there have regularly been suggestions that the constitution should be changed, and in particular that Article 9, the provision that renounces war should be amended or abolished. [1] If the Japanese are not taught about the actions that lead to this provision or are given a distorted view of it then the resulting change in perception would make altering the constitution much more likely. [2] Ultimately this may well be a case of those who ignore [or misrepresent] history are bound to repeat it.  [1] Martin, Craig, ‘Why Japan should amend its war-renouncing Article 9’, The Japan Times, 4 August 2012,   [2] Cooley, Aaron., ‘The Textbook Controversies in Japan: What History is Taught?’, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2003,

Schools should teach facts  Quite simply if a school in Japan is going to teach about World War II then it should include the darker side of the Japanese involvement in the conflict. Japans acts such as the Nanjing bombing and the occupation of Asian countries were horrific and must not be glossed over. Not covering such actions is quite simply misrepresenting the facts through omission.  No one would consider teaching about Nazi Germany without mentioning the horrors it committed. Learning about, for example the road to war may be interesting, and potentially be useful in drawing lessons on how to prevent a war. Appeasement is still regularly used as an analogy in international relations discussion as meeting almost any aggression with negotiations is seen as appeasing the enemy with Munich as the analogy [1] for example in negotiations with North Korea. [2] It is however a pointless exercise if the person learning knows nothing of what happened in the resulting war. Why should they want to draw on the lessons of the failure of appeasement if they do not know about the millions killed and the suffering inflicted?  [1] Dallek, Robert, ‘The Tyranny of Metaphor’, Foreign Policy, November 2010,   [2] Rogin, Josh, ‘Senate Republicans accuse Obama of North Korea ‘appeasement’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 16 March 2012,

It should be enough that students are taught that their countries did bad things as well as good. There is no need to go into every case where a country has done wrong throughout its history. While the use of comfort women was wrong and tragic there is no reason why this should be used as an example of the suffering caused by Japanese imperialism. Students could equally be taught that Japans actions were wrong through highlighting the treatment of Prisoners of War or by showing that it was Japanese aggression that lead to war after war.

The Japanese have no intention of offending South Korea or China with their textbooks and these countries should not be taking offense over such minor issues. While it is regrettable that a tiny minority of students may get a biased view of history from the New History Textbook the actual harm is miniscule. No individuals are directly insulted by a sin of omission, and no one comes to physical harm. Even those who were victims of the Japanese would probably be better off attempting to get formal apologies for the actual crime rather than attacking misrepresentations that will be seen by so few.  For the most part this is an issue whipped up by the two governments who wish to use Japan’s WWII past to try and force concessions today and to direct nationalist ire away from the government. In China according the Edward Friedman, an expert on Chinese nationalism, “anti-Japan nationalism became a great legitimating glue to hold the society together”. [1]  [1] Bajoria, Jayshree, ‘Nationalism in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 23 April 2008,

Languages are not the only economically beneficial skills; sciences, law, humanities, creative studies are favourable. However, skills alone are not enough; people with hands-on experience in their field are needed to work a stable economy. It is immoral that a government makes its people take posts using languages that aid the country’s economy and not the individual’s job satisfaction. At the same time in terms of benefits to the economy of their home country those who have studied languages are more likely to work abroad constituting a brain drain.

Workers with advanced language skills increase the competitiveness of the economies they participate in  Languages are extremely beneficial to the economy in two senses. Firstly, language skills improve a job candidate’s chances of selection, which keeps unemployment down. The National Centre for Languages (CILT) reports on its website that “36% of employers recruit people with languages”, “49% of employers are dissatisfied with school leavers’ language skills” and that “95% of London employers think that language skills are important for the London economy”. [1] Secondly, a high number of employees with language skills enhance companies’ abilities to engage in trade and to expand their business abroad, in turn enhancing exports.  [1] CILT The National Centre for Languages, ‘Employers value language skills’, accessed 17 November 2011,

Students should be free to choose to play to their strengths.  Students should have a fundamental freedom of choice when it comes to all but the most necessary subjects. If students want to specialise in for example Science and drop foreign languages in order to be able to do this then they should have this option, a choice which is likely to be beneficial for their chosen career. Students’ progress in their most successful subjects should not be hindered by the burden of language learning. It is not the case that students do not desire to engage in languages because they are lazy, narrow-minded or blinkered. Rather, because they demonstrate real strength in other subjects they do not wish to be constrained in those subjects by ones where they do not excel.  A standard complaint is quoted by Ehrman; “(learning languages) affects (all study) a lot! I’m finding it just depressing to have to study, when my only reason for being here is to meet a requirement…it really annoys me to have to waste my time on this, when I could be learning something I’ll use after graduation…The pressure’s just too much for me!” [1]  Students should be allowed and encouraged to channel all their energy and enthusiasm into the subjects they are best at and most enthusiastic towards.  [1] Ehrman, ‘Understanding Second Language Difficulties’, 1996, p.136

Again, language is not the only skill that government officials are required to possess in order to ensure that a state is able to adequately protect its citizens and its borders from foreign threats. Those with knowledge and experience working in different states of different cultures can use this to enhance knowledge available to the government or officials. People of different backgrounds are also employed in order to gain insight and for this reason a varied skill set of experiences and knowledge can work together in securing a state.

Learning languages promotes understanding of other cultures  To refuse to learn foreign languages is narrow-minded, ignorant and blinkered. Language is a means not only of asserting identity but, more importantly of “heritage culture maintenance”. To refuse to learn a foreign language is to disallow anyone’s culture apart from one’s own to be upheld. When this happens, “the dominant groups force ethnic groups into particular… niches”. [1] This is particularly likely to be a problem in multicultural societies or indeed any society that is not homogeneous. By refusing to learn foreign languages, one refuses to recognise that other cultures even exist.  For this reason learning a foreign language helps to tackle xenophobia. Negative stereotyping is sadly still prevalent in the modern world. “American students in Maine view persons speaking standard French as shorter, less leaderlike (sic), less thoughtful, less intelligent, less honest, less self-confident, less dependable, less generous, less kind, less ambitious, less stable and with less character than English Speakers”. [2] Such stereotypes lead to prejudices, xenophobia and, in extreme cases, hate crime. Learning foreign languages is a good way to combat such prejudices, because the students learn about the foreign culture for themselves, meet and converse with its people, and have a first-hand introduction to a foreign people. This will leave them more open minded towards other cultures so less likely to be xenophobic towards other cultures whose language they have not learnt. As Reynolds explains, “discounting stereotypes involves denying cultural differences” [3] such as the ability to communicate through the same language.  [1] Reynolds, Allan G., Bilingualism, Multiculturalism and Second Language Learning, Lawrence Newbury Publishers, New Jersey, 1990, p.10  [2] Gardner, R.C., Lambert, W.E, Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning, Newbury House Publishers, Massachusetts, 1972, p.99  [3] Reynolds, Allan G., Bilingualism, Multiculturalism and Second Language Learning, Lawrence Newbury Publishers, New Jersey, 1990, p.5

Language acquisition is no less vital than competence in mathematics and english  A high number of students failing to succeed in languages is not a valid reason to make the subject optional. This mentality opens the gate to making English and math options, simply to eradicate the effort of improving pass rates. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reports that in the UK “A quarter of secondary pupils (aged 11 and over) fail to reach their potential in math(s) and a quarter are making insufficient progress in English”. [1] Still, optional English and math is unthinkable; these are core subjects- languages should also be considered as such. Those who want to transfer students energies from foreign languages to English are ignoring the possibility that learning a foreign language may actually be useful for learning the first language. [2] Students failing in core subjects must be helped to improve, not have the subject eradicated.  [1] BBC News, ‘Third of England pupils fail to reach maths potential’, 9 June 2011,   [2] Leons, Eve, Herbert, Christie and Gobbo, Ken. 2009. “Students with Learning Disabilities and AD/HD in the Foreign Language Classroom” Foreign Language Annals 42(1): 42-54.

The overwhelming number of students who struggle with reading and writing in their own language cannot be expected to acquire a second, foreign one. The vast number of students failing to master basic arithmetic and competency in their mother language is to be addressed as a matter of urgency. This is a primary concern for schools, not second language learning.

Learning its target language is not fundamental to embracing any foreign culture. Many people can be very open to foreign cultures without learning their language(s). Indeed it may be necessary for most to keep the two separate. [1] No one can learn every foreign language and many would not have the time to learn more than a few but that should not prevent learning about and enjoying that culture, its music, its art and even in many cases through translation its literature.  If a student is forced to learn a language against his/her will, then the negative stereotype of the target culture will only be strengthened, fuelled by ill feeling and negative experiences. In the words of Albert Einstein, “It is easier to split an atom than break a prejudice” and realistically language learning will not help combat this sad truth.  [1] Erlbaum, ‘Understanding Second Language Difficulties, 1996, p.140

Allowing students to study what they want or what they consider themselves to be good at would be a mistake. The point of education before university is to provide a good broad grounding that provides all the necessary life skills. This has to include harder subjects that would not be the first choice of the students. In the UK it has been suggested that the high pass rate for soft subjects like Media Studies of 98% has helped cause a decline in foreign language learning at A-level (16-18 years old). [1] Scientific research has shown how a second language can aid us past school years, for example the American Association for the advancement of science’s latest research shows the symptoms of alzheimer’s to occur later on in life in those who are bilingual in comparison to those who speak one language. The ability to speak more than one language enables people to communicate better and for longer. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Media Studies. Discuss’, 18 August 2005,   [2] Wheeler, David L., ‘Being Bilingual: Beneficial Workout for the Brain’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 20 February 2011,

It is still a mystery why, as Robert C. Gardner puts it “that some people can learn a second or foreign language so easily and so well and while others, given what seem to be the same opportunities to learn find it almost impossible?” [1] No audio-visual suite, no matter how high tech and expensive, will be able to raise the grades of students who find it impossible to hold the complexity of grammar rules in their heads.  [1] Gardner, R.C., Lambert, W.E, Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning, Newbury House Publishers, Massachusetts, 1972, p. 131

Learning a language is a sign of good diplomacy.  The call for students to learn a foreign language not only stems from economic needs but also from the need of improved security and diplomacy, in particular a better understanding of cultures and languages in order to better understand threats to the state and improved foreign services are needed. [1] In many Anglophone countries even in the role of a diplomat there are worrying numbers who do not have the language skills they need, for example in Canada “only 16% of the 180 foreign service officers who were required to have advanced foreign languages skills for their positions, could speak the needed language.” [2] As a 2007 National Academy of sciences report warns us “the pervasive lack of knowledge of foreign languages and cultures threatens the security of the united states as well as its ability to compete in the global marketplace and produce an unformed citizenry”. [3] Since the increased security post 9/11 the government accountability office (GAO) have reported that there are a shortage of foreign language expertise within the government and for this reason may undermine national security.  Much of the population of mainland Europe go to great lengths to learn foreign languages, especially the dominant English. English speakers should reciprocate the efforts made by their foreign counterparts; Nicolas Sarkozy for example is aiming to make France into a bilingual nation. [4] Across Europe at least 20% of third-level students claim to be proficient in at least two foreign languages. However, in countries where English is a major language, this is not the case; in Ireland, for example the figure is only 5%. [5] In the United States the situation is similar only 31% of US elementary schools and 24% of public schools teach foreign languages. [6] Expecting foreign countries to communicate through dominant English is a lazy and arrogant attitude to language and should not be permitted. Therefore learning languages up to the age of sixteen should be compulsory.  [1] Kollipara, Puneet, ‘Government still trying to catch up on foreign language capabilities’, The Hill, 12 June 2010,   [2] Raj, Althia, ‘Canadian diplomats don’t have necessary foreign language skills’, Toronto Sun, 3 September 2010,   [3] Mary Ellen O’Connell and Janet L. Norwood ed. ‘International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing America's Future’ National Academy of Sciences, 2007,   [4] Agence Bretagne Presse, ‘Nicolas Sarkozy veut faire de la France une nation bilingue’, 12 September 2007,   [5] Irish Independent, ‘Only 5 percent at third-level able to speak two foreign languages’, CareersPortal.ie, 16 June 2011,   [6] Washington Times, ‘Analysis: U.S. must strengthen foreign language education’, 26 December 2008

The solution is more teaching of languages not less.  The problems students face when learning languages are the fault of teaching methods, not language ability. Madeline Ehrman observes that the root of this problem is that the “student is “out of sync” with the methodology, the teacher.” Therefore, the antidote is more modern learning styles; “there are some quick fixes that can be made when adaptations are needed”. [1] Languages should not be abandoned when students find them boring rather the curriculum and methods of teaching need to be changed to make the learning more interesting and more relevant. For example students struggle even with their own grammar so an emphasis on making themselves understood rather than correct grammar may be more useful.  [1] Ehrman, Madeline E., Understanding Second Language Difficulties, SAGE Publications, California, 1996. ISBN: 0-7619-0191-4. P.126

This is once again down to the way languages are taught. The quality of teaching needs to be high so that those who struggle more are motivated to overcome this divide. This is also the case with grammar, both learner and teacher need to have patience and be willing to engage. [1] The critical age for learning a language must also be taken into consideration, it is believed by many experts in the field that it is easier for people to learn languages at a very early age, as it greatly improves ones accent and their ability to learn quickly. Thus the gap between those who progress and those who don’t will be greatly reduced if all students had to learn another language starting from an early primary school age.  [1] Gardner, Attitudes and motivation in Second-Language learning, 1972, p.135

A lack of people who could quickly become qualified foreign language teachers is not a problem. There are a high number of unemployed language graduates, many of whom are already engaged in teaching, particularly as private tutors teaching languages. [1]  [1] McElvoy, Anne, ‘The tutor trap: the rise and rise of private lessons’, London Evening Standard, 22 January 2010,

Not everyone will succeed in learning languages even if compulsory.  There are many people who will never excel in languages whether they are forced to learn it or not, and if they are not going to succeed then why waste all the time trying to make them succeed. With learning foreign languages there is a problem of anxiety in the classroom. This is particularly disabling as students must be able to speak up and be heard, usually by the whole class, in order to make progress. This anxiety is likely to be closer to panic than it would be in other subjects. [1] This not only affects those who are anxious but holds back those who are more able.  This will be even more pronounced with dyslexic children. They struggle with the written word and so will necessarily do even worse when studying foreign languages. Yet they can excel in other subjects such as mathematics. [2] It is therefore not sensible to make languages mandatory.  [1] Ehrman, ‘Understanding Second Language Difficulties, 1996, p.149  [2] ‘Dyslexia and Numeracy’,

There is much less need to learn foreign languages for countries where English is the first language.  For those from countries where English is not the first language English is an obvious language to study, it is a language which is useful all over the world, not just in countries where English is the native language because so many people speak it as a second language. There is not the same obvious second language for native English speakers. It is undeniable that English is increasingly a global language; it is the language of technology and global communication. English is likely to be used in a conversation between for example a German Scientist and an Italian Politician. [1] It is therefore being realistic for English speakers to believe that any other language they learn will have less utility than their own.  [1] English Online Learners, ‘English the Global Language’, British Council,

There is a large gap between those who make progress in languages and those who do not.  There is a gulf between people who do make progress in languages and those who do not. Those able in languages struggle to deconstruct the difficult concepts and explain them to learners who cannot understand. Teachers cannot empathise with students who struggle. Expecting students who have great difficulty in learning languages to be able to do so from those who cannot even explain linguistic concepts successfully is far too much to ask. This one reason why in the UK Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) considers language teaching in secondary schools to be weak. [1]  There are similar problems with grammar between those who are bilingual and those who are not. People who are bilingual due to their background do not think in grammar. If they do not know why certain grammatical constructions are used when and why, how is an absolute beginner struggling with languages supposed to understand such grammar rules? [2]  [1] Webb, Lauren, ‘Ofsted reports poor language teaching in UK’, Veritas,   [2] Reynolds, ‘Bilingualism, Multiculturalism and Second Language Learning’, 1990, p.164

In many countries it would not be practical to have foreign languages as mandatory.  It would not always be practical to increase foreign language teaching to being mandatory for all students. In the United Kingdom for example there is a shortage of foreign language teachers already with 73% of Local Education Authorities struggling to find teachers, particularly for Maths and Languages. [1] At the same time in many countries there are worries about their competitiveness in the world due to the success of East Asian countries in education. The PISA tests shows that East Asian countries, particularly China (Shanghai and Hong Kong), South Korea and Singapore far exceed countries where English is the first language in Maths and Science leading to a need to improve those subjects first. [2]  [1] MailOnline, ‘Teacher shortage reaching crisis levels’,   [2] PISA, ‘What Students now and can do: Student Performance In Reading, Mathematics and Science’, OECD, 2009,

While it is undeniable that at the moment English is the most used international language this is not a reason to be complacent. Just because English is currently dominant does not mean it will remain so. In the 18th, 19th and into the 20th Centuries French was the international language and before that Latin was in Europe. It is as likely that the dominance of the English language will decline as that it will continue to increase. Students should be taught other languages to take advantage of changes that may occur within their lifetimes.

Students not exceling in a subject is not a reason for not teaching that subject. Even a basic understanding of another language is useful. Anxiety is something the students will have to work through and may well be affected in other subjects as well, students who are anxious about learning foreign languages will never be willing to attempt to learn them if they are not compulsory at school.

Teachers accept that marking student work is an important part of their job. Well planned homework should not take so long to mark that the rest of their job suffers, and it can inform their understanding of their students, helping them design new activities to engage and stretch them. As for recruitment, although teachers do often work in the evenings, they are not alone in this and they get long holidays to compensate.

Marking homework reduces the amount of time teachers have to prepare good lessons  Irrespective of homework's educational value, marking it takes up much of teachers' time. Australian teachers have complained that 'homework marking can result in four extra hours of work a day and they are rarely rewarded for their effort'.1 This leaves teachers tired and with little time to prepare effective, inspiring lessons. If the lessons aren't to the standard they should be, the point of homework is lost as the students have little to practise in the first place. The heavy workload also puts young graduates off becoming teachers, and so reduces the talent pool from which schools can recruit.  1 Speranza, 2011

The ban on homework could be easily enforced through school inspections  In many countries public schools require regular school inspections to ensure students are receiving a relatively equal level of education. In Britain for example, Ofsted is a public body that exists specifically to inspect public schools.1 A ban on homework would thus not require a level of trust between the state and individual school principals, for state inspectors could very quickly work out whether homework was being given out by asking the children themselves. Children, who don't like homework at the best of times, would not lie.  1 Ofsted, 2011

Homework has not prevented students doing other activities; it takes very little time to complete. Recent American surveys found that most students in the USA spent no more than an hour a night on homework. That suggests there does not seem to be a terrible problem with the amount being set. Furthermore, British studies have shown that 'more children are engaging in sport or cultural activities' than ever before.1 As such, there is no clear evidence to suggest that students are stuck at home doing their homework instead of doing other activities. In addition, concerns over how busy children are suggest that parents need to help their children set priorities so that homework does not take a back seat to school work.  1 BBC News, 2008

Homework is about 'winning' on tests, not learning  Many governments make their schools give students a national test (a test taken by all students of the same age). After the tests, they compare schools and punish the schools and teachers whose students do badly. Because schools and teachers are therefore scared about their students doing poorly, they give them more homework, not in the hope they learn more but simply to do better on the tests.1 As such, homework is not designed to help the student, just their teachers and schools who want them to 'win' the test and make them look good, not learn for the students' own benefit.  1 Sorrentino

Homework has little educational worth, and therefore is a waste of students' time  Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some schools and some countries don't bother with homework at all, and their results do not seem to suffer from it. Studies show that homework adds nothing to standardised test scores for primary/ elementary pupils. As Alfie Kohn notes, no study has ever found a link between homework and better tests results in elementary school, and there is no reason to believe it is necessary in high school.1 International comparisons of older students have found no positive relationship between the amount of homework set and average test scores - students in Japan and Denmark get little homework but score very well on tests.2 If anything, countries with more homework get worse results!  1 Sorrentino , 2011  2 Britt , 2005

Homework has a lot of educational value, the reason it has not shown this is because teachers do not set the right kind of homework or they set the wrong amount of it. Some teachers believe homework is for reviewing material, others think it is better for learning new concepts. The result is 'confusion for students'.1 If the homework was consistent however, and related specifically to what is learnt in the classroom, it would have a great deal of educational value by helping them remember their lessons and increase students' confidence in how much they are learning.  Furthermore, Professor Cooper of Duke University has shown that by the high schools years, there is a strong and positive relationship between homework and how well students do at school. There are two main reasons why this relationship does not appear in elementary school: 1) Elementary school teachers assign homework not so much to enhance learning, but in order to encourage the development of good study skills and time management;2 2) young children have less developed cognitive skills to focus and concentrate on their work.3 Thus, they are more easily distracted from their homework assignments.  1 Strauss, 2006 2 Muhlenbruck, Cooper, Nye, &amp; Lindsey, 2000 3Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001

Setting homework with the intention of encouraging students to do well at tests is beneficial to students as much as it is to teachers and schools. National tests are a way of assessing whether students are at the level they should be, if they do well on the tests, that is a good thing. Therefore, a 'win' for the teachers and schools is also a great deal of learning for the student, the two need not be separated.

Many states do not in fact have a structured school inspection system that could enforce such a ban. The United States, for example, has one of the largest student bodies in the world but the state does not have a formal inspection system that could enforce a ban on homework. Therefore any ban would only prove a recommendation at best, and could not possibly hope to be enforced.  Furthermore, even in those states that do have inspection bodies, the regularity of inspections allows school principals to prepare for their arrival. Students might be forced by their teachers to lie to inspectors, otherwise they would receive even more homework. Furthermore, the school inspections are partly so that they can test the ability of students – therefore teachers are encouraged to give their students homework so that they do better on these inspections.

If homework puts students off learning, then it has been badly planned by the teacher. As Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of Education notes, 'many teachers lack the skills to design homework assignments that help kids learn and don't turn them off to learning' .1 The best homework tasks engage and stretch students, encouraging them to think for themselves and follow through ideas which interest them. Over time, well planned homework can help students develop good habits, such as reading for pleasure or creative writing. The research however suggests that homework is not in fact putting students off learning. Rather studies in Britain indicate that 'most children are happy (and) most are achieving a higher level than before'.2 Homework cannot be blamed for a problem that does not exist. Poor children may indeed lack support to do their homework, but this just means that schools need to do more to provide the help they need.  1 Strauss, 2006 2 BBC News, 2008

Homework reduces the amount of time for students to do other activities  Homework takes a lot of time up. In America, they encourage the '10 minute rule', 10 minutes homework for every grade, meaning that high-school students are all doing more than an hour's worth of homework each night.1 Being young is not just about doing school work every night. It should also about being physically active, exploring the environment through play, doing creative things like music and art, and playing a part in the community. It is also important for young people to build bonds with others, especially family and friends, but homework often squeezes the time available for all these things.  1 Associated Press, 2009

Homework puts students off learning  Homework puts students off learning. Studies have shown that many children find doing homework very stressful, boring and tiring. Often teachers underestimate how long a task will take, or set an unrealistic deadline. Sometimes because a teacher has not explained something new well in class, the homework task is impossible. So children end up paying with their free time for the failings of their teachers. They also suffer punishments if work is done badly or late. After years of bad homework experiences, it is no wonder that many children come to dislike education and switch off, or drop out too early. Teachers in Britain fear that poor children, because they lack the support to do their homework, will be turned off school 1.  1 BBC News, 2008

Homework is a class issue. In school everyone is equal, but at home some people have advantages because of their family background. Middle-class families with books and computers will be able to help their children much more than poorer ones can. This can mean poorer children end up with worse grades and more punishments for undone or badly done homework. David Baker, a researcher, believes too much homework causes parents and children to get angry with each other and argue, destroying the child’s confidence 1. On the other hand pushy parents may even end up doing their kids’ homework for them – cheating and not helping the student learn at all.  1 Britt , 2005

Setting homework does little to develop good study skills. It is hard to check whether the homework students produce is really their own. Some students have always copied off others or got their parents to help them. But today there is so much material available on the internet that teachers can never be sure. It would be better to have a mixture of activities in the classroom which help students to develop a whole range of skills, including independent learning. Furthermore, if teachers want to develop independence in their students, students should be given a choice in the matter of homework. Otherwise, they’re not using their judgement and therefore they aren’t being independent at all 1.  1 Sorrentino , 2011

Homework ensures that students practise what they are taught at school  Having homework also allows students to really fix in their heads work they have done in school. Doing tasks linked to recent lessons helps students strengthen their understanding and become more confident in using new knowledge and skills. For younger children this could be practising reading or multiplication tables. For older ones it might be writing up an experiment, revising for a test and reading in preparation for the next topic. Professor Cooper of Duke University, has found that there is evidence that in elementary school students do better on tests when they do short homework assignments related to the test 1. Students gain confidence from such practise, and that shows when they sit the tests.  1 Strauss, 2006

Homework is an essential part of education, allowing students to learn information beyond that which they are taught at school.  Homework is a vital and valuable part of education. There are only a few hours in each school day – not enough time to cover properly all the subjects children need to study. Setting homework extends study beyond school hours, allowing a wider and deeper education. It also makes the best use of teachers, who can spend lesson time teaching rather than just supervising individual work that could be done at home. Education is about pushing boundaries, and the learning should not stop at the entrance to the classroom – students should take skills learnt in the classroom and apply them at home. Homework allows this to happen, encouraging students to go above and beyond what they do in school. Reading is the best example, students learn how to read at school, but in order to get better, they need to practise and that is best done at home, with the support of parents and at the right pace for the student.

Homework provides a link between child, school and the home  Education is a partnership between the child, the school and the home 1. Homework is one of the main ways in which the student’s family can be involved with their learning. Many parents value the chance to see what their child is studying and to support them in it. It has been described as the ‘window into the school’ for parents, the area in which schools, parents and students interact daily 2. And schools need parents’ support in encouraging students to read at home, to help with the practising of tables, and to give them opportunities to research new topics.  1 Walker, et. al, 2004 2 Gill &amp; Schlossman, 2003

Homework encourages students to work more independently (by themselves)  Homework encourages students to work more independently, as they will have to at college and in their jobs. Everyone needs to develop responsibility and skills in personal organization, working to deadlines, being able to research, etc. If students are always “spoon-fed” topics at school they will never develop study skills and self-discipline for the future. A gradual increase in homework responsibilities over the years allows these skills to develop 1. For instance, to read a novel or complete a research project, there is simply no time at school to do it properly. Students have to act independently and be willing to read or write, knowing that if they struggle, they will have to work through the problem or the difficult words themselves. Diane Ravitch points out that a novel like Jane Eyre cannot be completed if it is not read at home – students have to work through it themselves 2. When given the choice of homework or no homework most students would chose not to do it. But by doing homework they are effectively taught independence in finding their own ways to explain and understand the topic.  1 Bempechat, 2004  2 Ravitch , 2007

Homework is not an essential part of information. If what was to be learnt from homework was that essential, it would not be left to the child to learn on their own and away from school. In fact, many teachers admit to simply setting homework because they are expected to set it, not because they think it will be helpful 1. The best environment for learning is in a classroom, where the student is able to ask for assistance if stuck and the teacher is available to help. .  1 BBC News, 2008

Homework does not ensure that students practise what they are taught at school. Teachers often give pupils the end of the exercise they were doing in class to complete at home, it tends to be the harder questions towards the end of the exercise and if a teacher or a tutor is not present to explain or help then it causes the pupil to doubt their ability. To practise what a student has been taught requires the presence of a teacher or tutor who can guide the student if they get something wrong. Homework, done by the student on their own, offers little support and is only a source of stress. If confused, the student may only come to dislike the topic or subject, which will only further reduce their ability to remember what they were taught.

The facts are against the premise again.  Research does not support the idea that young people who play violent video games have decreased social ability. This is refuted most notably in studies by Anderson and Ford (1986), Winkel et al. (1987), Scott (1995), Ballard and Lineberger (1999), and Jonathan Freedman (2002). More recently, Block and Crain (2007) claim that in a critical paper by Anderson (and his co-author, Bushman), data was improperly calculated and produced fallacious results. Additional meta-analyses (reviews of research that attempt to statistically combine data from multiple studies for more powerful results) by other researchers, such as by Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) and Sherry (2007) have failed to find any causal link between video game violence and aggression, as have recent reviews by the Australian Government (2010) and the US Supreme Court (June, 2011).  The question of whether violent games that only allow violence as a solution to problems could negatively affect young people in subtle ways deserves further study. However, there are many aspects of video games, such as puzzle solving, that are intrinsic parts of even the basest first person shooters. Many first-person shooters themselves require tactical deployment and thinking—all of which are able to stimulate thought in people, albeit in a different manner than negotiation might do. [1] Further, newer military games are more sophisticated, often requiring the player to take one side of a conflict and then the other in different levels of the game, or forcing the player to face moral dilemmas that affect the game’s storyline or outcome.  [1] Freedman, Jonathan L. Media violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. ISBN 0802084257

Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems  Video games of a violent nature tend to fail to offer many solutions to a problem. Most military shooters have no form of negotiation with enemies; players are asked to simply kill as many nameless terrorists as possible. Given this, social interaction problems can be caused because people are presented with problems and then told that they must be solved with violence instead of other methods. In other words, physical violence is portrayed as the first-choice (and often only-choice) solution to a conflict.  This lack of portrayal of alternate solutions can stifle growth of other skills, especially amongst children and adolescents, specifically skills important to making friends and engaging in negotiation in times of conflict or pressure. Further, it encourages children to see people who oppose them as “others,” and thus presents them psychologically as enemies instead of as people who are simply different to the player and thus might have other grievances. This can lead to increases in aggression among players.  This is especially true given the relatively simplistic portrayal of conflicts within areas such as the Middle East and Afghanistan. [1]  [1] "Violent Video Games May Increase Aggression in Some But Not Others, Says New Research". apa.org. American Psychological Association. 27 September 2011.

The facts are strongly against the Proposition’s analysis  The proposition’s arguments fail to stand up in the real world. Several major studies published in The Journal of Adolescent Health, The British Medical Journal and The Lancet (among others) have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and real-life violent behaviour. The Federal Bureau of Investigation found no evidence linking video game use to the massacre at Columbine (or other highly publicized school shootings). [1] There is no evidence to support the idea that people exposed to violent video game (or other violent media content) will then go on to commit crimes. [2]  Further, if violent video games were causing violent behaviour, we would expect to see rates of violent crime increase as games with realistic portrayals of violence became more widely available on popular game consoles. Instead, violent crime has decreased in recent years. Some economists have argued (based on time series modelling) that increased sales of violent video games are associated with decreases in violent crime. [3]  In Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, researchers/authors Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Mental Health and Media refute claims of violent behaviour increase caused by violent video games. The researchers' quantitative and qualitative studies (surveys and focus groups) found that young adolescents view game behaviour as unrelated to real-life actions, and this is why they can enjoy criminal or violent acts in a game that would horrify them in reality. They also found evidence that those relatively few adolescents who did not play video games at all were more at-risk for violent behaviours such as bullying or fighting (although the sample size was too small for statistical significance). The authors speculated that because video game play has gained a central and normative role in the social lives of adolescent boys, a boy who does not play any video games might be socially isolated or rejected.  Finally, although more study is needed, there is some evidence to suggest that violent video games might allow players to get aggressive feelings out of their system (i.e., video game play might have a cathartic effect), in a scenario that does not harm anyone else. [4] , [5] , [6]  [1] O’Toole, Mary Ellen, ‘The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment perspective’, Critical Incident Response Group, www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter  [2] Editorial. Is exposure to media violence a public-health risk? The Lancet, 2008, 371:1137.  [3] Cunningham, Scott, et al., ‘Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime’, 7 April 2011,   [4] Kutner, Lawrence &amp; Cheryl K. Olson. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do. Simon and Schuster, 2008  [5] Bensley, Lillian and Juliet Van Eenwyk. Video games and real-life aggression: A review of the literature, Journal of Adolescent Health, 2001, 29:244-257.  [6] Griffiths, Mark. Video games and health. British Medical Journal, 2005, 331:122-123.

Children See Violent Video Games  Whilst it might be agreed that violent video games in the hands of a person who is old enough to see them and be able to understand the context in which the violence is being wrought is acceptable, this may not be true of younger people who acquire games.  Games with violent content are often easily acquired by players too young to purchase them. They may also gain access to them at home from older siblings. Because children do not have fully developed mental faculties yet, and may not clearly separate fantasy from reality, exposure to violent games can have a large impact upon children. This has a greater impact than children seeing films that feature realistic violence because whilst a child might get bored with films owing to the lack of interaction with the medium, this is much less likely to be the case with, for example, a military shooting game, which a child might play over and over  As such, all violent video games should be banned to prevent their acquisition by young children either by accident, or owing to parental ignorance. [1]  [1] Anderson, Craig et al. The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2003, 4:81-110

This is empirically false  Again, the crux of opposition counter-argument is that the evidence in this regard is strongly behind opposition.  In April 2011, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission undercover shopper survey found that video game retailers continue to enforce the ratings by allowing only 13% of underage teenage shoppers to buy M-rated video games, a statistically significant improvement from the 20% purchase rate in 2009. By contrast, underage shoppers purchased R-rated movies 38% of the time, and unrated movies 47% of the time.  Given that children are able to easily access violent content in other visual media, and there is no evidence that video games are more harmful than other media, this argument falls. Further, there is a long tradition of exposing children to extremely violent content in the form of fairy tales.  Further, with greater education regarding the harms of videogames to parents (and with more parents having played video games themselves) many are becoming savvier about appropriate restrictions on their children’s video game play. Given the lack of evidence that video games are clearly or uniquely harmful, but acknowledging society’s interest in protecting vulnerable children, investing in additional parent education is a more logical response than attempting to ban all violent games. [1]  [1] Federal Trade Commission. FTC undercover shopper survey on enforcement of game ratings finds compliance worst for retailers of music CDs and the highest among video game sellers. News release, 20 April 2011.

Violent Video Games cause Violent Behaviour  Video games exist as an interactive medium. The player has control over their character and many of their character’s actions whereas in a book or movie, the audience does not. This means that the player can become invested emotionally in characters to a greater extent because of the autonomy afforded to each character.  Given that this is true it becomes more difficult to ensure dissociation between the real world and the game world with which the player interacts. With the growing drive towards realism of videogame graphics, game environments are able to look incredibly similar to real life, further blurring the distinction.  If this is the case, then a person who visits violence upon another person within a game universe feels the same emotions as someone who does so within real life, and therefore may be desensitised to real-life violence. Whilst game producers would claim that is not their aim and that their games do not cause this desensitisation, many have been actively pursuing technologies that allow for greater immersion within their game-worlds.  If this is the case then acts of violence may fail to register the same level of shock or revulsion in a person than they usually do. Given that this is true, people who play video games become more able to harm others or less likely to intervene to prevent harm.  In terms of actual evidence, there is very little to back up this analysis. Most studies supporting the concept have been debunked by others. [1]  [1] Anderson, Craig &amp; Bushman, Brad. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 2001, 12: 353-359

Video games teach people to deal with frustrations in the wrong way.  In dealing with frustrations and aggression by using video games as an outlet, players of these games often assume that the problem is gone or dealt with.  This is often not the case, with many sources of frustration being ones which repeat day in and day out.  Given that this is the case, video games prevent people from dealing with the root causes of their problems and thus leave people more susceptible to frustration in the future.  Further, playing back into the first point on proposition, they teach players only one method of dealing with their problems, which is resorting to violence, so should they seek to deal with their frustrations in the real world, often the solutions they do engage with are ones which are suboptimal.

There is a generation gap  Children in this age have grown up with computers and digital media devices where their parents have not. Whilst some parents are able to readily adapt to new technology, there are a large proportion that are unable to do so.  Even if parents have adapted to the digital age, there are still lots of things their children know about that parents simply cannot keep up with. It is entirely feasible for a child to be able to keep the presence of a violent video game hidden from his or her parents through use of the various “Home” menus that all the major games consoles now possess. Further, on the computer, a user can simply Alt+Tab out of any application they are in to avoid detection.  Given there are many ways for children to avoid their parents and given the generation gap, it seems unfair to expect parents to be able to monitor their children in this way.

Video games Improve Skills  First, the claims of harm caused by video games have not been proven.  The most criticised violent video games are generally military shooters. However, these games generally focus much more strongly on multiplayer components of the game.  These multiplayer components often require significant levels of teamwork in order for one side to be successful over the other. As such, many of these video games end up teaching players core teamwork skills as well as often teaching leadership skills when players become part of organised gaming groups.  Further, numerous researchers have proposed potential positive effects of video games on aspects of social and cognitive development and psychological well-being. It has been shown that action video game players have better hand-eye coordination and visuo-motor skills, such as their resistance to distraction, their sensitivity to information in the peripheral vision and their ability to count briefly presented objects, than non-players. Video games also promote the development of intellectual skills such as planning and problem-solving, and social games may improve the social capabilities of the individual. [1]  Given then that video games provide these benefits, banning violent games would harm the industry overall, causing many of the developers of other games which encourage these kinds of skills to lose their funding from game publishers. Put simply, the banning of violent video games would lead to fewer games overall being published and if these games have the effects listed above then a great net benefit is lost in the process. [2]  [1] Green, C. Shawn &amp; Daphne Bavelier. Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature, 2003, 423:534-537.   [2] Olson, Cheryl K. Children’s motivations for video game play in the context of normal development. Review of General Psychology, 2010, 14: 180-187.

Violent Video Games Prevent Violent Behaviour  In most people’s lives there are instances where they might like to react to a situation with a level of aggression. However, owing to a number of reasons such a solution is often impossible and undesirable.  It has been theorised by psychologists that pent up frustrations with the world are the root of many psychological problems. Given that this is true then, an outlet for frustrations is required in society such that aggressive behaviour in individuals can be avoided.  Video games in this situation provide such an outlet for aggression and frustrations. Firstly aggression is dealt with through the simple act of defeating enemies within games and frustration is dealt with through the completion of goals within the video games, allowing players a sense of satisfaction upon their completion.  Hence, one could argue that this may result in comparatively lower levels of aggressive behaviour among video game players. This is supported by research conducted by Dr. Cheryl Olson and her team at Harvard. Studying a sample of 1,254 students aged 12 to 14 years, she found that over 49% of boys and 25% of girls reported using violent games such as Grand Theft Auto IV as an outlet for their anger.  She suggests that instead of a blanket ban on M-rated game use by young adolescents, parents should monitor how much time children spend playing games and how they react to specific game content. [1]  [1] Olson, Cheryl K., et al., ‘Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls’, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol.41 no.1, pp77-83, July 2007,

The Responsibility Lies With Parents  In the digital age, young people are almost certain to be exposed to violent media content, including violent video games, even if parents attempt to restrict children’s exposure to such content in the home. Parents therefore have an obligation to educate themselves about video games (many government, industry and private websites provide such information) and to help their children become “media literate” regarding the content and context of games.  The state places responsibility on parents for the welfare of a child and in doing so the state can allow things that would potentially be dangerous for children, anything from skateboards to R-rated films, as long as parents can supervise their children. Parents need not know how to skateboard to supervise such activity, but should know about potential risks and safety equipment. This same logic applies to video games.  To not confer this responsibility on parents is to further undermine their status as role models for their children, as it assumes that parents are incapable of ensuring the safety of their children.  Practically speaking, this could affect the respect they get from their children, with “The government says I can’t,” being a much weaker response when questioned about violent video games than an actual explanation of the harms behind them. [1]  [1] American Psychological Association. "Violent Video Games — Psychologists Help Protect Children from Harmful Effects", 8 June 2004,

The skills learnt within video games are skills that could be learnt elsewhere without the negative problems that have been associated with video games.  All of the benefits listed are thusly moot in this context because things such as team sports are able to develop many of the skills team shooters do, whilst also improving fitness and other areas of well-being. More tactical sports can have a great impact on somebody’s intellectual well-being as well as their physical well-being.  Additionally, videogames in general might be able to improve some skills, but we are discussing violent videogames in particular. There are other, much less violent, videogames that allow people to further increase their skills.

To only ask state-funded schools to accept military recruiters ensures that those entering the military out of school are disproportionally from state-schools rather than privately-funded schools, and therefore more likely to be middle and lower-class. Furthermore, there should be no quid pro quo regarding the funding of schools, conditions for further funding should be related to the success of students and the quality of teaching, not whether the school has furthered the state's desire to see its military substantiated. Schools should in fact protect students, not expose them annually to military recruiters who can incrementally pressurize them into a military career.

All high schools accepting state funding should accept military recruiters once a year  The relationship between the state and the schools that it establishes and funds goes both ways; if schools accept state funding, the state is entitled to use schools as a platform for the military to appeal to future recruits. All state-funded schools, irrespective of location and student demographics but only high schools, would be expected to accept military recruiters once a year to speak to the entire student body. The event would be a condition of further funding for the school, however there would be no limits placed on a minimum number of students that needed to enlist as a result.

However it is dressed up, all the military is interested in schools for is the chance to recruit students. The various educational materials (not always clearly marked as coming from the military) and courses on offer are all intended to interest students in a military career. Such methods are dishonest and should not be allowed in schools; Paul McGarr, a teacher in East London, stated that 'only when recruiting materials gave a true picture of war would he welcome them into his school'1. If students are genuinely interested in joining the military, they can go along to a recruitment centre outside school, potentially with their parents, and ask the necessary questions there. 1 Goff, H. (2008, March 25). Teachers reject 'Army propaganda'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from BBC News:

The military is an all-volunteer force and needs a percentage of school-age recruits each year  Our military is an all-volunteer force and must recruit openly to keep up its numbers. The army, navy and air force need well-educated and motivated recruits; as the pool of potential recruits shrinks, efforts to attract young people must be permitted to 'intensify and diversify' 1 The alternative is a return to the conscription and national service that offers those recruits little choice. Military recruitment in schools permits the recruitment of only those with an interest in the armed forces, allowing those who wish to pursue other endeavours that opportunity. As such, visits to schools are not about forcing militaristic propaganda on children, but about making sure that 16-18 year olds know about the military as a potential career choice. After all, college representatives and local employers are allowed to make presentations to students, so it would be unfair to keep just the military out. If you accept that we need armed forces, then you must allow them to recruit openly. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:

Young people should hear of the opportunities available in the armed services whilst in school  School children are entitled, as part of their education, to a wide range of careers information, including potential roles in the military. It is a school's duty to offer not only paths to employment, but opportunities to engage with future employers like the military. With university places now increasingly competitive, schools must remain more vigilant than ever that they do not encourage purely academic paths to future careers. Furthermore, nationalism is a powerful factor in school curriculums worldwide, and permitting militaries into schools to talk to students is not an extension of already-permitted activities like the recital of the Lord's Prayer in British state schools or the Pledge of Allegiance in American schools. As such, it comes as little surprise that the predominant reason given for enlistment is service to country1. If schools are asked to ensure that such activities are carried out to foster national sentiment, it follows that military service should be, if not actively encouraged, respected sufficiently to grant the armed services an opportunity to engage with students. 1 Accardi, M. (2011, June 15) Army recruiters become a 'partner' In education Retrieved June 16, 2011, from The Huntsville Times:

The armed services have no right to preach to the youth, particularly when they are in a trusting environment like a school. To permit any organization to advertise to schoolchildren about job prospects is misguided at a time when their critical faculties are nascent and they are endowed with the belief that what is taught at school is to be imbibed with little rebuttal. Mandated school activities like the Lord's Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance do serve to promote nationalism, but do not do so in such a way as to threaten the lives or disrupt the career paths of school children. School children must be protected from organizations that have the potential to put pressure on them and guilt trip them into signing away the rest of their young adult life. If their choices are to be respected, they must be left to develop their critical faculties and then permitted to use information available to the general public to make a decision.

The need for recruits, however genuine, does not necessitate recruitment within schools. There will of course be certain students who would be attracted voluntarily to a role in the armed services, however these students can be reached through means other than their schools. Furthermore, if the motivation of recruits is paramount, then recruits can do no more to prove their motivation than actively and independently seek out a role in the armed services, rather than having it forced upon them through visits to their schools.

Young people are not aware and are, in many cases, deliberately misled as to the risks of military service. School children, conditioned by modern television, film and video games as to the heroism of military service, do not often ponder the dangers inherent in conflict. Modern video games, in which war deaths are the norm and immediate 're-spawning' dulls all sensitivity to death, do not serve to educate the youth about the risks but downplay them to the point of banality. Studies indicate that military recruiters, whilst not actively seeking to downplay risks or obscure the truth, are reluctant to volunteer information that would dissuade potential recruits 1. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:

The purpose of the military entering schools is not solely recruitment but awareness  Militaries provide a public service that too often goes unnoticed and underappreciated; school visits raise the level of understanding for the important job they do. In the UK the army publicly states that it does not directly recruit in schools but does visit many each year "with the aim of raising the general awareness of the armed forces in society"1They always visit by invitation of the Head teacher. Compared to the USA fewer young people have local or family connections with the military, so it is important for them to learn about the role the armed forces play in our country. And in both the UK and the USA the military offers other services to schools, from educational materials to leadership courses and team-building exercises. Sgt. Maj. Jerome DeJean, of the U.S. Army's 2nd Recruiting Brigade, describes their role as 'a partner in education

Young people are aware of the risks of military service and therefore would not be easily misled by military personnel  Young people are not stupid – they know that there are risks involved in joining the military. In fact the media usually focuses on the bad news coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring the good work of our military there. A career in the military also offers young people a lot of benefits, and it is only right that they should get to hear about those as well. As Donald Rumsfeld noted, ‘for some of our (US) students, this may be the best opportunity they have to get a college education’1. In addition, no one is signed up on the spot in the classroom; they always get the chance to think about it over a few months or more, and to discuss the decision carefully with parents and peers. As such, military recruitment in schools should be seen as no less unethical than the visits to schools of policemen, for whom there is similar risk but little public conjecture.  1Vlahos, K. B. (2005, June 23). Heavy military recruitment at high schools irks some parents. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Fox News:

Military presentations in schools are not designed to be propaganda for their institutions, or the state as a whole, but educate the school children as to the undeniably important role that they play. State survival invariably is dependent upon the existence of a strong, well-trained armed force filled with motivated volunteers. Furthermore, demonstrations of modern technology and smart uniforms do not paint an unfair or inaccurate image of contemporary warfare. Such examples in fact illustrate the honesty of militaries in their portrayal to school children of modern combat. They act as not merely an educational tool, but a life lesson, demonstrating that the world of their video games is, in conflict zones at least, very much real.

School children are not targeted for military service; the intention is to raise awareness about the work that the military do. A Ministry of Defence spokesman in the UK stated that they 'visit about 1,000 schools a year only at the invitation of the school – with the aim of raising the general awareness of their armed forces in society, not to recruit’. Furthermore, children interested in a military career are not instantly signed up, they are granted the time until they turn 18 to decide. In addition, before official enlistment, all potential recruits are sent away on a six-week camp to find out what a career in the army will be like1  1 Goff, H. (2008, March 25). Teachers reject 'Army propaganda'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from BBC News:

Military recruiters downplay the risks of a military career, tempting schoolchildren into a career they would not have chosen with honest information.  Recruitment officers often make highly misleading pitches about life in the military. They play up the excitement and chances to travel, as well as the pay and benefits such as college fees and training in special skills. They don't talk about the dangers of military life, the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the thousands of young soldiers who have lost limbs or been emasculated in recent years. And they don't mention the impact of war on soldiers' mental health, or the lack of support when they leave the military. If we must have the military in our schools, then they should be made to give a much more realistic view of military life. Evidence suggests that 'whilst staff are generally willing to answer questions honestly, information that might dissuade potential recruits from enlisting is not routinely volunteered'1. If we are to accept the military in schools, they must similarly accept the moral necessity of presenting the risks of the career in a fair and truthful manner. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:

Military recruitment in schools is illegal  Recruitment in schools is against parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A set of rules that the USA signed up to in 2002 forbids the recruitment of children under the age of 181. Despite this, the American Civil Liberties Union has found that US military recruiters target children as young as 11, visiting their classrooms and making unfair promises to them2. Though the military would argue that its school visits do not constitute recruitment, if recruitment of those under 18 is wrong, then advertising to those under 18 should similarly be considered wrong. In order to live up to its pledge in 2002, the USA should stop trying to recruit in schools. 1 United Nations General Assembly . (2000, May 25). Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: 2 American Civil Liberties Union. (2008, May 13). Military recruitment practices violate international standards, says ACLU. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from American Civil Liberties Union:

Military recruitment in schools is less education than propaganda  Allowing members of the military into schools is a form of propaganda. They promote the military and make war seem glamorous. Soldiers in smart uniforms come into classes with specially-made videos and powerful weapons, making violence and state-organised murder seem cool. A recent report into the practice stated 'key messages are routinely tailored to children's interests: military roles are promoted as glamorous…(and) warfare is portrayed as game-like and enjoyable.’1 This encourages young people to support aggressive action abroad. It also promotes an unthinking loyalty to the state, whether its actions are right or wrong. By allowing the military in, schools are signalling to their students that these things are OK.  1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:

School children are too young to target for military service  School children should be protected from targeted appeals for jobs they are unprepared for, both physically and emotionally. The army is short of manpower due to high casualty rates and the unwillingness of current soldiers to reenlist. This means that they are very keen to get into schools to sign up young people. But it is not right to let them get at students who are too young to vote, or even drive. 16 and 17 year olds are not grown-up enough to make life and death decisions, like joining the army. They may not be able to see through exciting presentations or resist a persuasive and experienced recruitment officer. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, military recruiters collect data on 30 million students. The act 'grants the Pentagon access to directories of all public high schools to facilitate contact for military service recruitment'1. A huge database contains their personal details, including social security numbers, email addresses and academic records. The purpose of this is to allow recruiters to pester young people with messages, phone calls and home visits. Schools should be safe places to grow and learn, not somewhere to sign your life away before it has even properly begun. Upon enlisting, recruits enter a contract that legally binds them to the Armed Forces for up to six years2; school children should not be exposed to pressure to sign their young adolescence away. 1 Berg, M. (2005, February 23). Military recruiters have unrivaled access to schools. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Common Dreams: 2 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:

Military recruitment in schools is not illegal in the United States for they have not signed the relevant documents. The USA has not signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child referred to opposite, although it has signed the UN's Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (United Nations General Assembly , 2000). However, the US military does not recruit under-18s anyway, so it is keeping to it's agreement. In any case, neither of these agreements stops recruiters visiting schools in order to make students aware of military career options once they turn 18.

Recruiters do not minimise the risks of a military career, rather the armed forces have a good story to tell and they don't prevent themselves from saying so. Furthermore, it is policy for recruitment staff to 'explain the recruits' rights and responsibilities and the nature of the commitment to the Armed Forces'1. There really are great opportunities for keen, talented young people in the military, and almost all soldiers, etc. find it a very satisfying life. And compared with the past, soldiers today are much better looked after in terms of physical, medical and psychological wellbeing. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:

Dress codes are a half-way house that does not work. It does not make students look at all uniform and it does not show what school they are from. In the United States there has been a move away from allowing either no uniform or dress codes towards having school uniforms.[6]

Dress Codes instead of school uniform  Rather than having school uniform, why not have a dress code instead? This has all the benefits of uniform without the many disadvantages. While uniforms force all children to wear the same clothes, dress codes give students a lot of choice what to wear. Only a few unsuitable things are banned - for example, gang colors, very short skirts, crop tops, bare shoulders, etc

A lot of schools have a choice of uniform so that children can wear what they feel most comfortable in. For example, in Australia, which is a very hot country, schools often have a summer uniform of clothes that are more comfortable in the hot weather [9]. This means that in summer, children might be allowed to wear shorts instead of trousers and short-sleeved instead of long-sleeved shirts.  If children were allowed to choose their own clothes to wear to school, instead of a uniform, they might choose impractical clothes themselves, like baggy tee shirts or long skirts, or jeans with chains hanging from them. To make sure that children are all wearing sensible clothes in which they will be able to take part in all their school activities, there needs to be one uniform that all children at the school wear.

Individuality and creativity should be encouraged  Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression"[18]. Children's freedom of expression is restricted by school uniforms, because children who have to wear the same clothing as every other child in their school are not able to express their individuality and creativity. We should get rid of school uniform so that all children can express themselves freely.

Students should be allowed to wear religious dress  If children are religious, they should be allowed to wear the clothes that express their religion, but school a uniform can often restrict this. Religious beliefs can be extremely valuable and important to many children, giving their lives a great deal of meaning and structure and inspiring them to work hard and behave compassionately in a school environment. Some religions place a great deal of value upon worn symbols of faith, such as turbans, headdresses and bracelets. When a school demands that a child remove these symbols, it inadvertently attacks something central to that child’s life. This may cause the child to see her school and her faith as mutually exclusive institutions[1]. Vulnerable young people should not be forced into an adversarial relationship with their school, as close, collaborative involvement with teaching and learning techniques will greatly effect a child’s ability to adapt, learn and acquire new skills in the future.  For example, school skirts are often not long enough for Muslim girls, who believe that they should cover most of their bodies. To allow children to express their religions, we should get rid of school uniforms.

Some schools do have different rules for religious students, so that those students can express their beliefs. For example, a school might let Muslim girls wear some of their religious items of clothing mixed with the school uniform (e.g., Reading Girls' School)[2].

Schools can foster creativity and individuality without getting rid of school uniform. There are many schools with a uniform which still support creativity and individuality with "Child Initiated Independent Learning", and other schemes which encourage children to think for themselves [19, 20]. Also, if children are participating in creative activities like art, it is surely better for them to wear sensible clothes, and it's easier to make sure all children are wearing sensible clothes if they all have to wear the same uniform.

In many countries, parents can apply for help with the cost of school uniform. For example, in the U.K., parents who don't earn a lot of money can get money from the government to help pay for their child's school uniform[13] . In Australia, the Australian Scholarships Group, which specialises in helping parents save money when it comes to their children's education, has tips for parents to get their child's uniform cheaper.[14]  Also, parents would probably have to spend a lot more money if their children didn't wear a uniform to school, because they would have to buy them more casual clothes. Since children don't like to wear the same thing too often (in case they get bullied), parents would have to spend a lot of money making sure their children have lots of different outfits.

School uniforms are often impractical or uncomfortable  School uniforms are often not very comfortable or practical. In state schools (schools for which parents don't have to pay fees) in the U.K., for example, girls often have to wear dresses or skirts, when they might feel more comfortable in trousers, and boys often have to wear button-up shirts and ties, which can also be uncomfortable for active children[7]. In independent schools, uniforms are often even more impractical and uncomfortable, with blazers or even tailcoats for the children to wear[8].

School uniforms are often expensive  If a school has a uniform, parents are expected to buy it, and then buy a new one every time their child outgrows the last. This can be expensive. It has been reported that parents in South Africa[10], Australia[11], and the U.K[12]. have to pay a lot of money for their children's school uniforms, and it is probably the same in other countries too.

Researchers have actually found that having to wear a school uniform does not make children better behaved. For example, Brunsma and Rockquemore[22] looked at data for more than 4,500 students and found that those who wore a school uniform did not have fewer behavioural problems or better attendance. School uniform does not encourage discipline, so there is no need to make children wear one.

There will always be teasing between children. If it's not based on what clothes the kids are wearing, it'll be because of their hair colour[4], or the fact that they wear glasses [5]. Children need to learn from an early age that everyone is different, or how can they learn to accept that? The differences between people should be embraced; in making students wear a uniform, schools are wrongly teaching children that everyone should look the same.  When it comes to the opposition's evidence it should be remembered that opinion polls themselves are slippery, depending on the question asked, as is something like a belief in the benefits of school uniforms. There is also no evidence to link parent's belief that it promotes equality to whether it really does.

School uniforms contribute to the sense of school unity  Schools that have a uniform often say that they do so because wearing a uniform helps their students feel a sense of unity and pride in their school (e.g., Sacred Heart Catholic School, 2010)[15]. The headmistress of Fulham Cross School in London, England, has been quoted as saying that introducing a uniform at her school gave students "an incredible sense of pride"; after the introduction of a school uniform, GCSE passes at her school rose from 42 to 53 per cent[16].  This sense of unity is especially important on school trips, where teachers need to be able to tell which children belong to their school, so that no one gets lost.

School uniforms encourage discipline  Having to wear smart clothes encourages children to respect their school and their teachers and behave themselves. This is because of the association between smart clothes and work. Casual wear at school can also make students feel over-relaxed and 'at home,' meaning they don't focus as much on work. A lot of schools are bringing back school uniform because they want to improve discipline[21].  Moreover, school uniform can actively encourage students to enter into an adversarial relationship with the curriculum and their teachers. Exercising arbitrary control over children in the interests of “discipline” is likely to convince them that the very sensible, rational principles of learning and critical thought that they acquire during the school day are equally arbitrary and meaningless. By refusing to allow children to participate in enjoyable, beguiling processes of discovery and understanding unless they comply with unjustified and meaningless rules about dress, schools risk being seen as oppressive and capricious by their students.  1 The Telegraph, 2009. School uniforms return in drive to improve school discipline [online] 1 October.

School uniforms create a sense of equality  School catchment areas are diverse and in private schools, some children are there on a scholarship. So, without uniforms there are clear indicators of wealth between what children wear. This makes poorer children stand out, (or even possibly the reverse). Children can then be bullied for being different, which diminishes a child's enjoyment of school. A study in New York has shown that 84% of parents think uniforms promote equality, and 89% of guidance counselors think uniforms help teach children to be more accepting of others who are less fortunate[3]. This perception among parents will help create the same perception among their children. This is also likely to translate to the teachers who will therefore treat their pupils more equally.

School uniforms might help improve the feeling of unity within schools, but pride in one's school is dependent on being distinct and different from another school. This can lead increase rivalry between schools (already present from school sports matches). There are many examples of school rivalry (often made worse by the fact that children from different schools are made to wear different uniforms) leading to children being beaten up or worse. For example, in New Zealand, a boy was beaten up by boys from a rival school; he said that the boys told him he should be shot because he went to a different school, which they could see from his uniform[17]. Because of this rivalry, it might be better for students not to wear school uniforms on outings, where they might encounter children from other schools. Schools can use other things to make sure children don't get lost on school trips, like buddy schemes where each child has a buddy, and having plenty of teachers or assistant teachers. 1 TVNZ, 2007. Boy beaten as school rivalry heats up [online] 21 October.

Vocational training would not actually improve training in the skills which employers are concerned about. When people complain about a skills gap, there are two kinds of skills they are worried about: technical ones, in subjects like engineering, and general ones, such as the ability to present or to write clearly. This is something which is already done in university; the best way to learn how to present and write is to practice presenting and writing. Picking a subject, such as history, simply acts as a useful focus for this work.  As long as employers can be sufficiently clear about what it is they want graduates to be capable of, we will be able to incorporate this into existing courses – so in fact, even supposedly non-vocational courses will teach the right skills.  Technical careers like engineering and computer science might indeed benefit from the change, but it makes no sense to shape the whole education system around a limited set of jobs.

Vocational courses produce better employees  The courses which are generally offered at the moment are not serving students well when it comes to providing the skills for employment. 65% of businesses complain of being unable to hire people with the right skills. [1] Increasingly, universities are offering as a selling point the fact that they have extra-curricular courses to teach people business skills, but this is a tacit admission that they are selling people degrees which are not fit for purpose.  Solving this requires us to teach more vocationally. There are schemes underway in many areas to do just that – to give one example, in Maine, USA, a bill has been passed to improve local colleges. [2] Our policy moves these efforts from the fringes to the core of the system: isolate as far as possible the specific things which make good employees and teach those to people. This will help them get jobs more easily, and also ensure that companies are able to operate effectively. The consequences of such a policy would be good all round.  [1] Personnel Today, ‘Skills gap ‘hindering UK business growth’, say CEOs’, agr, 29 April 2013  [2] State House Bureau, ‘House Oks bill to plug ‘skills gap’, Portland Press Herald, 21 May 2013

The statement “universities can’t take everyone” is clearly true. But there is a big jump from that to saying “we should stop people from applying,” for two reasons. Firstly, the more obvious conclusion would be to find a way to increase the number of places available, on the grounds that more students means a larger pool of knowledge to draw from and therefore academia will be better. Secondly, for this to have the desired effect we would need the good people to continue to apply, and this is by no means guaranteed – they may simply waltz off into jobs and be lost to academia, in which case we will actually end up worse off.  The limited number of places is a problem, but the proposed solution may make things worse.

Students are forcing themselves through university even when it is not right for them  Not everyone should be spending their time in academic study. As well as requiring certain skills, it also requires that the personality of the student be suited to it. They must be capable of manufacturing a sustained interest in a subject, or they will not be able to drag themselves through three or more years of thinking about little else. Some people are, by nature, not that kind of person – they may think in a short-term way or simply not be curious about the world. It also requires a level of intelligence which some people simply don’t have. These people will gain very little from spending time at university. In fact, at some (typically less prestigious) universities, dropout rates can be as high as 20%, meaning students will literally gain nothing. [1]  Many people are putting themselves through university despite it not being right for them. Partial blame for this lies with employers – the large number of graduates means a culture has developed among recruiters of using the presence or absence of a degree as a default filter for applicants; 78% of leading employers filter out anyone with less than a 2:1. [2] We should discourage this. By implementing this policy, we create a different and better way to measure someone’s employability. This will make employers more likely to hire these people, and allow them to follow a path through life better suited to their personality.  [1] Paton, Graeme, ‘University drop-out rate soars by 13pc in a year’, The Telegraph, 29 March 2012  [2] Tims, Anna, ‘Get a third-class degree? Time to turn on the charm’, The Guardian, 11 September 2010

Everyone gains something from university, whether quantifiable or not. Simply getting out in to the world and meeting more people – not just minorities and other social groups, but even a wider variety of people within your own social group – is an effective way to learn to think more broadly. Many university students live away from home for the first time, forcing them to do things for themselves and learn how things like personal finance work. It also allows them space to explore themselves and shape their own principles. Non-academic activities within university can also broaden horizons and teach new things such as joining student clubs or societies, such as the debating society. Although university may not be the only way of doing this, it has proven effective over the years, so it’s not true to say non-academic people get absolutely nothing from it.  Despite the problems associated with a degree culture, there are other problems with a non-academic culture. Academia creates things: products and inventions in the case of sciences, and thoughts or ideas in the case of humanities (and even though some people argue against government funding for humanities, almost no-one argues they should not be studied at all). Sustaining this creativity requires at least some new people entering the field, bringing their own insights and approaches. For this to happen, it has to be both respectable and accessible. A government policy against academic courses will cripple this and damage all of us.

This is a mischaracterisation of how academics work. No serious researcher cuts themselves off from the world to work: collaboration, exchange of ideas and chatting by the water cooler are invaluable. Often, a crucial insight into a problem comes from a casual reference by a colleague. Every report into improving research environments stresses the importance of collaboration, both within a discipline and between disciplines.  Anyone who loves their subject will be happy to have more people studying and sharing ideas with them, even if those people are not quite as committed as they are. If those people then leave to do vocational stuff, they will have at least been a positive presence.

Universities don’t have unlimited places available  Universities cannot take every student who applies. They have to balance the number of applications they get with both the number of teaching staff they have and the time they need for research. In the UK, almost a third of applicants do not get places as it is, [1] and those that do often find they have less contact time with staff than they had expected. [2] Simply put, if you want to have academics doing useful research, you can’t expect them to teach all the time.  If universities have a finite number of places, it makes sense that they should be allocated to the people best suited for them. Currently, universities are so overwhelmed by demand that it isn’t possible for them to test this properly – in most cases, they will take a cursory look at predicted grades, and perhaps an interview with the candidate. Discouraging applicants would lower the stress on admissions departments, making the process more accurate. It will also allow them more leisure to reach out to and target students with the right personality, improving the quality of applications.  Forget all of the discussion as to whether or not academic courses are useful – it’s simply not practical to have everyone do them.  [1] ‘UCAS End of Cycle report 2012’, UCAS, 13 December 2012  [2] Paton, Graeme, ‘University teaching time ‘fails to rise’ despite fees hike’, The Telegraph, 15 May 2013

Academia must be free of distractions  The best academic departments are ones run with purely academic aims. Intensive study of a field requires that you are given the resources, support, time and space that you need. Moreover, the best atmosphere is one in which everyone around you shares your love of study. It follows that departments should be allowed to use this as their top priority. This affects undergraduate study in two ways: students must be free to spend time getting to grips with their subject properly, and lecturers must be allowed to teach the things they feel to be most important for their subject.  Neither of these things are possible when you are worrying about jobs. Every subject has certain parts which are more or less relevant to their related careers, but this may not be the same as the parts which are important to academic study of the subject. For example, maths students will invariably be taught Linear Algebra and Group Theory, normally in the first year, but 20% of Mathematics graduates work in Business &amp; Finance, where this is not relevant. If everyone is expected to have one eye on vocational training the academic study will necessarily suffer.  Solving this problem requires that we split vocational and academic study, so that people doing one don’t need to worry about the other. This will improve each of them.

Clearly, more tolerance is a good thing, but putting people through an expensive, three-year course with no career benefit is a sensible way to achieve this. As an example of an alternative, give more support to gap-year programmes and run them in such a way as to get an equivalent mixing. People will learn just as much tolerance in one year as in three, will save time and can even do useful volunteering while they’re on it. This is not mutually exclusive with our policy, which means that you get both benefits.

The importance of university to minority groups derives directly from its importance to the rest of the country. It is seen as the key to things like higher-paying jobs for low-income families because it is seen as the key to higher-paying jobs in general. Moreover, this is based on an attitude problem: there are plenty of jobs which do not require degree-level education and which can pay very well at the top end. [1] Under our vocational system, this will all change, and academic study will no longer be the benchmark for success.  Alternatively, even under the current system, what matters to people generally is not the fact of university education alone, it is the careers which it opens up – in particular, stereotypically middle-class careers such as lawyers and bankers. Vocational training would give children just as many opportunities, if not more, as they are not being forced through an academic process of questionable utility first.  [1] Smith, Jacquelyn, ‘America’s Best-Paying Blue-Collar Jobs’, Forbes, 6th April 2012

Life experience is an essential part of personal development  People gain much more than a subject from their time at university. Life requires interpersonal skills, self-discipline and general knowledge which must be absorbed over time. There are distinct advantages to picking up these skills before you start work. Firstly, it will make you a more effective worker, whether you are working alone (self-discipline) or with other people (interpersonal skills). Secondly, while working you are likely to have much less time for that sort of thing. Thirdly, you will be to go through on-the-job training more easily if you already know how to study.  All of this can be done very effectively at university. You are allowed time and space to learn planning, budgeting, finding and managing accommodation and a myriad other things which will help you in life. So to say that people don’t gain anything from non-vocational courses is misleading – even if the study doesn’t help them, the life experience does.

We must retain a respect for academia  Academia is important to society. Technical subjects have the obvious outcomes of new inventions, gadgets, medicines etc. – and although these applications are vocational, they are inspired by academic study. Creative arts are also a huge industry in their own right. Humanities are a source of ideas about society, happiness, social policy and cultural understanding, besides simply being interesting. [1] This is all activity which we should encourage.  Emphasising vocational training would damage the image of academia. Quite apart from the fact that reduced government support for the sector is likely to damage it in real terms, it is very likely that if people are being told by the whole government education system that vocational training is more useful for themselves and for society, they will come to regard non-vocational courses with suspicion. Pressure to conform is a real factor, especially for schoolchildren at ages when they are unlikely to see any reason for a principled, pro-academia stance. This means fewer children will go into it and fewer people will tolerate support for it.  Preserving the prestige of non-vocational courses is important, and it requires government policy to take them seriously.  [1] ‘Section 3: What Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences Offers’, British Academy, accessed 12 June 2013

Universities cut across class and social divides in a unique way  University is a great equaliser. One positive side-effect of people going through university is that they are virtually guaranteed to interact with people who are different from them in all sorts of ways – including ethnicity, where minority groups are sometimes better represented than they are in the general population, [1] and international students account for 17% of the university population. [2] The more this mixing happens, the easier it is for people to be tolerant and sensitive to other people. While this isn’t necessarily a problem everywhere, there are still places where these divides cause tension and violence, so the fact that our policy helps to tackle this makes it good.  Vocational courses are rather less likely to be mixed. Certain careers are associated with certain groups, and people studying for that specific career will be drawn largely from that group. For example, the clients of an accountancy course and a construction course are not likely to overlap very much, if at all. Despite whatever merits vocational education may have, government policy is not just about education: it should take into account the wider social good, and so we should be on the side which produces a more tolerant society.  [1] Sellgren, Katherine’, ‘Rise in ethnic minority students at UK universities’, BBC News, 3 February 2010  [2] ‘International students in UK higher education: key statistics’, UK Council for International Student Affairs, 2011-12

University education gives people something to aim for  University education is something which a lot of traditionally disadvantaged groups aspire to, for themselves or, more commonly, for their children. Those who are accepted are seen as having “made good,” partly because of the prestige attached to intelligence and partly because of the correlation with higher salaries.  However, this can be hard for them: they may be from lower-income families, where there is no family history of higher education, or they may be from immigrant communities, who have struggled to learn the local language. These children are therefore likely to encounter significant barriers to getting to university. But a permanent lottery-of-birth, where only children of successful people can ever be successful, would not be fair. All children should be helped to build their own futures regardless of their background and broad access to university is necessary for this. It is notable that most of the countries with the most social mobility (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden) are also those with the highest rates of graduation from tertiary education, Canada is the only outlier. [1] This is the reason the government generally gives them extra support so as to make university realistic.  If the government switches focus to vocational courses, it will necessarily lower the amount of support available for these children to get to university. This makes it harder for them to break out of poverty, harder to improve their station in life and harder for them to gain status in their community. This is too valuable to give up.  [1] This is clearly very inexact, there are countries with very high graduation rates (Iceland being top) that are not on the intergenerational earnings elasticity graph so can’t be compared.  Corak, Miles, ‘Here is the source for the “Great Gatsby Curve” in the Alan Krueger speech at the Center for American Progress on January 12’, Economics for public policy, 12 January 2012  ‘Tertiary education graduation rates Percentage of graduates to the population at the typical age of graduation’, OECD ilibrary, 14 June 2010

It is entirely consistent to respect academia while insisting it isn’t appropriate for everyone. By way of analogy, consider that few people do serious sport, but almost no-one looks down on those who do (thinking particularly of casual sport rather than professional sport). We are perfectly capable of seeing the value in things which we don’t do ourselves.  It is even plausible that under the new system academics would become an elite cadre of intellectuals whom schoolchildren would aspire to join and the status of academia would be considerably enhanced. There is a well-known saying, “familiarity breeds contempt.” If fewer people were tempted to think of themselves as amateur scientists, amateur historians etc., we might have more respect for the real ones.

None of the above is unique to university. It is possible to find something useful to do practically wherever you are, including university. That doesn’t make it the most important, efficient or effective thing to do – or, indeed, the best place to do it. Anyone on a vocational course will pick up the same general skills and study techniques at least as well.  We agree that there is an advantage to knowing how to study before you start job training, but we don’t think the right answer is to do other, random study first – the skills should ideally be taught at school, or as an introduction to the job training.

For whatever reason the treasures were first collected, we should not rewrite history. There is no reason to politicise this argument; museums have no 'political' agenda but merely wish to preserve historical objects for their intrinsic value. Their reasons for keeping these items may be financial, or in the interests of keeping the artefacts safe and accessible to the public; whatever they may be, they are not political. Don’t the nations who have expended resources protecting and preserving these artefacts deserve in return the right to display them?  Additionally, not all artefacts held outside their country of origin are the result of imperial or exploitative relationships. The original Medieval Crown of England is held in Munich [1] . Artistic exchange has nothing to do with politics anymore.  [1] Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, ‘Treasury (Schatzkammer)'

Retaining artefacts is a relic of imperialist attitudes to non-occidental cultures  Display of cultural treasures in Western museums may be seen as a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true cultural successors to Ancient Greece and Rome, and that the ‘barbarian’ inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt; it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre is a reminder to many developing nations of their past oppression. For instance, the British Museum is refusing to return 700 of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria despite repeated requests by the Nigerian government [1] . The Rosetta stone has been the subject of demands by the Egyptian government but remains in London. These artefacts become almost souvenirs of Imperialism, a way of retaining cultural ownership long after the political power of Britain has faded. Returning them would be a gesture of goodwill and cooperation.  [1] “The British Museum which refuses to state clearly how many of the bronzes it has is alleged to be detaining has 700 bronzes whilst the Ethnology Museum, Berlin, has 580 pieces and the Ethnology Museum, Vienna, has 167 pieces. These museums refuse to return any pieces despite several demands for restitution.” From Opoku, Kwame, ‘France returns looted artefacts to Nigeria: Beginning of a long process or an isolated act?’ 29th January 2010

Although some treasures may have been acquired illegally, the evidence for this is often ambiguous. Experts agree that Greece could mount no court case because Elgin was granted permission by what was then Greece's ruling government. Lord Elgin’s bribes were the common way of facilitating any business in the Ottoman Empire, and do not undermine Britain’s solid legal claim to the Parthenon marbles, based upon a written contract made by the internationally-recognised authorities in Athens at the time. The veracity of the document can never be fully dismissed as it is a translation. And while some Benin bronzes were undoubtedly looted, other “colonial trophies” were freely sold to the imperial powers, indeed some were made specifically for the European market.

Cultural artefacts are enriched when displayed in the context from which they originated  Cultural treasures should be displayed in the context in which they originated; only then can they be truly valued and understood. In the case of the Parthenon marbles this is an architectural context which only proximity to the Parthenon itself can provide. In the British Museum they appear as mere disconnected fragments, stripped of any emotional meaning. It may also be useful for academics to have a cultural property in its original context in order to be able to understand it, for example a carved door may be a beautiful artefact but it cannot be truly understood unless we know what the door was used for, where it leads too something for which it is necessary to see the context.  Cultural and historical tourism is an important source of income for many countries, and is especially important for developing countries. If their artefacts have been appropriated by foreign museums in wealthy nations then they are being deprived of the economic opportunity to build a successful tourist trade. Both the treasures themselves are being devalued as is the experience of seeing the treasures.

The artefacts' place of origin has more often than not changed dramatically since they were in situ there. It is therefore unconvincing to argue that the context of modern Orthodox Greece aids visitors’ appreciation of an ancient pagan relic. Too much has changed physically and culturally over the centuries for artefacts to speak more clearly in their country of origin than they do in museums, where they can be compared to large assemblies of objects from a wide variety of cultures. Similarly, a great many cultural treasures relate to religions and cultures which no longer survive and there can be no such claim for their return. Technology has also evolved to the point that Ancient Greece can be just as accurately evoked virtually as it could be in modern Greece [1] .  Countries with cultural heritage retain the attraction of being the original locations of historical events or places of interest even without all the artefacts in place. The sanctuaries of Olympia and Delphi in Greece are a good example of this; they are not filled with artefacts, but continue to attract visitors because the sites are interesting in themselves. In 2009 2,813,548 people visited Athens, with 5,970,483 visiting archaeological sites across Greece [2] , even without the Parthenon marbles. Also, people who have seen an artefact in a foreign museum may then be drawn to visit the area it originated from. It is the tourist trade of the nations where these artefacts are held (mostly northern European nations, like Britain and France) which would suffer if they were repatriated. Lacking the climate and natural amenities of other tourist destinations they rely on their cultural offerings in order to attract visitors  [1] Young Explorers, ‘A brief history of…’ The British Museum.  [2] AFP, ‘New Acropolis Museum leads rise in Greek Museum visitor numbers for 2009’, Elginism, June 8th 2010. (Breakdown of visitor figures according to major destinations. )

In the case of the Parthenon marbles, Lord Elgin’s action in removing them was an act of rescue as the Parthenon was being used as a quarry by the local population. [1] The Parthenon had already been destroyed by an explosion in 1687. [2] Having been removed the result was that the British protected them between 1821 and 1833 during the Greek War of Independence was occurring and the Acropolis was besieged twice. [3] Furthermore, if they had been returned upon Greek independence in 1830, the heavily polluted air of Athens would have caused extensive damage to such artefacts that would be open to the elements and Greek attempts at restoration in 1898 were as damaging as the British. [4] Today economic austerity lends new uncertainty to Greece’s commitment to financing culture.  Similar problems face the return of artefacts to African museums; wooden figures would decay in the humid atmosphere. Artefacts in Northern Africa are at risk because of the recent revolts and civil wars [5] . Wealthier countries sometimes simply have better resources to protect, preserve and restore historical artefacts than their country of origin. Our moral obligation is to preserve the artefact for future generations, and if this is best achieved by remaining in a foreign country then that must be the course of action.  [1] Beard, Mary, ‘Lord Elgin - Saviour or Vandal?’, BBC History, 17 February 2011.  [2] Mommsen, Theodor E., ‘The Venetian in Athens and the Destruction of the Parthenon in 1687’, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol 45, No. 4, Oct-Dec 1941, pp. 544-556.  [3] Christopher Hitchens, The Elgin Marbles: Should They Be Returned to Greece?, 1998,p.viii, ISBN 1-85984-220-8  [4] Hadingham, Evan, ‘Unlocking Mysteries of the Parthenon’ Smithsonian Magazine, February 2008.  [5] Parker, Nick ‘Raiders of the Lost Mubarak’, , The Sun, 1st Feburary 2011.

Many artefacts resting in western museums were acquired illegally. Western states have a duty to retain them.  Artefacts were often acquired illegally. Elgin, for instance, appropriated the Parthenon Marbles from the Ottoman authorities who had invaded Greece and were arguably not the rightful owners of the site; he took advantage of political turmoil to pillage these ancient statues. Doubt has even been cast on the legality of the 1801 document which purportedly gave Elgin permission to remove the marbles [1] . The Axum obelisk was seized from Ethiopia by Mussolini as a trophy of war; fortunately the injustice of this action has since been recognised and the obelisk was restored to its rightful place in 2005 [2] .  UNESCO regulations initially required the return of artefacts removed from their country of origin after 1970,when the treaty came into force, but did not deal with any appropriations before this date due to deadlock in the negotiations for the framing of the convention that prevented inclusion of earlier removals. . However, the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects essentially removes the ambiguity about time limitations of UNESCO’s 1970 convention. Here, nations are required, in all cases, to return cultural artefacts to their countries of origin if those items were once stolen or removed illegally [3] . International law is thus on the side of returning artefacts.  [1] Rudenstine, David, 'Did Elgin cheat at marbles?' Nation, Vol. 270, Issue 21, 25 May 2000.  [2] BBC News, ‘Who should own historic artefacts?’, 26th April 2005,  [3] Odor, ‘The Return of Cultural Artefacts to Countries of Origin’.

Developing countries are able to guard and preserve their own cultural treasures  It may have been true that countries such as Greece were not capable of looking after their heritage in the past, but that has now changed. Since 197  5 Greece has been carefully restoring the Acropolis and Athens now has a secure environment to maintain the marbles. The state-of-the-art New Acropolis Museum, which cost $200m, has now been completed to house the surviving marbles [1] , and even contains a replica of the temple, thus the marbles would appear as being exactly the same as on the real temple. Pollution control measures (such as installing pollution monitoring stations throughout metropolitan Athens and ensuring that motor vehicles must comply with emission standards [2] ) have reduced sulphur-dioxide levels in the city to a fifth of their previous levels.  At the same time the curatorship of institutions such as the British Museum is being called into question, as it becomes apparent that controversial cleaning and restoration practices may have harmed the sculptures they claim to protect. In the 1930s the British museum’s attempt to clean them using chisels caused irreparable damage. [3] They have also been irresponsible when it comes to protecting the fate of many of its artefacts: “The British Museum has sold off more than 30 controversial Benin bronzes for as little as £75 each since 1950, it has emerged”; “The museum now regrets the sales” [4] .  [1] Acropolis museum, Home page.  [2] Alexandros.com, ‘Greece’.  [3] Smith, Helena, ‘British damage to Elgin marbles ‘irreparable’’, The Guardian, 12 November 1999.  [4] BBC News, ‘Benin bronzes sold to Nigeria’, 27th March 2002.

Many people from an artefact's country of origin never get to see them because they cannot afford to travel to a foreign museum; as such the cost of access to that museum is a very small part of the total cost. These artefacts are part of their cultural history and national identity, and it is important that local people are given the opportunity to see them. It is not all about quantity of visitors; those closest to the artefacts have the greatest right to see them. For others, it should be a privilege not a right.

If the artefacts are of sufficient historical and cultural interest, scholars will travel to any location in order to study them. Indeed, the proximity of artefacts in developing countries may even stimulate intellectual curiosity and increase the quality of universities in there, which would be beneficial for world culture.

The historical significance of artefacts extends beyond their culture of origin  Artefacts have a historical and symbolic meaning that transcends their origins; over the years they acquire a connection with the place that they are housed. For example, the Egyptian obelisk that stands in the Piazza di San Pietro in Rome was brought to Italy in the reign of Caligula. [1] It is no longer merely an ‘Egyptian’ artefact - it has become a symbol of Roman dominance in the ancient world and the European Christian culture that succeeded it. During the Middle Ages it was believed that the ashes of Julius Caesar were contained in the gilt ball at the top [2] .  Further, all artefacts are part of a world-wide collective history. Olduvai handaxes (from countries in Eastern Africa such as Tanzania) are held in the British Museum [3] - but the people who made them are our ancestors just as much as they are the ancestors of local people. Holding these in London encourages us to see the common ground we hold with people everywhere in the world, whereas keeping them only in their local country only highlights our differences and tribal identities. “Culture knows no political borders. It never has. It’s always been mongrel; it’s always been hybrid; and it’s always moved across borders or bears the imprint of earlier contact” [4] .  [1] Saintpetersbasilica.org, ‘The Obelisk’.  [2] Wikipedia, ‘List of obelisks in Rome’, And Wikipedia, ‘Saint Peter’s Sqaure’, (Both have useful links and pictures.)  [3] The British Museum, ‘Highlights Olduvai Handaxe’.  [4] Cuno, James, author of ‘Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over our Ancient Heritage’, quoted in Tiffany Jenkins, ‘Culture knows no political borders’, The Spectator July 2008.

In many cases, returning an artefact may prove to be unreasonably expensive  Even with modern transport links and technology, transporting every artefact in a foreign museum back to its original location would be an impractically mammoth task. The risk of damage to artefacts would be unavoidable, not to mention the possibility of theft or sabotage en route. Important artefacts in transit would be an ideal public target for acts of terrorism. Moreover, the infrastructure of developing countries is probably not sufficient to cope with that volume. Greece may have spent $200m developing a new museum but relatively it is one of the more wealthy countries of origin for artefacts in the British Museum; places such as Nigeria are unlikely to put such emphasis on cultural investment.  Museums all over the world do loan out their collections [1] . Just because they are held in another country’s museum does not mean that the place of origin would not be able to access artefacts. Creating a generous and dynamic network of sharing relics between museums would be a much more realistic way of sharing and ensuring that all could benefit from seeing them.  [1] The British Museum, ‘Tours and loans’.

Artefacts should be made accessible to the largest possible number of visitors  Art treasures should be accessible to the greatest number of people and to scholars, because only then can the educational potential of these artefacts be realised. In response to a question about whether museums have any social responsibility, Richard Armstrong, director at the Guggenheim, said “Absolutely, it began with the French Revolution. It is the more than a 200-year-old quest to have the most powerful cultural artefacts available to the greatest number of people. One could say it is the project of democratizing beauty” [1] . In practice this means retaining them in the great museums of the world. Further some of the world great museums, such as those in Britain and the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. are free of charge.  [1] Boudin, Claudia, ‘Richard Armstrong on the Future of the Solomon R Guggenheim Foundation’, 4th November 2008.

Scholars will have better access to artefacts, and more opportunities for study and collaboration, if they are stored in the west  If the Rosetta Stone had not been taken by the British in 1801, the deciphering of the ancient hieroglyphic language of the ancient Egyptian civilizations would have been near impossible. The British Museum is within just hours, and in some cases minutes, of such world-renowned institutions as Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, and Edinburgh. The scientific research that occurs in stable developed countries and scientifically excelling countries is of the highest degree, and parallels to this high level of study are simply non-existent in many underdeveloped countries.

Returning artefacts to their original locations would in the past have been an unfeasible project simply because of the risk of transporting everything. Now, however, transport is much quicker and easier and we have improved technology to make the transit less damaging to the artefact; for instance, temperature-controlled containers.

Artefacts often have unique religious and cultural connections with the place from where they were taken, but none for those who view them in museum cases. To the descendants of their creators it is offensive to see aspects of their spirituality displayed for the entertainment of foreigners. Meanings may have accumulated around artefacts, but their true significance is rooted in its origins.

The temporal linking argument itself cannot be disputed, but the idea that this is what gets parents invested can again be questioned, as noted above.

Collaborative Approach  In order for a child’s misbehaviour to be successfully remedied, the child must receive a consistent message on what is appropriate both at home and at school. In many instances parents may condone behaviour that schools and teacher find unacceptable. In other instances, professionals at schools can aid parents in targeting specific behaviours to work on in a specific order in a program that integrates the child’s behaviour at both school and home. Moreover, uniform and consistent rewards and negative reinforcements from school and home are tremendously useful for helping rehabilitate a child’s behaviour. [1]  When initiating such programs, the major problem is often that the parents give in and do not adhere to the agreed upon program, which serves to teach the child that unacceptable behaviour is sometimes condonable. It’s understandable that parents, who must be with the children a majority of the time, sometimes may find it easier to simply give in and pacify the child and inadvertently award destructive behaviour. Therefore, a system of parental investment, as proposed here, will ensure that the parents have something riding on sticking to a disciplinary program as well, which ultimately aids the child.  In the case of parents being penalized for criminal offenses by children, one can modify this argument to fit by noting that often juvenile facilities will use schools as part of a behavioural modification program, therefore the consistency noted above is still critical.  [1] Robinson, Virginia, ‘Bridging the gap between school and home’, Raising Achievement Update, July 2008,

Authority aversion is a good counterargument here. (see op argument 4)

Individual Responsibility  The philosophy underling the proposition is one in which the child is not solely responsible for his or her own behaviour. Even if the threats of parental punishment and involvement are successful in the short term in modifying a child’s behaviour, the long term sequlae is that the child’s good behaviour is predicated not on an understanding of the consequence of their behaviour and a consideration of their own long term interests, but merely out of fear and external consequences.  In the long run, instilling this message is likely to lead to future misbehaviour as the external punishments, in this case imposed on the parents, fall away. Once the child reaches an age at which the parents cannot be punished or the child does not care about parental punishment, building an ethic around such external consequences will fail to deter the child from misbehaviour. (See argument 4)

Parental Incentives  Addressing the behavioural problems of children requires active parental participation. However, in many cases, parents are either not fully aware of their children’s problems, or more importantly, delay the active disciplining of their children.  This is critical, as for the cycle of negative and positive reinforcement to be effective in behaviour modification, there must be a temporal link between misbehaviour and any potential punishment. In a desire to avoid future fines, or whatever the penalty the parents face, there is an active incentive to not only intervene in the child’s misbehaviour, but also to do so in a timely way, which is the most proven way to change children’s behaviour.  Moreover, if there is any tendency for parents to overlook or avoid the problems of chronically unruly children, this serves as an impetus for keeping up with discipline notices and paying attention to the child’s infractions.  A lack of parental involvement has for example regularly been cited as being partially to blame for the riots in the UK during August 2011. [1]  [1] Gentleman, Amelia, ‘UK riots: ‘Being liberal is fine, but we need to be given the right to parent’’, guardian.co.uk, 10 August 2011,

The danger for abuse argument from the opposition side is a good counterargument. Moreover, one might analyse the probabilities that this particular incentive will be a tipping point in the case of marginal parents (the ones that are not already fully involved in their children’s discipline for whom this might be the tipping point). Most caring parents will already be quite invested and do the best they can because they care for their child. Those who do lapse likely have some sort of structural familial problems, whether they hold many jobs and work very hard to keep the family going, or are simply bad parents. In these cases, is this likely to be the factor that changes these parents’ behaviours? Unlikely.

Children are too young to internalize and understand broad philosophies of responsibility. A small child refrains from stealing a cookie out of fear of being caught, not out of some grand regard for a morally just universe in which his actions must be scrutinized. Later on, as the child gets older, his/her understanding can mature.

The “unjust” argument is a good counter. One could cite some neurobiology evidence that lack of discipline is due to complex cognitive deficits that manifest through delayed brain development even in otherwise normal seeming children, which belies the “parental responsibility/failure” view. To start with, cognitive deficits can be caused by genetic factors or other things which started before birth, and can stop children being able to function normally. [1]  [1] Tynan, W. Douglas, ‘Cognitive Deficits’, Medscape Reference, 3 June 2013,

Children Held Accountable  Often, children who have been trapped in a cycle of lack of discipline and disciplinary problems tend not to care about their punishment. [1] Detention may be seen as a welcome respite from classes, and other punishments over time may cease to make an impression on the child. After all, there is only so much that an institution can do to discipline a child.  Using this mechanism opens up a far more effective repertoire of discipline. More importantly, while the child may cease to regard any punishments handed down on him or her, often there will still be a desire to avoid actively harming the parents, which occurs under this system. [2]  The argument also extends in the case of criminal punishments. In the psychology of a child, he or she may not fully internalize the effects on their future a shoplifting arrest may have. However, the thought of their parents being punished in such an offense may lead to the deterrence necessary to prevent such actions.  In effect, the argument is that when punishments to the child him or herself fail to act as a deterrent, the child seeing punishments imposed on the parents as a result of his or her actions may reinvigorate the deterrent effect.  In addition, this allows an extra tool in the teacher’s arsenal, and the mere thought of perhaps “triggering” a parental punishment may help bring some children into line.  [1] Pawel, Jody Johnston, ‘Child Abuse of Discipline: What is the Difference?’, Parent’s Toolshop,   [2] ‘Mother jailed for girls’ truancy’, 2002,

Parental Responsibility  In most cases, in which the child is not subject to some sort of constitutional problem (genetic condition or otherwise), the disruptive behaviour of a child is a reflection of in adequate parental intervention over time. A normal child under normal circumstances should be expected to conform to behavioural expectations, and the failure to do so represents a partial inadequate job by the parents.  The result is a cost that is transmitted to society. Children that are disruptive in school or in society via the criminal justice system cost the system extra money either in school resources and time or judicial-police resources as well as in the more obvious costs such as fixing vandalism and graffiti. [1] Even worse; if a student drops out as a result of his discipline problems the cost to society has been estimated as $232,000-388,000. [2] Given that the parent is in part to blame for failing to control the child’s behaviour, in the time during which the parent is the primary custodian of the child, it is fair to pass on a measure of this cost to the parent.  [1] Batten, George, ‘The Main Cause of School Budget Problems is School Discipline’, School Discipline Made Easy,   [2] Hymel, Shelley, and Henderson, Natalie Rocke, ‘Helping Students who are Experiencing Persistent and/or Serious Discipline Problems to Succeed in School: The State of the Evidence’, Ontario Ministry of Education Research Symposium, 18-20 January 2006,

One way to deal with this argument is by noting that this would be one tool in a school’s arsenal. If it proves to be obviously counterproductive, then it will not be employed, in the same way that other disciplinary tactics schools/society can impose will not be used if they are seen to be adverse or ineffective.

The “parental responsibility” argument is a good counter here. An appeal to the fact that some lax parents clearly raise spoiled children can also be effective in building intuition about the notion that parents are imposing a cost through their actions.

Danger for Abuse  Many children that have consistent behavioural problems at school come from dysfunctional families in which either physical or emotional abuse and neglect is common. This has then resulted in behavior disorders such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder. [1] While it would be nice to believe that parents would respond to the stated incentives in a healthy way, it must be considered that it is just as likely that in some of these households parents would crack down violently (again, either emotionally or physically ) on their children. Such actions by parental role models often lead to a vicious cycle in which the behaviour is then continued at school and in future generations.  It is difficult to say what proportion of households may respond in this fashion, but if even a small proportion of children are actively harmed by this policy, it is a strong argument against its uniform adoption.  [1] ‘Behaviour Problems in Children and Adolescents’, Children’s Mental Health Ontario,

Authority Aversion  A short argument, but a potentially powerful one. The assumption that children will not act out even more under such a regime in a bid to lash out at parents is untenable. Misbehaviour at school is often a rebellion against authority anyway, and the ultimate authority in most children’s lives is the parents. Therefore, as acting out against both of these institutions is consistent with the misbehaving mind set, it follows that tying school misbehaviour to parental detriments is unlikely to affect the child and may even serve to encourage their bad deeds.

Unjust  There is an argument to be made that this form of punishment of parents is simply unjust. The legal basis of punishment is based on the principle that a sane individual is fully responsible for his or her actions. One can always point to dysfunctional families or other influences that may have had an effect on an individual’s actions, but the level of influence is impossible to quantify. Therefore, any level of punishment that is meted out to external sources cannot be matched proportionally to actions taken by these outside parties, thereby abrogating the principle of proportional punishment. As a result, any just system of punishment is bound by this constraint, and shifting responsibility to external sources is not consistent with our principles.  This argument functions best in the criminal justice context, but applies in the school context as well. Schools that adopt this policy must examine the ethical underpinnings of the policy, and if the policy itself is immoral, then regardless of its efficacy (which is disputed in the first argument and later on) the policy should not be adopted.

One could say that in cases in which abuse is suspected the program would be suspended for that child, and that teacher’s always have an obligation to report abuse (in the U.S., anyhow).

The cost of extending the period of compulsory education is just too high. In many countries the number of students in the last two years of formal schooling would at least double, requiring a huge investment in teachers, books, new school buildings, computers, etc. And this is just the direct cost - there are also potentially enormous indirect losses to the state in terms of the taxes and pension contributions which it currently receives from young workers but would forego if the school-leaving age was raised.

Raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society's future  Doing so increases the economic potential of the future workforce, and so will bring increased tax revenues in the long term to more than cover any initial costs. Although some countries would experience a more dramatic change than others, it is worth noting that in many states a very large majority of young people voluntarily stay in education beyond the end of compulsory schooling (e.g. France, Germany and Japan). In the UK 84 per cent of pupils in year 10 stated that they had intentions to stay on in further education. [1] If these countries can already bear the extra cost without economic collapse, it should be possible for others to cope as well.  [1] Office for National Statistics. Social Trends. 2009,  , ch 3

Unfortunately equality in the job market is unlikely to emerge simply because everyone now stays in school for the same amount of time. As noted above, not everyone will get the same out of school for being there the same time. Those who achieve the best exam results will still be the most employable, especially if they go into tertiary education before finding a job.

More education brings more opportunities  More education provides the opportunity to acquire more skills and therefore more options. It has been shown many times that those with more education find it easier to find work and that they are more likely to find that work satisfying. Similarly, the level of education among the population can have a positive effect on the economy as a whole as they can be more efficient workers. The impact of extra years of education on earnings and economic productivity is also disproportionately heavy at the lower end - that is, two more years at school for a 16 year old will make a much greater percentage difference to their later economic worth than two years of graduate work for a 22 year old. The UK has recently raised the school leaving age to 18 for the same reasons. [1]  [1] Browne, Anthony and Webster, Philip, ‘School leaving age goes up to 18’, 2007

This argument suggests that children whom Britain's state schools have failed to teach even to read and write should be compelled to stay at those schools for an extra two years. It will not suddenly bring new opportunities just because children are forced to sit in a classroom for longer.  This is absurd. It is re-enforcing failure. It is an idea according to which, if climbing a mountain on your hands and knees does not work, then you should be made to go on doing it. [1]  [1] Bartholomew, James, ‘Raising the school-leaving age would be crazy’, 2006,

Raising the school learning age promotes equal opportunities  Ensuring everyone gets educated for the same amount of time at school should promote equality. Currently early-school leaving is linked with other indicators of socio-economic disadvantage, such as low-income jobs or high unemployment. More importantly parents who left school young and as a consequence have lower-grade occupations are more likely to have children who leave school early (only 60% of those children stay in education past 16) [1] . Forcing all children to stay in school longer could break this cycle of disadvantage. [2]  [1] Ibid, ch 3  [2] RTE News, ‘Early school leavers earn lower wages’, 2009,

Leaving school early is not necessary. Simply in a few cases there is a need for more government intervention in order to make sure that everyone is able to afford to remain in school up to the age of 18. If children are unqualified at 16 then there is all the more reason to teach them the basics that they have failed to grasp for two more years. There could also be some exceptions as in the British system where there are exemptions for under-18s who are caring for parents or relatives, and for teenage mothers. [1]  [1] Browne, Anthony and Webster, Philip, ‘School leaving age goes up to 18’, 2007,

UK statistics plainly show “There is no evidence that raising the minimum school leaving age made people who had not intended to leave at the minimum age raise their educational standard. This is consistent with the view that education raises productivity and not with the view that productive people get more education.” [1]  [1] Zhu, Y., &amp; Walker, I. Education, earnings and productivity: recent UK evidence, 2003,

Not all skills are best learnt in a classroom environment.  Practical skills (for example carpentry, cookery, gardening etc.), are often best learnt ‘on-the-job’ or through an apprenticeship. Both routes place young people into contact with professionals in the field as well as giving them access to a wider range of tools and materials than could possibly be available in schools. For many young people who would like to work in these areas extra years at school will merely be time ‘treading water’ before they can get on with learning the skills of their trade. This is even more alarming in the case of the UK with the new tuition fees for universities, which are likely to decrease the chances of certain socio-economic categories of going to university at all.

There are cases where leaving school early is necessary  Working early can be an advantage in some circumstances. Many families need their children to make an economic contribution to the family income, often for example on a farm or in a family business. Working early can help these families to survive. Similarly unqualified individuals can gain equality or even an advantage over their qualified peers by having a few years’ work-experience ‘on-the-shop-floor’. If they are forced to stay in school as long as their peers they lose this advantage. Recognizing this, the British government introduced 21,000 extra apprenticeships in 2009 in an attempt to ensure those who aren’t suited to school do not fall behind when it comes to finding a job and a sustainable income. (Lipsett, 2009)

Forced education achieves little  Unfortunately just being in school does not guarantee that a student is learning. If they lack aptitude, ability or interest the extra time in the classroom is likely to benefit them very little, especially when they have not chosen to be there. It also poses a sharp divide on the question of disruptive children. If they are excluded from school their disadvantage is extended over more years while if they are included, they damage the education of others in their class for even longer. As Henry Phibbs argues “Increasing the school-leaving age will not result in more being learned – just more broken windows in the locality of the school. Children fed up with school need an escape route, not an extension of their sentence.” [1]  [1] Phibbs, H., ‘Let them leave school at 14’, 2011,

Practical Skills can be taught in school. Many school systems have vocational schools. For example the German system vocational schools, Berufsschulen, have been around since the 19th Century where students spent part of their time in vocational training in the school and part of their time as apprentices, these are attended until at least the age of 18. [1] It is possible for Schooling to be flexible while still continuing to 18.  [1] Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany London, ‘Education’, 2011,

Poetry should not be seen as something that one studies after learning English but should, instead, be seen as a way to help students grasp the English language. Many aspects of English are improved through the study of poetry. Learning poetry involves repetitive reading and an exploration of vowels and syllables. Students also explore a variety of sentence structures and are given the opportunity to explore the creativity and flexibility available in language. Furthermore, by reading poetry students can improve their reading ability and public speaking skills.

Students need to study the basics of language not a complex form such as poetry  According to a report published in 2011 [3] a great number of pupils in England are struggling after starting secondary school and 3 out of 10 pupils are not making enough progress in English. If pupils are not making the required progress in basic English then it is difficult to understand the motivation behind teaching complex poetry. If a student is unable to do basic multiplication it makes no sense to ask them to do complicated mathematic equations. The same is true in English: pupils who struggle with things like grammar and vocabulary should not be expected to tackle complicated poetic structures.

Musicians have, for some time, been awarded poet status. Early in his career Bob Dylan was described as being “as good as Keats [an early 19th Century British poet]." [7] Musicians must be allowed the chance to develop their poetic style and be recognized for their lyrical writing skills.  Rap gives the listener an insight into the plight of the artist. It shows the harsh conditions in which people live and gives a voice to those that we otherwise might not hear. William Blake’s famous poem ‘London’ is often described a social protest, a voice of discontent with the conditions of life in 1790’s London. Rap does the same thing; social protest, put to music, and designed to describe the racial and economic inequalities that exist within society. Rap, even with its sometimes offensive lyrics reflects the society the artist sees and it should be accepted as it is.  We must not judge the poetry on the basis of the poet’s life Dylan Thomas, Wales’ national poet, was an adulterer and an alcoholic. However, this does not make his poetry any less worthy.

Poetry is too difficult for school students  There are people who dedicate their lives to studying poetry and still have trouble understanding its meaning. If these people constantly debate the nature of poetry how can school children be expected to properly understand it? It is difficult to teach because poetry can have multiple meanings; “[U]ntil education theory asks itself what poetry itself is, and therefore what the teacher is trying to get across, poems will continue largely to figure as teaching aids, exercises and – for teenagers – increasingly tedious, somewhat arbitrary puzzles" [2] and therefore poetry will remain of little worth in the classroom.  The greatest poets write about adult experiences, e.g, love, work, history, politics, solitude etc. As a result great poetry requires an adult mind to grasp its full meaning and teaching it in schools means that students develop a disliking for poetry before they are even fully capable of appreciating it.

While great poetry may deal with adult experiences there is poetry that targets a younger audience and methods available to teach this type of poetry. Children’s poetry, for instance, is not complex or dark in subject matter and uses very regular rhythm and rhyme schemes, which young students will enjoy. If age-appropriate poetry is taught in schools then it gives young people the chance to develop an appreciation for poetry and its various techniques. This means that in later years young people will have the skills necessary to properly understand great poetry.

Rappers; modern day poets  Many people believe that rap is a form of modern day poetry and as such it should be taught in schools [4]. Sir Andrew Motion, Professor of Creative Writing at Royal Holloway, University of London, said that: “Poetry is a house of many mansions. It does pupils a disservice only to tell them things they already know. Rap has its own challenges and opportunities – but so do many other kinds of poetry, many of which are neglected in schools." [5] However, many rappers use lyrics that are homophobic, violent, sexist, and promote violence and crime. To teach rap in schools is to give a voice to these values and expose children to views that education must not support. [6]

We must be realistic in education; we need to prepare our students for the difficulties of the real world. It is those subjects that are vocational in nature and/ or life skills, home language (not literature), mathematics, science, modern languages, business studies and law that must take priority in schools. We must equip and train the new generation to successfully gain employment. Therefore, artistic subjects like poetry do not take priority.

History books can tell us more about the horrors of the First World War than any poetry can. War poetry is based on the opinions of one person’s experiences whereas a history book can give an account of all the events and horrors that occurred. Because history books have been written after the war they can gather accounts from many different people and can tell the full story of the war. Shellshock in the First World War helped make many mad; Sassoon himself was nicknamed “Mad Jack” for near suicidal exploits. [10] War poetry may thus be an unreliable source, and it is only one among many that should teach history.

Poetry allows people to express and understand themselves  Education should not just be about learning basic skills but should, instead, be about exploring what it means to be human. Poetry teaches pupils to think deeply about themselves and others and encourages them to explore the ways in which their ideas can be expressed. Ideas help to change, and improve, the world we live in. Encouraging students to express themselves and their ideas is important because the heart of democracy involves the ability to express ideas. If individuals cannot express themselves they do not have a voice.  Therefore, by teaching poetry we allow pupils the opportunity to express their own ideas on a huge variety of subjects. Many poets, such as William Wordsworth, have written poetry about nature in order to “see into the life of things." [11] Giving children the tools to express ideas about the world in a variety of ways is crucial to the development of both the individual and society as a whole.

As an artistic form of a core subject poetry offers a creative method of teaching English  Pupils in schools must learn English and poetry offers a creative outlet for a subject that would otherwise be repetitive and boring. Poetry also introduces the reader to new concepts which hold the learner’s interest and improve vocabulary and spelling.  Poetry offers a fun method of teaching subjects that can otherwise be exhaustive and repetitive. For example, Shirley Hughes’ poems for young readers such as ‘Best Friends’ introduce young readers to the vowel sounds of English and Zoe’s Earrings by Kit Wright teaches pre-GCSE students about accents. [8]

Education is about teaching culture, the arts, and creativity  We want cultured people to graduate from schools. It would be terrible if high school graduates had no understanding of the arts and had no desire to explore cultural places like museums and art galleries. The arts inspire learning and encourage human curiosity; removing this cultural aspect from schools means that we produce people without the creativity necessary for society to grow. At present the only cultural GCSE subject that is compulsory is English Literature; as such, it is important to include as much culture in it as possible i.e. novels and poetry.

Poetry is cross-curricular  Poetry has benefits beyond the English curriculum by teaching about other subjects. In History for example war poetry offers the modern reader the chance to understand the horrors of war. Poet Wilfred Owen suffered from shellshock as a result of fighting in the First World War. In his poem ‘Mental Cases’ he describes his time and experiences at Craiglockhart psychiatric hospital in Scotland where he and Siegfried Sassoon (another World War 1 poet) were treated: “[W]ho are these? Why sit they here in twilight? Wherefore rock they, purgatorial shadows[9]” While we might never be able to properly understand the terrifying experiences that people go through during war we must read their poetry helps bring us closer to how they related to and coped with the experience in a way that simply learning the history does not.

Learning the basics of literature and language is not designed to be fun or enjoyable, it is an essential requirement. It is important that students can get to grips with the basics of their home language. A standard ‘look, cover, write, check’ method is an effective way to learn spelling and vocabulary as it requires the learner to write the words themselves. Simply reading them is not enough, especially not in the context of a poem which can be complex and difficult for a pupil whose priority is to learn writing and reading. It is much more effective to develop the pupils reading skills through standard literature where the structure is easier to follow.

Poetry is hardly the only way to teach people how to express themselves; if we are interested in self-expression for democratic purposes then children should be taught politics. If they are to express their ideas about nature then other art forms are just as important. Unfortunately poetry as a form of self-expression can only be crippled as a result of students’ lack of knowledge of the basics of language. The priority of government should be to achieve a basic level of literacy for all students; only then can the luxury of teaching art be introduced. There is no use in children being able to effortlessly quote Shakespeare if they have no idea how to spell his name.

Universities can't be guided by an "invisible hand": the conditions in the higher education market are not such that optimum results will obtain from this sort of "free market" idea. There are several reasons why. First, demand for university courses fluctuates, and a low intake for a course one year, and therefore decreased funding, could unfairly penalise other people studying in that department, who are not free to leave (and take their money elsewhere) but simply have to suffer the decrease in quality until the end of their degree course. Second, universities don't operate in a true free-market system: the high start up costs (buildings, libraries) mean that it is very difficult for new universities to enter the market, even if standards in existing ones fall.Thirdly, there will always be those students who are poorer and have to go to the worse universities (if they cannot afford or do not want the burden of a student loan). A poorer student will either get a second rate education and waste valuable time and money or will opt out of higher education all together and accrue none of the benefits, since graduates typically earn more than non-graduates1.  1 Lexington, "Higher education: Is it really the next bubble?" The Economist, 21 April 2011,

The introduction of more private universities would increase the quality of education by allowing open competition  In the rest of the economy, when consumers are allowed to choose between goods or services, the higher quality products are successful and the bad ones fail. Similarly, when consumers can makes choices between universities, and are putting money on the line (thus taking a risk) they will choose the good universities, and consider the bad universities as not worth wasting their money on. As a consequence, the best universities will expand, and the worst universities will either improve or fail. The New College of the Humanities for example is aiming to rival Oxford and Cambridge1 so helping to provide these two elite institutions with the necessary competition to force up standards. This will result in a higher quality of education being available to more people.  1 BBC News, "Academics launch £18,000 college in London.” 5 June 2011

If more diversity is necessary, then governments can change the way in which they fund universities, perhaps by giving a proportion of funding based on student numbers.  However, for the large part so-called "increased diversity" would not constitute improvements on the quality of academic education, but rather gimmicks to make a university look more attractive to the young people who apply – there are incentives to make the university popular to sixth-form applicants, not to existing undergraduates.

Private universities are needed to increase the number of places for students.  British universities are facing cuts in government funding and as a result there will be no new places created to cater for rising demand. Professor Steve Smith, president of Universities UK noted the fact that the budget cuts that could soar to as much as £950,000,000 over three years would decrease the quality of education whilst keeping the numbers of University places stagnant. In 2009, 160,000 students who applied did not go to University. In 2010, 75,000 more people applied.1 Governments in rich countries all over the world are facing squeezed budged over the next few years and will be unable to increase funding for universities. This leaves private universities as the only way to meet increasing demand for higher education.  1Shepherd, 2010

Encouraging private universities will not increase the number of university places available. Instead they will skim off the students who can afford to pay, but who would be going to university anyway. This will leave remaining publicly funded universities having to pick up the strain, often with less money and just as many potential students without places.

It is unfortunate that the current system constitutes taking from the poor and giving to the rich, but this is justified as long as two things are true: first, overall, the government does redistribute wealth in such a way as to take from the rich and give to the poor, and second, the funding of universities from the public purse is of benefit to the poorer people in society. In this case publicly funding universities gives the poor the option of going to university that they would otherwise not have, even if they fail to take that option up. (The opposition arguments explain why this latter condition is the case.)

The privatisation of universities encourages course-diversity and provides for students are individuals, not cattle  Privatisation of universities allows for a greater range of educational provision: universities are no longer restrained by government targets and bureaucracy, and are incentivised by possible profits to set themselves apart and provide "unique selling points" that will gain them more students: the current system does not provide this motivation because universities receive their funding regardless of student numbers.

The current system constitutes taking from the poor and giving to the rich  The majority of people in the UK have not benefited from a university education, and graduates earn more, on average, than the rest of the population. Further, universities accept a larger number of richer people than they do poorer people. A National Audit Office report claims "Socioeconomic background remains a strong determinant of higher education participation. People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds make up around half of the population of England, but represent just 29 per cent of young, full-time, first-time entrants to higher education."1 It is therefore wrong on principle to use tax-payers' money to subsidise universities, because when universities are subsidised from a general "pot" of taxation, a redistribution of wealth occurs whereby the rich benefit at a cost to the poorer people in society. This is wrong, because we should be using taxation to attempt to mitigate economic inequality, not to exacerbate it.  1 Woolcock, Nicola, "White working class boys least likely to go to university." Times Online, 25 June 2008,

The reason why people from poorer backgrounds are underrepresented at university is not because they perceive it as something only rich people can do. Instead, it is because their schools did not adequately prepare them: on average, they have fewer/worse qualifications, and are less likely to have performed the myriad extra-curricular activities that give people an advantage when applying to universities1. Making university education private, then, does not disadvantage the poor: if the opposition really wants to help people from poorer backgrounds it would address the deficiencies of school-level education instead.  1 Cassidy, Sarah, "Quality of education still determined by wealth, says report." The Independent, 8 August 2008,

Allowing market forces to control educational opportunity is as legitimate at university level as it is at school level. Parents wanting the best for their children should be allowed to spend the resources that they have accumulated in any way that they like, rather than have those resources taken from them by the state to create an education system that isn't as good as that which those parents could have funded themselves.

Private Universities would risk reducing the quality of university degrees.  New private universities will not have a long standing reputation to keep up. They may not be as well regulated and they will have no social interest beyond simply getting money from their students. This means that they may well offer cheap and poor quality education in order to find a gap in the market. This could damage the reputation of other universities as Dr Paul Greatrix registrar of Nottingham University worries "If there are entrants who are on the extreme end of cheap and cheerful, this will damage our international reputation."1 In systems that are both private and state funded universities there is an immense divide between a few very good elite institutions that charge immense amounts and a much larger number of poorer quality universities. Take the US system, it is well known for its world class Ivy League universities. Its publicly funded universities however do much less well with only the University of Michigan near the top of the world rankings in 20th place. Of the state universities only those that do not face so much Ivy league competition over in California due to distance do well1. Having Private universities clearly creams off the best students and the funding leaving the public universities in a worse position lowering the overall quality of education.  1 Shepherd, Jessica, "What universities think of competing for their admissions." Guardian.co.uk, 28 June 2011. 2 Hotson, Howard, "Don't Look to the Ivy League." London Review of Books, Vol.33, No.10, 19 May 2011 .

Private universities would increase the divide between the rich and poor  Funding universities through taxation rather than privately allows poorer people in society to access university education because the government can increase access in three key ways. First, it can subsidise universities to decrease the price, second, it can exert pressure on universities to increase diversity within their student populations (by increasing numbers of people from disadvantaged backgrounds) and third, it can easily control peripheral support structures such as student loan schemes that become difficult to manage under a privatised system.

This will increase the perception that universities are just for the rich  Treating university education like any other commodity will increase the perception that, like any other very expensive commodity, it is a luxury, and that therefore those who can't afford it should just see that as an economic reality, and not as an assault against their life chances. This will mean that fewer people from less well-off backgrounds will go to university, even if they are very clever, and thus will decrease social mobility.

Allowing universities to be guided by an invisible hand does more harm than good  University degree programmes, unlike other products like televisions or designer shoes, are tools of social mobility: unlike a TV, a good degree will help you to get other good things later in life (like a higher salary). This means that it is important that people have a fairly equal opportunity to access the best degrees. Market forces will make the best universities more expensive than the others, and mean that the best degree places are awarded not to the cleverest, but to those able to afford it. Universities are already elitist despite being open to all and being publicly funded. In the UK class is a major determinant of where you go to university. Oxford University only has 11.5%, and Cambridge 12.6% of its students coming from a working class background compared to an average of 32.3%1. This is a situation that will only get worse as students have to pay for the best private universities.  1 Davis, Rowenna, "Does your social class decide if you go to university? Get the full list of colleges." Guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2010,

With regard to subsiding universities and the student loan schemes, both of these could nevertheless be operated even if universities were privatised. For example, assisted place-schemes,(which-School.co.uk) where the government funded bright students to attend private schools are successfully run in the UK.With regard to pressure to increase diversity in the student population, this merely treats the symptom and not the cause, which is the inadequate educational support given to some groups in society at a lower level: this should be directly addressed instead.

Far from reducing the quality of university private universities would increase it. Private Universities would go where most money is, and this is most likely to be at the top where a lot of money can be charged for the degrees. This is what Grayling's proposed New College of the Humanities is doing. The New College of the Humanities will charge fees of £18,0001. With the extra money they will be able to hire the best professors and have a very good student teacher ratio, better than 1:10, with the result that there will be a lot of one to one tuition and student-staff interaction to increase the quality of teaching2.  1 BBC News, “Academics launch £18,000 college in London.” 5 June 2011.  2 New College of the Humanities

Schools have significantly better facilities and a much more appropriate and segregated learning atmosphere than the home. The state system pools facilities to allow access for all children to sports and science facilities1. Parents are very unlikely to be wealthy enough to provide the plethora of things necessary to a well-rounded education. Teaching within the home asks children to switch between 'learning' and 'play' mode in the same environment which is confusing especially for young children. Schools provide a specific environment that is dedicated to learning. Homes are more complex environments, ill-suited to teaching and the concentration required to learn. 1 'The Cons and Arguments against Home Schooling' in Educate Expert (2011)

The home is an ideal learning environment.  Home schooling allows children to learn in an environment that has the needs of one or a very few number of students as the focus of the educative process. Parents are willing to invest in their children and can provide targeted provision that prioritises the learning needs of those individuals1. Therefore, specific textbooks that are tailored to the child's mode of learning can be purchased. State schools, in contrast, are often very ill-equipped and under-funded, leading to standardized text books and teaching methods. The home also lacks the many distractions and disadvantages of schools: peer pressure, social stigma attached to achievement, bullying, show-offs and general rowdiness. 1'Virtues in to Vices' in The Journal Of Home Education

Homeschooling allows for the accommodation of faith practices.  The state constantly fails those with greatest faith needs in schools. There are numerous examples of failure of accommodation: ignorant provision for prayer times, banning of religious dress, unwitting subjection of students to religious festivals that are manifestly unsuitable1. If parents want to avoid such perils altogether, and teach their child within an environment that caters for their religious need then that is and should be their right. 1'Rise in racism in the playground' BBC News (2007)

Home-schooling is not the best option for exceptional students. The state does not ignore or abandon individuals that have special needs and those with special needs are those that most need the state's enormous resources to focus on their requirements. Once a student has needs of such a magnitude that demands it, they are educated in special schools specifically intended to help them, with staff trained to possess skills beyond that of a parent's instinct. Even if it were the case that home-schooling is better for the specific needs of exceptional students, the benefits of education in a wider context override the objection to class-based education. The experience of growing up alongside less and more able students produces individuals with greater understanding of their society1. 1'Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: a research synthesis' Scruggs, Thomas E. Mastropieri, Margo A. Exceptional Children (1996)

Parents should be permitted to home-school their children provided they register the fact and submit to inspections  Parents who take their children out of school, or choose to home-school due to apprehensions over the quality of state education, should be entitled to do so provided the child is better off as a result. To ensure they are not neglected, parents hoping to home-school must both register the fact they are home-schooling their child and submit to regular, state inspections of the child's progress. If the child is deemed to be falling behind his age group, the parent may be forced to return the child to a school. The parent should be given standards of teaching that they must adhere to before the inspections occur, and the standards should be sufficiently flexible to reflect children learn at different speeds and that not all children's development reflects fairly on their teacher.

Home schooling involves good community involvement and social interaction.  Homeschooling families do not operate in isolation. There are extensive support networks (particularly in the USA the nation with the largest proportion of the population homeschooling) that exist to provide companionship, promote sports events and social functions. In addition, standard social provisions for children in civic society – scout movements, sports club – are open to homeschoolers. Homeschooling is not a removal from society but just from state schools.1 Homeschooled children often engage with their local community to a greater extent than their schooled peers.  1 ‘Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream’ Patrick Basham, Public Policy Sources

Interaction with other pupils is a crucial element of a child's development and involvement in clubs is not a substitute for the social skills learnt in school. Teaming building, working towards goals, being forced to confront problems with and live alongside individuals one might not like, or come from different backgrounds, is clearly done best in a school environment1. Those that seek to cocoon their offspring from the outside world merely delay the time when their children have to deal with it. Education is about more than academic teaching, it's about educating the whole person, and that is best achieved by educating them within a school with their peers. 1 'School as a context of early adolescent's academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings' RW Roeser, JS Eccles, The Elementary School Journal (2000)

Merely ensuring the registration of a child as being home-schooled does not fulfill the state's right to ensure that all children are given a satisfactory education. Inspections will help, but parents will nevertheless be unable to provide to their children the opportunities present in a school environment. The inspections should require that parents offer their children at least an equivalent level of teaching to that he or she would receive at a school, yet how is a parent going to teach practical science? How are they going to dissect animals? The inevitable result of such a policy therefore would be the acceptance of inadequate education. The only policy that respects and protects a child's right to education is to ban home-schooling altogether.

Those that wish to be educated in a religious environment have the chance to send them to a religious school the quality of which can be monitored by the state1. There are great dangers involved in exclusivity of faith. The adherents of all religions shouldn't shut themselves away, but rather engage in society as a whole, and understand other people's beliefs and points of view. 1'Gove defends faith schools', Riazat Butt, Guardian.co.uk (2011)

A school education is not mutually exclusive with family bonding. Just because a child attends school does not mean that their parent loses all influence upon their moral development. It is important for children to have a variety of different role models around them1. There is also no guarantee that the moral structure that parents might be instilling in their children away from any effective monitoring is beneficial. 1 'Why a Positive Role Model Is Important for Children', Caitlin Erwin, LiveStrong.com (2010)

Home schooling is often the best option for catering for the needs of exceptional or disabled students.  Classroom-based education must, by necessity, cater for the needs of the group as a whole which leaves those the very bright unchallenged and those with special needs falling behind and unsupported1. The state often takes years to recognise the needs of students and they lose years of education in the process2. In addition, even if those needs are identified 'special schools' are underfunded and stigmatised. For many students with identifiable problems that affects their capacity to learn within mainstream schooling but is not severe enough to merit a place within the special needs sector, homeschooling can benefit such students by shaping the learning environment to cater for their needs by being flexible to adapt. 1 'Every Child is Special

COUNTERPOINT Home-schooling is not the best option for exceptional students. The state does not ignore or abandon individuals that have special needs and those with special needs are those that most need the state's enormous resources to focus on their  Family bonding is a massively important element of a child's development and is prioritised by home schooling1. The value of the family is constantly undermined in modern society; positive parental role models are found less and less frequently. If a parent is judged by a state vetting process to be good enough it is enormously beneficial for society as a whole to approve is an environment that cements both a positive role model and family bonding. 1'The Role of Interpretation Processes and Parental Discussion in the Media's Effects on Adolescents' Use of Alcohol' Erica Weintraub Austen, Bruce E. Pinkelton, Yuki Fujioka, Paediatrics, (2000)

Homeschooling is not mutually exclusive from social interaction1. Interaction happens outside the classroom, where it belongs instead of acting as distractions to learning. In addition, homeschooling events involve children of all different ages as well as adults and in this way children learn to interact with a greater range of individuals than they would come across in a class just containing children of their own age and often makes them more confident in interacting with adults in a relationship that is not just a simple teacher and pupil relationship2. Parents still select schools for their children on the basis of common values, cultures and achievements - and even go as far as to move closer to the school they want to fall into its catchment area.  1Mike Fortune-Wood, ‘The “S” Word Socialisation’ from Home Education UK  2‘Civic Involvement’ HSLDA

Schools are often of poor quality and are failing the children. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from bed state schools. If the quality of education is sufficiently low in their eyes, they are entitled to be allowed to make the considerable sacrifice involved in becoming a 'home schooler'. It is reasonable that a parent should want to reject such educational theories and if they pass the inspection process then should not be denied that chance. "Homeschool freedom works. Homeschoolers have earned the right to be left alone."1 1 'Academic Statistics on Homeschooling', Home Schooling Legal Defense Association, (October 22, 2004)

Most parents do not have any teaching qualifications.  If parents are not trained or qualified teachers how can they provide a better or equivalent quality of education than a professional teacher at a school. Even if a parent or tutor excels in one area, will they cover all the things a school does? Even if they tried to, they would not do so adequately due to sheer lack of experience and training. The point of a curriculum is that these are things we have decided as a society that children need to learn, and in order to learn they require the support of qualified teachers1. Support groups and educational text books can help, but they alone cannot turn a parent into a good teacher. 1 National Curriculum Website

Danger of parents indoctrinating their children.  Homeschooling allows the possibility of parents removing their child from wider society and indoctrinating them with their own beliefs. State schools teach history and social interaction within a framework agreed on by w wide variety of bodies within the social spectrum. If a parent's world view if so far detached from that perspective that he wishes to remove his child from school it is likely that those alternative view are questionable at best. These beliefs can involve can include gross intolerance for particular minority groups supported by false information. These ideas can still reach the child out of school, but the government has a duty to protect children from a regressive upbringing by at least offering a more constructive perspective. 'Andy Winton, the chair of the National Association of Social Workers in Education, said: "School is a good safety net to protect children."' 1 1'Get tough on home tuition to weed out abuse, says review' from Guardian website

Diversity of school is necessary for social development.  Being forced to confront problems and individuals from different backgrounds is vital as a preparation for the future as a microcosm of the society they will later enter. Parents and children spending day after day at home re sometimes subject to a phenomenon sociologists call the 'hothouse' relationship the closeness between them becomes exclusive, with reaction to outsiders almost aggressive by instinct. This relationship makes it even more difficult for the child to adapt to life in the wider world.1 While there maybe attempts by parents to socialize their children through other means these organizations and club are centred around similarity. School is a mixture that does not filter out students, and there is an inherent social value to such a mix.  1‘The Cons and Arguments against Home Schooling’ in Educate Expert (2011) www.educate expert.com

The state operates a system of quality control run by experts.  Hundreds of experts and researchers ensure the quality of public schools. It is presumptuous for a parent to think they know how to teach a child better than that accumulated wisdom. Just because the child is a product of that individual does not mean that the education knowledge of the parent surpasses that of professionals in that field who have spent years training1. Furthermore, even the best teachers can be improved by the insight of a third-party; such evaluations are not accessible to home-schooling parents. The danger is that 'From the government's perspective, the world of home education is full of unknowns'; there are not sufficient measures of quality control in place to protect the child and their right to a comprehensive education. 1'Home truths: do we need yet another inquiry into home education?' from Guardian website

The state education curriculum offers only a very limited view of history and as such is itself a form of indoctrination. For example, in the UK, a proud history of achievement and creation goes untaught whilst the sins of colonialism and the faults of class structure are emphasised to pupils year after year. Parents do not necessarily have to have extreme or radical political views to want to home school their child and indoctrinate them. They often actually want to allow them to have broader historical and political education than offered by the narrow curriculum1. If parents are determined to prejudice their children it is unlikely that being in school will prevent that. And these parents who wish to teach tolerance shouldn't be penalised by a minority. 1'Prescriptive national curriculum restricts teachers', Jessica Shepherd, Guardian.co.uk (2009)

It is wrong to assume that home schooling will necessarily be of poor quality. Many parents will be fantastic teachers with or without a formal qualification. One parent says that it is often teacher themselves that recognise that teaching qualification are not necessarily the most important factor: 'the more people– mainly teachers – we spoke to, the more it began to seem like school could actually be a damaging place to be.’1 In addition, there are extensive support networks that are capable of providing a range of skills and knowledge that a parent might be lacking. The internet makes these connections increasingly viable as well as providing better research facilities than any school library had ten years ago.  1 ‘Honey, I think we're home-schooling the kids’ from the Guardian website

What is taught in history will never be 100% accurate, but it is possible for historians to achieve a considerable degree of objectivity, especially if they seek to be aware of the influences upon their own thinking. Part of most secondary school history curricula is the consideration of how historians are affected by the context in which they write: this equips pupils to consider critically what they are being taught and why they are being taught it. Moreover, it can be argued that worthwhile ends (e.g. the good relations between different ethnic communities sought by the British government) justify some selection of the history that is taught to schoolchildren. After all, it isn't possible to teach children everything about all historical periods, so there must be some criteria for making choices about what would be most valuable to study. A 'British' history curriculum will aid integration and encourage multi-culturalism within the country, without sacrificing truth, merely breadth.

History teaching will reflect the erroneous preconceptions and aims of those who set the curriculum  History is not objective and, in schools, historical fact is at the mercy of those in control of the curriculum. Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of history suggest all history teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that history taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of "Britishness" by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage1. The Education Secretary at the time asked schools to 'play a leading role in creating community cohesion' by doing so1. Even if no historical events are invented as such, this will nevertheless lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information, whether implicit or explicit, can be taught to children is dangerous. 1 BBC News. "Schools 'must teach Britishness'." BBC News. January 25, 2007. (accessed July 14, 2011).

Isolated instances in which history has been used for propaganda purposes do not reflect a dangerous subject, merely dangerous regimes. The vast majority of History teaching does not seek to promote such agendas. It is common sense to tailor the national history curriculum to the nation in which it is being taught, and very easily achieved without constituting propaganda. Recent studies have shown it is common for states to focus heavily on their national history, 'setting out key events that shaped the national story as compulsory knowledge'1. Furthermore, all subjects can be distorted if the State and its teachers are prepared to try hard enough - for example, under the Nazis German children were taught Mathematics with a heavy emphasis upon military applications (e.g. calculating angles and ranges for artillery). Instead of banning the subject, what is needed is proper inspection of schools and monitoring of the curriculum, under the control of a democratic government. 1 Baker, Mike. "History study needs fact first, analysis later." The Guardian. February 18, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011).

History should be left for those intellectual capable of understanding its limitations, and therefore not taught at school  Even if no agenda is being consciously or subconsciously pursued, school pupils are presented with oversimplified information in History. This is a result of the limited time available, the limited intellectual capacity of pupils, the limited knowledge of many teachers (who may not be history specialists, especially in primary schools) and the desire for answers that can be labelled as "correct" or "incorrect" in examinations. Much school history teaching is therefore concerned simply with memorising "facts". However, such learning needs to be accompanied by a deeper understanding of events, lacking definitive answers but providing a narrative to give the 'facts' (often figures) meaning. As schools recognize this is beyond most students, they struggle to make time spent in history lessons conducive; a study in America found that only 20 percent of fourth graders were proficient in history, while that dropped to 12 per cent for high school seniors1. 1 Resmovits, Joy. "U.S. History Test Scores Stagnate As Education Secretary Arne Duncan Seeks 'Plan B'." Huffington Post. June 14, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011).

Where there is uncertainty, this can and should be highlighted if pupils have the intellectual capacity to understand the debate. Much of the benefit of studying History is that it is not (or should not be) solely based upon the learning of facts. Rather, History develops the ability to evaluate and challenge different interpretations. If historical study were postponed to adulthood, this would mean that most people would learn no History, unless they chose to study for a History degree. And it is impossible to escape any discussion of History in adult life - there are many television programmes and press articles devoted to historical subjects every day, and politicians constantly refer to past events to justify their actions. Only if citizens are equipped at school to question such historical interpretations can the public avoid being misled.

History lessons can be used as state-sponsored propaganda, distorting the events of the past  History taught in schools sometimes involves flagrant distortion of historical evidence either by the State or by individual teachers. Attempts may be made to avoid nasty aspects of a nation's past (e.g. the massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese soldiers at Nanking in 1937) and/or to put down other peoples (e.g. the presentation of Australian Aboriginals as uncivilized until the 1960s). Japan's attempt to erase the memory of Nanking in its schoolchildren began in 1950s when it banned a third of all textbooks and 'Nanking Massacre simply disappeared' from their history1. As well as these extreme examples, low-level anti-Americanism is arguably pervasive in modern French school textbooks, reflecting tensions between France and the USA arising from the latter's Gaullist heritage and the recent "War on Terror". It is highly undesirable for school pupils to be exposed to misinformation peddled in History classes, which can lead to violence, hatred or discrimination. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011).

History does offer a source for understanding oneself and one's nation, but that no reason to teach it at school. In fact, the centrality of history to identity is an argument in favour of leaving history lessons until students are old enough to weigh sources and evaluate arguments themselves. Australian school children don't need to be taught specifics about the history of their nation at school in order to develop into well rounded, reasoned adults. In fact, they are more likely to better understand the plight of the native aboriginals if they are only introduced to the historical specifics of the case at a later, more mature age.

The teaching of history does not either to the maintenance of memory or the learning of lessons. Examples have shown that states can use history lessons to in fact erase certain memories, denying any lessons to future generations. Furthermore, teaching history encourages people to become obsessed with past conflicts and alleged wrongs inflicted upon them; it is more productive to forget the past and to seek friendship in the present. For example, modern tensions would be reduced if pupils in Ireland were no longer taught about the Battle of the Boyne (1690) and pupils in South Asia stopped learning about conflicts following the Partition between India and Pakistan (1947).

Historical facts can be established to a sufficient degree to be taught to schoolchildren  For most post-medieval periods, it is possible to establish such "facts" with a very high degree of probability. To take the Holocaust as an example, fears of the events being erased out of history books drove Dwight Eisenhower to travel to Germany to witness the aftermath first-hand. The future American President was driven by a desire to be able to 'testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief that the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda'1. Furthermore, even if the historical facts are not as clearly evident as the Holocaust, and have to be simplified, this need not be "intellectually dangerous": it is impossible to prove that a real harm results from only knowing the academically dominant interpretation of a historical episode, even if it might be theoretically desirable to consider minority viewpoints too. Indeed, all school teaching involves simplification and generalization: much school science teaching entails discussion of how general rules (learned earlier during a pupil's school career) are not always applicable. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011).

History teaches useful skills applicable in other areas of education and life  History teaches many useful skills, which are of great value to both individuals and the economy. These include the ability to think critically and construct reasoned arguments, an awareness of differing points of view and understanding of cultures (both one's own and those of others). Essays on historical events or figures require an original, structured argument and an evaluation of sources, skills that have relevance in other areas of education. Furthermore, the humility necessary to accept the limitations of historical research are instrumental in encouraging multi-culturalism in society and respect for views one might not initially understand.

History should be taught to school-children, they form an integral part of understanding oneself and one's nation  Historical events, no matter how tragic, gruesome or embarrassing, should be taught in schools in order to provide a basis for the youth to explore their own identity and that of their nation. Children should therefore not be shielded from reality, but be taught, in an appropriate manner, about all manner of relevant historical events. In so doing, they will not leave school with a false image of reality, or of whom they are and where they live. Only then will they be prepared for the very worst life will throw at them. For example, Australian school children are unlikely to fully appreciate the plight of their Aboriginal compatriots without a thorough understanding of the British discovery of the island and subsequent governmental policy that oppressed the native population. As the future leaders of tomorrow, it is essential that the youth are given the broadest, most accurate platform on which to build their own perceptions of life.

Teaching history ensures that events of the past are not forgotten, and lessons are learned  "Organized forgetting" of the past does not lead to harmony: those who allege historic wrongs are unlikely to forget them and will be aggrieved at attempts to deny the significance of the events concerned. This is seen in the Chinese outcry at Japanese attempts to forget the Rape of Nanking; the international attention drawn to the issue led to attempts within Japan itself to re-introduce the event into history textbooks1. By 1997, all Japanese textbooks included the event, signalling a shift towards a closer relationship with China, their long-term rivals1. Friendship often results from shared recognition of past wrongs, and a resolve not to repeat past injustices and mistakes; studying the past is essential for this. History teaching in schools is especially important when tensions are present: those who set and teach the curriculum can and should strive to be impartial, to counter one-sided historical narratives to which pupils may be exposed by their families and the media.  1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011).

History teaching is a waste of time, particularly at school, where it often revolves around the learning of names and dates. Antiquarian knowledge is of no practical use; pupils should spend more time learning sciences and vocational subjects. It is dangerous to both pupils' employment prospects and the economy as a whole for time to be spent studying History at school.

Historical facts cannot be established to a sufficient degree to justify history being taught as a subject in school. Though there are certain facts that are beyond question, history is about more than the accumulation of facts but the creation of a narrative. Narratives in history are constantly subject to changes as further evidence comes to hand. Young students should not be forced to learn a narrative that may become redundant in the week between history lessons. Furthermore, though Eisenhower meant well, he could only ever control events in the United States, if Germany had decided to censor their textbooks, as the Japanese did, in the wake of World War II, his protests would have fallen on deaf ears and done little to ensure the German youth knew of the horrors of the Holocaust. As such, it is necessary to restrict history lessons to the youth; once mature and reasoned, they will be much better placed to evaluate and study history in depth.

While it is true that parents who are having their children educated privately still pay their taxes that get spent on state education, it is also worth noting that private schools currently hold charitable status in the UK, and as such benefit from tax subsidies that some people estimate as £88 million annually (BBC, 2011). This money is able to fund facilities that state schools could not afford. Therefore while private schools financially benefit state schools in some ways, they also are financially damaging to state schools in many other ways.

Private schools are financially beneficial for state schools  The state funds the education system through taxation. Parents who do not send their children to state schools still pay those same taxes. Therefore, these taxes are spent on a smaller number of schools and there is more money per child in the state sector than there would be if we banned private education. In 2008 there were 569,080 students in independent schools in England,(BBC 2009) - this would be a very large extra burden for state schools to bear. These students’ parents are therefore not only paying for their own children but also for students to study at state schools as well.

The US magazine Time found research in 2007 that suggested that private schools do not provide a better education than state schools, they do however have a higher percentage of students who would do well in any situation. This means that these children would not lose out by going to state schools. ‘The study says that it is "the kinds of economic and resource advantages their parents can give [students]" — as well as the level of parental involvement in their kids' education —that determines success or failure in high school. The problem isn't in the schools; it's with social inequality’ (Time.com).  The second criticism is that statistics provided by the argument are true only because private education exists, and takes all the best teachers, head teachers and resources away from state schools. If public schools were banned then state schools would gain more teachers and resources and thus would raise to the standards currently occupied by private schools. In a study by Hill and Guin for the University of Washington found that in the US more experienced teachers taught in private schools, thus in theory improving levels of teaching due to experience. (University of Washington2003).

People should have free choice about how they spend their money  People should be allowed to spend their money as they wish. If parents choose to spend money on their children’s advancement over something else they could buy then it is there decision to make. The core of this is the idea of ownership over our income, and that the state should not be able to restrict our spending this income by banning products such as private education. Education in Germany can be used as an example of allowing parents the free will to decide where their child goes to school, article 7 paragraphs 4 of the Grundgesetz enshrines the right to create private schools. (The Grundgesetz).  There are many other similar cases where the state provides a service but there are also private options, healthcare being the most obvious. While most people in Britain use a National Health Service (NHS) hospital there are other options provided privately by companies such as BUPA, no one proposes that people should not be able to buy better healthcare, quite the opposite - the NHS may be moving towards privatization.(McCabe and Kirkpatrick, 2011)

The state already does restrict our spending by criminalizing the purchase of certain goods. For example we cannot choose to spend our money buying slaves even if we desire to. Just as we shouldn’t be able to buy another human life, we also should not be able to buy an advantage in life. It seems clear throughout this debate that private education does give an advantage over state schools in many areas. This argument of an unfair advantage has also been identified by Ontario’s (Canada) Provincial Ministry of Education where they are going to identify where a credit was earned if outside the student’s high school (Tamsyn 2010). It further seems unfair to say that people should have a right to choose private education, while this choice is not available to everyone. Those who cannot afford the huge expense of private education are often not choosing to put their children into state schools, they just have no other options. The average annual cost of sending a child to private school in the UK is £9,627, which works out at 36% of the average earning; In the USA the cost of a year’s secondary education is $10,549, out of reach of most families. (The Guardian, 2007; capenet.org). Therefore in defending the freedom to choose to send a child to private school, we are merely defending the right of the wealthy to have this choice and restricting the choice of everyone else.

Private schools provide a better education than state schools  In 2007, Time the US magazine discovered that private schools in the US received much higher SAT scores that the state counterparts. Research suggests that private education puts a greater emphasis on critical thinking, while state schools emphasise memory and learning by rote (time.com). These types of critical skills mean that students from private schools have a better start at university education as they are more used to what will be required of them. Furthermore, students from private schools are more likely to get into a university in the first place (Time, 2007/ BBC, 2010). In the US students are twice as likely to get the grades allowing them to go to university if they have had a private education, and for minority groups in America it is more than double (Capenet.org, 2001). This is likely to be replicated across the world. Private schools in Brazil also provide better education, as there is one teacher per 10 students in comparison to the 45-50 students per class in a government funded school. (Cabra; and Throssell 2010). Therefore by denying private education the effect may be disastrous for these minority groups.

This is what is already happening. It is the government that sets a curriculum for state schools (such as in Great Britain, Singapore, Japan, China, New Zealand and France) and the government want us to vote for them. So in many ways the education system may already be indoctrinating children in state school in the way this argument fears private schools do. Yet there are also private interests in many state schools already. For example in Britain academies are partially funded privately and in return are outside of local authority control so they do not have to follow the national curriculum.(BBC News, 2010)

Abolishing private schools will not bring to an end to inequality between pupils as this is illustrated every day in state schools. For example, bullying is extremely common in all schools whether they be state or private. Bullying represents inequality between pupils as often it is the result of one pupil being different to another. Additionally, teachers may treat their students differently depending on their intellectual ability or their behaviour. In the US racism between students and teachers is still a big issue, as minority groups are consistently placed on slower academic tack and in 38 states “black students are twice as likely as whites to be labelled as mentally retarded” (University of Washington2003).  Thus Private schools are not the only means of inequality between students and so the abolition of these would not completely diminish student inequality.  On the disparity between private and state schools, the correct way to improve the education for children in state schools is to spend more money on state schools, devote more time, energy and enthusiasm to them rather than punishing those schools that do just that. Preventing a minority from having a certain type of education is not the way to help improve the majority’s education. By and large, the complaint is that private schools are doing well and providing a good education, whilst state schools lag behind. It is in all our interests to set the standard of education as high as we can – you do this by raising state schools to the standard of private schools, not by depriving children of a private education.

Private schools lack diversity  A private school is an institutionalised, artificial environment where the child will be exposed almost completely to children of their own socioeconomic background. This has two very interlinked problems.  1) One of the most important factors of a child’s education is to be exposed to a variety of races, religions, economies and abilities. This allows children to grow up to be more aware of these differences between people and more accepting of diversity as they get older. Yet private schools admission costs alone mean that students are from wealthy backgrounds, and this means they are largely exposed to other people from wealthy backgrounds. As we know, the majority of the people in the world are not wealthy and therefore these students have an extremely blinkered view of their country. Pakistan can be used as a prime example, where half of its children cannot read a full sentence at primary level and government spending on education has been cut from 2.5% to 1.5%. For those in private education and who usually go to university aboard they will never see or understand the situation of the majority in Pakistan and thus has a dysfunctional view of their country. (Landzettel 2011)  2) It is an inevitable feature of democracies that the rich have particular access to politicians and policy-makers. Furthermore, students from private education are much more likely to go into government or political roles. As mentioned above 66% of British politicians went to private school, and 44% of American politicians (against an 11% national average). While the rich don't have a need for state education because they can pursue education for their children from other sources, they have no motivation to lobby politicians on behalf of the education system and a perverse incentive to remove education from political agendas in favour of their preferred issues and legislation. Only by forcing the rich into the same situation as the poor can we expect to gain meaningful ground in terms of education reform, especially in terms of increased funding relative to national and municipal budgets. We cannot expect education will be a national priority until the entire nation has a vested interest in the good order of the system.

Schools should be free from bias  Private education needs funding, be it from a business, individual funders or organisations and private schools rely on this money to run. It seems unlikely then, in this context, that these funders that the school is so reliant on may have an influence (even if unintentional) on various factors of the school life such as curriculum, food or teaching style. In many countries, such as the US, the curriculum in private schools does not need to be standardised (as State education does) and therefore teachers are free to teach what they desire and this might not give an open and full account of certain topics. The bias could be political, charitable or even commercial. We could have a political group like GreenPeace wanting to run a school and heavily emphasising environmental issues, or a company like Shell emphasising our desperate need for oil. Neither of these would present a balanced education which is what our children need. An example of this is that about 50 independent Christian schools in the UK teach creationism as part of biology.(Walker, 2006) In countries such as the Netherlands, South Africa and the republic of Ireland, private schools are set up and run by religious groups, and therefore will have a degree of influence over the curriculum. Education is a powerful tool, especially to impressionable children. And ultimately it appears that private education is at a much higher risk of being biased in its teaching than state education.

Private schools encourage elitism  Private education suggests that a higher level of schooling is a privilege of those who can afford it, rather than a right. This encourages a cycle, whereby those who get a good, private education are more likely to get higher paid jobs as private education increases access to higher education (in the UK twice the percentage of students from private school went to university than those from state school), certain sectors of employment, (in the UK only 7% of students go to private schools, yet these people hold 86% top media jobs and 70% of barrister positions, 33% of MPs) (Gibson, 2006) and employer networking. Thus their children are more likely to go to private school and get a better job. This means that by allowing private education we create a society where the rich remain rich, and the poor remain poor, with the gulf between the two areas ever increasing. If we were to remove private education the field would be open for people from all walks of life to achieve a range of different things.

Similarly the counterargument to this has two distinct principles.  1) That some state schools lack social diversity as much as private schools, particularly in small, rural areas. Therefore we cannot simply criticize private schools, and must recognise that all schools have different levels of diversity. MacKinnon recognises that segregation in the United States schooling system is often defended on the grounds that it ‘represents the community’. Yet this is only the case because housing itself is segregated (Scrapbook). Therefore if we are banning private schools on the grounds of diversity, we should enforce a policy whereby neighbourhoods are forced to be diverse in order to ensure the same thing happens in state schools.  2) That rather than shut down private schools we should encourage the creation of funded places or bursaries. This way people who can afford private school do not have their choices limited, but that there is a greater diversity as people from poorer backgrounds would still be able to attend the schools.

Gaddafi was not deliberately killing civilians but rather targeting armed rebels fighters who were targeting his government. In his words he said he would show no mercy to rebels and did not speak about civilians.  When pro Gaddafi forces regained control of Brega and Zawiyah, there was no bloodshed reported or any conflict harming civilians [1]. We don’t know what would have happened had Gaddafi regained control of Benghazi, but it is likely there would have been no bloodbath.  [1] RT news, ‘Gaddafi gaining ground in battle, losing on information front’, rt.com, 11 March 2011

Intervention prevented an impending bloodbath in Benghazi.  From the day of the uprising in Benghazi, the government was committed to fight back till the end. Gaddafi asserted that he will chase down the protesters and cleanse house by house while his son said that rivers of blood would flow with thousands of deaths, if the uprising didn’t stop [1].  Military jets and helicopter gunships were indiscriminately unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.  The resolution of a no fly zone passed by the security council weakened and prevented government forces from killing people and destroying cities using air strikes[2]. Air strikes went on to destroy artillery, armor and other weapons that could be used for indiscriminate attacks. The intervention therefore stopped large scale civilian bloodshed.  [1] The middle east in revolt, ‘Gaddafi’s son; last gasp of Libya’s dying regime?’, time.com  [2] Los Angeles Times, ‘Obama on Libya; Intervention prevented more bloodshed’, latimes.com, 28 March 2011

Far from creating a liberated and free democracy western intervention has set Libya on the path to becoming a failed state. The country is today ranked among the most insecure countries in the world [1]. Two years after the war, The country has not managed to form a unified police force or a professional army, and it has even formally recognised several of the militias, entrusting them with security tasks [2]. It may be better but freedom of information in Libya is still under threat [3]? The threat is simply different; less from the state, and more from a chaotic situation. Freedoms are also not gaining ground in all areas; notably there are concerns that religious freedom is declining with the country moving towards Sharia law, and with minorities being attacked and forced to convert to Islam [4].  [1] The New York times, ‘Clashes and car bombings highlight insecurity across Libya’, nytimes.com, 4 November 2012  [2] Euronews, ‘Libya’s internal insecurity appears long-term militia problem’, euronews.com, 10 October 2013  [3] World press freedom index, ‘Middle east and North Africa’, rsf.org  [4] Nzwili, Fredrick, ‘Christians in Libya cast anxious eye at religious freedom’, The Washington Post, 10 January 2014

A long ruling and ruthless dictator was toppled.  Gaddafi was an oppressive ruler who led Libya for 42 years. The country had no Parliament, political parties, or NGO’s and no civil society [1].  He ruled Libya with an iron fist, eliminating any political opposition, restricting people’s rights and worst of all supporting different terrorist groups around the world. The same man was responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people [2] and he supported the leadership of Iddi Amin a dictator who killed masses in Uganda.  His leadership posed a threat not only to Libya but to countries around the world. Western intervention in the Libyan civil war paved a clear path for the downfall of Gaddafi’s rule. We should consider the downfall of such a dictator to be a success and benefit to Libya and all who Gaddafi threatened.  [1] Neil, MacFarquhar, ‘An erratic leader, brutal and defiant to the end’ nytimes.com, 20 October 2011  [2] BBC News South Scotland, ‘Colonel Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie Shooting’, bbc.co.uk, 23 February 2011

Intervention was approved under the doctrine responsibility to protect and it aimed at protecting civilians in Libya [1]. While toppling Gaddafi was successful, it did not help in stabilising Libya. Many would prefer stability under a dictatorship than chaos. The situation today is even worse than during Gaddafi’s regime, with insecurity and chaos across the country, increased reports of human rights violation and terrorism [2].  Intervention however did not restore peace and did nothing to help or protect civilians in the longer term.  [1] The economist, ‘The lessons of Libya’, economist.com, 19 May 2011  [2] The fault lines, ‘Libya; state of insecurity background reading’, Aljazeera.com, 14 February 2014

Ushered in the liberation of Libya.  The uprising sparked off as a concern for freedom in the country, people were tired of the oppressive regime and wanted to be liberated. This could not happen by people power alone; Gaddafi was willing to crack down to prevent it like Assad in Syria did.  Western intervention in the civil war helped the citizens gain power and force to fight for their rights, by providing them with training, intelligence and logistics among others hence ejecting the oppressive leadership a symbol for liberation.  After the civil war, people were able to participate in an election of the national assembly considered free and fair for the first time in Libya[1]. The part of the Mo Ibrahim index that rates participation and human rights rose from 20% in 2010 to 30.5% in 2012 [2]. More democratic and accountable government institutions have been set up, NGO’s welcomed and civil society empowered. Libya is becoming much freer with freedom house upgrading the country from ‘not free’ to ‘partially free’ [3].  [1] BBC news Africa, ‘Libya election success for secularist Jibril’s bloc’, bbc.co.uk, 18 July 2012  [2] Mo Ibrahim foundation, ‘Ibrahim index; Libya’, moibrahimfoundation.org  [3] ‘Freedom in the World 2013’, Freedom House, 2013

Russia’s long standing antagonism with the west is not new [1] and Libya is not the cause. Its reaction towards the Syrian conflict is driven by a complex mixture of political and economic interests including having a naval base in the country [2].  The UN security council has also continued to ensure that its operations are successful and have acted on the Syrian crisis too.  It approved a mission to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles in Syria and evacuate people from Homs. This shows how the UNSC usually works; where the major powers can agree they do and act, where they can’t the council does nothing. This would have happened in Syria regardless of what occurred in Libya; Syria is simply worth more strategically to Russia than Libya was.  [1] Con, Coughlin, ‘While Putin still believes the west is still an enemy, Russia will not change’, telegraph.co.uk, 3 December 2010  [2] Nicholas, Kosturos, ‘What Drives Russia’s Unrelenting Position on Syria?’, americanprogress.org, 13 August 2012

The no-fly zone on its own was not sufficient to protect civilians on the ground. It was the responsibility of NATO to take further action aimed at protecting people whose lives were at risk from gaddafi’s soldiers. This NATO did by attacking military targets such as artillery. This was also part of the UNSC agreement “permit all necessary measures to protect civilians”[1].  Specifically, NATO targeted military weapon stores and facilities not homes and camps as Gaddafi’s military did. 72 civilians were killed during this bombing campaign [2] a small number compared to the thousands of sorties. No one can know how long the conflict would have lasted without NATO intervention, it is therefore impossible to state that the conflict lasted six times longer than it would have without NATO involvement.  [1] Richard, Roth, ‘UN Security council approves no fly zone in Libya’, cnn.com, 18 March 2011  [2] BBC news Africa, ‘Nato hits back at Libya's civilian deaths report’, bbc.co.uk, 14 May 2012

It increased conflict and instability in Libya and its neighbours.  The toppling of Muammar Gaddafi has had unpleasant side effects. Gaddafi’s army involved a large number of mercenaries, many of them Tuaregs from northern Mali. When Gaddafi was overthrown they returned to their homeland without having given up their arms. These returnees helped spark a rebellion that deposed a democratically elected president under a coup and prompted yet another western intervention[1].  In Libya the situation never fully calmed down with the country left dealing with militia groups and terrorist attacks. The US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed, Prime minister Ali Zaidan was kidnapped and there are reports of ongoing insurgencies [2]. Previously Libyans may have lived under an eccentric dictator but at least they had order and stability.  [1] Owen, Jones, ‘The war in Libya was seen as a success now here we are engaging in the blowback in Mali’, independent.co.uk, 13 Jan 2013  [2] Chris, Stephen, ‘Assassination pushes Libya towards civil war, two years after Gaddafi’s death’, thegurdian.com, 19 October 2013

Created a large divide in the UN security council.  The UN security council approved humanitarian intervention in Libya that ensured a no fly zone to protect civilians from government attacks. However, the west went beyond the resolution’s intent and turned it into a de facto campaign for regime change [1].  This made Russia and China who initially had opposed any intervention feel cheated. The divide has affected the response of the security council to other crises notably in Syria where over a hundred thousand people have been killed and an even larger number displaced. Russia and China have vetoed resolutions on Syria three times [2] fearing that it may end like the Libyan case a fact that Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov stressed; “Russia will not allow a repetition of the Libyan scenario in Syria” [3].  Such divisionism has destroyed the credibility of the security council [4] and created an unintended casualty of the Libyan intervention.  [1] David, Blair, ‘Putin thinks Cameron conned him over Syria, he won’t allow that to happen again with Syria’, telegraph.co.uk, 2 August 2012  [2] Rick, Gladstone, ‘Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China Veto Another Resolution on Syria Sanctions’, nytimes.com, 19 July 2012  [3] Global research, ‘Russia Will not Allow Repetition of “Libya Scenario” in Syria’ globalresearch.ca  [4] Mick, B. Krever, ‘Why won’t the UN Security council intervene in Syria?’, cnn.com 14,January 2012

The intervention backfired.  NATO’S action increased the conflict’s duration about a six fold and the death toll at least sevenfold, but also increasing human rights abuses, humanitarian suffering, and weapon proliferation in Libya and neighbouring countries [1]. The UN security council approved the resolution for protecting civilians in Libya [2] but NATO just did the opposite. Their operation came at the expense of increasing harm to Libyans. NATO attacked Libyan forces indiscriminately including those in Sirte who posed no threat to civilians as Sirte remained in government hands right to near the end of the conflict and continued to support the rebels offering them weapons, military training, intelligence and troops on ground [1], even when they rejected cease fire offers from the government that would have helped end the crisis and spare civilians.  [1] Alan, Kuperman, ‘Lessons from Libya; How not to intervene’, harvard.edu September 2013  [2] Robert, winnet and Richard Spencer, ‘UN approves no fly zone as British troops prepare for action’, telegraph.co.uk, 17 March 2011

The Malian conflict is not new and has been on for a long period notably the 1960, 1996 and the 2006 rebellions[1]. It did not break up from the Libyan conflict and additionally the Tuareg were not the only rebels involved in this crisis. The insecurity reports across Libya is typical for every emerging democracy in transition and cannot be a reason to claim that it is not stable. Even the Libyan people accept it with 71% of the population being optimistic about the current situation [2].  [1] Mats,Utas, ‘The Malian crisis; Causes, consequences, responses’, wordpress.com 7 May 2013  [2] JMW Consulting, ‘Believing in Democracy: Public Opinion Survey in Libya’, National Democratic Institute, August 2013, p.6

A minor addition to what the UK has is hardly securing a special place for the UK. Moreover there is no reason to keep such a position if it is not working for Britain. The renegotiation deal did not succeed in making the EU work how Britain would like – a move back to greater national sovereignty – so Britain is better off out. Indeed some, such as former Conservative leader Michael Howard argue “There is only one thing that just might shake Europe’s leaders out of their complacency: the shock of a vote by the British people to leave… If the UK voted to leave, there would be a significant chance that they would ask us to think again [with greater concessions].” [1]  [1] Howard, Michael, ‘David Cameron’s reform bid has failed – it’s time to go’, The Telegraph, 25 February 2016,

Secures a special place for the UK  The renegotiation deal ensures that the UK has a special place in Europe. One where it is both a leading part of the club with a major say in the council, commission and parliament, and is also outside of those areas such as the Eurozone and anything relating to the Euro which the UK does not wish to join.  Donald Tusk, current president of the European Council, says that the deal "strengthens Britain's special status"; [1] the renegotiation document “recalls” the special position already holds listing previous opt outs on joining the Euro and Schengen among others. This deal adds to that an opt out from ever closer union.  With such a privileged position within the EU secured Britain should not rush to the exit so giving away such a status. As European politicians have made clear the UK will not receive such favourable treatment when outside the EU. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘EU deal gives UK special status, says Cameron’, 20/2/16   [2] Verhofstadt, Guy, ‘Message to Michael Gove: this deal is binding, and it’s the best Britain will get’, The Guardian, 24 February 2016,

The only way to ensure that the UK does not become part of a political union is to leave entirely. The European Scrutiny Committee of the UK Parliament has concluded that the “ever closer union” is largely symbolic so guarantees against it amount to little. [1] Meanwhile the pledges about competitiveness are vague. It leaves as an open question what are the administrative burdens that are going to be lowered or what legislation might be repealed. Without specifics is it likely that any such repeal will take place?  [1] European Scrutiny Committee, ‘Voters must know EU changes will require Treaty amendment’, parliament.uk, 15 December 2015,

A fundamental change to Britain’s relationship with Europe  It was too much to hope that the deal might involve a complete change for the EU as a whole. However it has the potential to fundamentally change the UK’s relationship with the EU by putting it on a much more secure footing.  The most fundamental change is the acceptance of two Europes. By accepting the UK opting out of ever closer union in perpetuity there is now an acceptance that the whole of Europe is not necessarily even moving to the same goal. As the deal states there can be “a deeper degree of integration among the Member states that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States.” [1] The second change is increasing democratic accountability through increasing the power of national Parliaments. Now if 55% of national parliaments reject a European Council proposal the Council will need to think again. [2]  [1] Annex 1, P.17  [2] Annex 1, P.17

While it is quite correct that the UK should not have to be signed up to taking part in a European super-state the renegotiation does not represent a big leap forward. With its’ opt outs that are not time limited the UK was already not further integrating with the EU. The change to accepting the de facto truth is not a big one. Allowing national parliaments a say may have a long term impact, but under the current mechanism it means almost nothing. It seems unlikely that 55% of member states national governments (which of course signed the deal) are ever going to lose in their parliaments. The bar is raised even higher by their being a time limit of 12 weeks.

Ensures Europe stays of the track Britain wants it to be on  Britain’s ideal for the European Union is a union that is founded upon free trade; an economic not a political block. The agreement ensures that the European Union remains on this path in two ways. First through agreement on competitiveness where members pledged the “lowering administrative burdens and compliance costs on economic operators, especially small and medium enterprises, and repealing unnecessary legislation”. [1] Second it is explicitly stated “references [in EU treaties] to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom” [2] which ensures that the UK will never have to become part of a political union but can instead remain in an economic partnership with the EU even if the EU itself moves towards political union.  [1] Annex 1, p.15  [2] Annex 1, p.16

Neither are at all likely. Gove’s opinion has been rejected by the Attorney General saying “It has legal effect from the point the UK says it intends to remain in the EU, and the European court must take it into account. The job of the European court is to interpret the agreements”. [1]  Similarly the European Parliament is very unlikely to reject the deal which has been agreed by the leaders of all member states. MEPs have generally shown support for the UK remaining in Europe and the leader of the EPP, the biggest group, has stated “We support the core of the agreement.” [2]  [1] Mason, Rowena, ‘Attorney general rejects Gove claim that EU deal is not legally binding’, The Guardian, 24 February 2016,   [2] European parliament web team, ‘EU Referendum: MEPs Debate the UK's European Future’, Huffington Post, 25 February 2016,

This is the case in all negotiations. Both sides start out with their maximalist demands that they would like to have and both sides compromise and reduce their own demands until they meet in the middle. During this compromise many ideas and proposals are dropped or watered down until both sides get the core of what they want. Cameron was never going to get all of his demands and it is disingenuous to suggest this could have happened.

The deal makes no difference to migration  David Cameron failed to even negotiate on the area that the people of the UK most want changed; cutting migration. The only way to do this is to end freedom of movement through the Schengen agreement; something that was never on the table. As a result the changes are minor ones to benefits which the Office for Budgetary Responsibility has said “changes to benefit rules are unlikely to have a huge impact on migration flows” indeed “In my opinion: not much”. [1]  Polling by ComRes within days of the agreement showed that 53% of the British public believe there will be no change in migration as a result of the deal while roughly equal numbers think it will increase as decrease; 21% to 22%. [2]  [1] May, John, and Whale, Sebastian, ‘OBR: Four-year ban on benefits 'unlikely' to cut EU immigration significantly’, Politics Home, 8 December 2015,   [2] Slack, James, ‘A complete failure: Voters offer damning verdict on PM's Europe deal with three-quarters claiming migration will not change as a result of his reforms - and could even increase’, 24 February 2016,

The renegotiation agreement could yet fall through  At the moment is simply an agreement between the leaders of the states within the EU. Until it is written into treaties the agreement is vulnerable. There are two ways in which it could fall through or be changed. The first is for the European Court to declare part of it incompatible with the EU treaties. The Secretary of State for Justice Michael Gove has argued "The facts are that the European Court of Justice is not bound by this agreement until treaties are changed and we don't know when that will be". [1]  The second is that the European Parliament still needs to approve as would any legislature when given a proposal by the executive branch. [2] Members of the European Parliament have refused to rule out that it could be rejected. [3] Even then nothing is secure until there is treaty change as the only way the agreement can be legally binding “would be through Treaty amendment, or the equivalent agreement of a Protocol.” [4]  [1] ‘EU reforms ‘not legally binding’ – Michael Gove’, BBC News, 24 February 2016,   [2] Peers, Steve, ‘The draft UK/EU renegotiation deal: is it ‘legally binding and irreversible’?’, EU Law Analysis, 10 February 2016,   [3] Stone, Jon, ‘David Cameron’s EU deal can’t be legally binding, EU Parliament president Martin Schulz says’, Independent, 16 February 2016,   [4] European Scrutiny Committee, ‘Voters must know EU changes will require Treaty amendment’, parliament.uk, 15 December 2015,

The renegotiation makes little difference  Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg described the deal as “pretty thin gruel” which hits the mark. The British Prime Minister has not been able to go nearly as far as he would like for example with his pledge on migrant benefits where Cameroon failed to ensure that all who claim must contribute to the UK for at least four years. Instead there is a break that the UK can use if migrants are putting excessive pressure on public services. Meanwhile Cameron failed to get anything at all on the Working Time Directive that restricts working hours in the EU. [1]  More important is what Cameron did not even demand; greater democracy in the EU, bringing power back to national parliaments, or opting out or significant changes to common agricultural and fisheries policies.  [1] Foster, Peter, ‘EU deal: What David Cameron asked for… and what he actually got’, The Telegraph, 20 February 2016,

Migration is a benefit to the UK financially. Most migrants don’t claim benefits which is why such benefit rules changes will not make much difference. Cutting migration would be easier outside the European Union however even then there is unlikely to be scope to cut migration as far as skeptics want. Net migration from outside the EU in year ending September 2015 was 191,000 [1] far above the Conservative target to get migration below 100,000.  [1] White, Nicola, ‘Migration Statistics Quarterly Report: February 2016’, ons.gov.uk, 25 February 2016,

As an American state, Puerto Ricans would pay federal income taxes, which most currently do not. Some businesses would also lose tax breaks they currently enjoy. [1] This would harm not only the wealth of individual Puerto Ricans but also harm the country's economic standing, as it would become less appealing as an investment destination without these tax breaks and with the presence of federal income taxes. There is no guarantee that the extremely high rates of economic growth the pro-statehood optimists forecast will actually come about to balance out these increased costs for all Puerto Ricans. Historically statehood could have been disastrous for Puerto Rico's economy: the post-World War Two economic growth in Puerto Rico was the result of special treatment via exemption from Federal corporate taxes resulting from Puerto Rico' special non-state status. [2]  [1] Constitutional Rights Foundation. “BRIA 17 4 c Puerto Rico: Commonwealth, Statehood, or Independence?”. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Fall 2001 (17:4).  [2] Leibowitz, Arnold H. “Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations”. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1989.

Puerto Rico would benefit economically from statehood  American statehood would lead to significant economic growth for Puerto Rico. Statehood would mean that the island would shed its ineffective and costly reliance on preferential tax credits and more fully integrate into the national economy. In a study by Hexner, Jenkins, Lad and Lame, "Puerto Rican Statehood: A Precondition to Sound Economic Growth," the case is persuasively made that statehood is necessary for the island's economic growth. [1] [2] As an American state, the standard of living in Puerto Rico would profoundly improve for the average person. With average income going up, families would be able to pay their fair share of taxes while still improving their net income and standard of living. For those with low incomes, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico would have the same access to tax relief and federal support programs as any other citizen of the country, unlike under the present status where significant disparities exist. This is particularly significant as approximately 50% of Puerto Ricans live under the federal poverty line. [3]  Many areas of US Federal funding to Puerto Rico would actually improve. For example, the current 50 states can receive up to 90% reimbursement through Medicaid for critical health information technologies; Puerto Rico is not eligible for these supplements. According to 2005 Congressional testimony by Governor Anibal Acevedo-Vila, had Puerto Rico been treated like the other states, it would have received $1.7 billion dollars in federal Medicaid support instead of the $219 million received. Translated to monthly amounts, federal Medicaid support in the states approximated $330 per month per participant; the amount in Puerto Rico was about $20 per month. [4] The US is one of the richest countries on earth, and being a full part of it would give Puerto Ricans a lot of practical advantages that the independent countries of the Spanish-speaking Caribbean lack. The right to move to the US-proper and work there legally, for example, is extremely valuable. [5] Overall, therefore, there is a compelling economic case for Puerto Rico to seek American statehood.  [1] Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association. “Statehood”.  [2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [3] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [4] Frisse, Dr. Mark. “Puerto Rico”. Wellshpere. 7 September 2008.  [5] Yglesias, Matthew. “What is the Case for Puerto Rican Independence?”. Think Progress. 1 May 2010.

The foreignness of English in Puerto Rico is greater in magnitude than it was in any state at any time in our national experience, including the examples listed. Census data show that just 20 percent of the island’s residents speak English fluently. By comparison, California has the lowest proficiency rate among the 50 states, but its 80 percent proficiency rate dwarfs Puerto Rico’s. The deeply rooted preference for Spanish makes Puerto Rico’s 1993 elevation of English to “co-official” status practically irrelevant. Authentic “official English” policies increase English learning, but they will not work when English is merely an add-on to a pre-existing official language that is spoken in 95 percent of homes. [1]  [1] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.

Puerto Ricans deserve full political rights and citizenship  Currently, Puerto Ricans do not receive full political rights and equal representation, despite their American citizenship. Although it has its own Governor and legislature which handles some domestic matters, inhabitants of Puerto Rico receive no say in US federal matters or foreign policy, despite being heavily affected by them (more so than most current American states, as Puerto Rico sits in the Caribbean surrounded by other island nation-states). [1] If Puerto Rico became a US state, Puerto Ricans would then share as everyone else in full benefits from the US government, while paying taxes like everyone else.  The status quo perpetuates a semi-colonial situation in Puerto Rico, where American citizenship, which they have held since 1917, carries fewer rights than in the US proper. This has been the situation since the US captured Puerto Rico in 1898, and no other US territory has been held in limbo like this for so long. During this time Puerto Ricans have supported the US by serving in large numbers, both voluntarily and through conscription, in the US military in every major war since the Spanish-American War. [2]  However the island's current status still prompts United Nations to still debate whether Puerto Rico is a colony. [3] US congressional inquest into Puerto Rico's political situation has found that, despite the divergent views that Puerto Ricans have with respect to their preferred political status, “all factions agree on the need to end the present undemocratic arrangement whereby Puerto Rico is subject to the laws of Congress but cannot vote in it.” [4]  The former chief justice of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, Jose Trias Monge, has written a book on the political status of Puerto Rico entitled “Puerto Rico: The Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World.” Therein he argued that just prior to the U.S. invasion, the Island enjoyed greater freedom and rights in certain areas than it does now, including an insular parliament that could legislate in matters of monetary policy, banking, import/export duties, and public credit; the ability of Puerto Rico to negotiate its own commercial treaties; Puerto Ricans were Spanish citizens, equal in all respects to mainland Spanish citizens; the Spanish Constitution applied in Puerto Rico in the same manner as it applied in Spain proper; the Autonomic Charter of 1897, which governed Puerto Rico's relation with Spain, could not be changed except with Puerto Rico's consent. [5] The political rights currently enjoyed by Puerto Ricans, such as their right to elect their own Governor, are not even guaranteed to them in the status quo. In 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice. [6] To perpetuate this current second-class status is morally unacceptable in a nation which pledges itself to “liberty and justice for all”.  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [3] Constitutional Rights Foundation. “BRIA 17 4 c Puerto Rico: Commonwealth, Statehood, or Independence?”. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Fall 2001 (17:4).  [4] U.S House of Representatives. ‘Puerto Rico Democracy Act’, 110th Congress. Second Session. Report #597. 2007, Washington, D.C.  [5] Monge, Jose Trias. “Puerto Rico: The Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World”. Yale University Press. 1997.  [6] Hill, Fay and Edmondson, "United States v. Sanchez, 992 F.2D 1143 (1993) United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Paragraphs 44 – 46)"

Regardless of what Puerto Ricans may or may not “deserve”, the fact is that Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood many times now, making their voices heard on this issue many times since the late 1960's. The island has repeatedly voted to remain a commonwealth when votes were taken in 1967, 1993, and 1998. [1] If Puerto Ricans actually like their current status enough to vote for it when presented with the alternatives of statehood or independence, where is the injustice in that status continuing?  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.

English is not a problem for Puerto Rican statehood  Some have made the argument that Puerto Rico should not be a state because Puerto Ricans do not speak English, and that the US should not have a non-English speaking state. This argument does not hold up for the following reasons: English is already an official language on the island with the same status as Spanish. Puerto Ricans are already citizens of the U.S., and have been since1917. [1] There was no language requirement with the granting of citizenship then, so it makes no sense to ask this question now. In fact, there has never been a language requirement of territories entering the union in American history. English is a required subject in public schools through high school. English is the only language of the Federal Court system and all U.S. government agencies in Puerto Rico and is the common language in banking, commerce, real estate and the tourism industry. Learning English as well as Spanish just makes good sense. English is the international language of business, science, and increasingly, diplomacy. Puerto Rico should do all it can to increase English language capability. But, making it a requirement of statehood would ignore the precedents of Enabling Acts of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arizona, all of which similarly had issues of large non-English speaking populations and gave or give these other languages some official status in law. [2]  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.

Firstly, Puerto Ricans have repeatedly rejected independence in referendums in 1967, 1993, and 1998, with the votes for independence always being fewer than those for statehood. But secondly, the reasons against Puerto Rican independence are myriad. If Puerto Rico were to vote for independence, it would be hugely costly. It is inconceivable that the U.S. would set Puerto Rico adrift without a large "transition package" and continued foreign aid of a large magnitude. This would be necessitated by the fact that Puerto Ricans are currently U.S. citizens, who would demand favourable treatment and help. Puerto Rico, as an island with 3.8 million people and no other significant natural resources, is not economically viable as a separate nation without significant external aid and free access to large markets like the US enjoys. With statehood, Puerto Rico can be economically viable and a contributor to the United States' wealth, but with independence it would be impoverished and isolated. [1] Moreover, the American 'melting pot' has always been about the fusion of different cultures together, not their disappearance, and this will be the same for Puerto Rican identity.  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.

The arguments regarding the loss of Puerto Rican culture under statehood do not stand up because Puerto Rican identity is strong and will continue to be so. Puerto Rico has been exposed to U.S. mainland cultures for over 100 years, and Puerto Rican culture and heritage has thrived and grown. Puerto Ricans and mainland citizens have moved freely between the island and the mainland with no resulting cultural dilution or weakening of Puerto Rican's strong identity, even with the large migrations of the 1930's, the 1950's and since then. There is no reason to believe this would change under statehood. Puerto Rico has adopted and adapted aspects of U.S. culture, just as we have incorporated much of Puerto Rican culture when exposed to it. Puerto Ricans, while citizens, in much the same way as Texans and others view themselves, are still Puerto Ricans despite the more than 100 years of the deep and strong relationship with the mainland United States. [1]  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.

Puerto Rican statehood is not economical for the US  If Puerto Rico were to enter the US in such a way as to harm the US economy or if it were to become a burden to the US, this could lead to resentment of Puerto Rico by the rest of the US and hamper integration. The unemployed in Puerto Rico will at least have higher welfare benefits to fall back on if statehood is granted, meaning more money lost to the U.S. treasury. [1] Puerto Rico's per capita income of $8,509 is less than one third of the US average, and about one half that of Mississippi, the poorest state. The government sector in Puerto Rico generates approximately 380,000 jobs, or 33% of total employment can be unfavourably compared to the percentage of the economy of Puerto Rico from tourism: About 6%. The average monthly per capita income in Puerto Rico $709 per month. Social Security Disability payments are at least $790 per month. Rank of a state of Puerto Rico as a state among states based on population: 25th. Rank of Puerto Rico currently if included among states based on persons receiving disability income: 16th. [2] Even with the gain to the U.S. Treasury of taxes now not being paid by Section 936 companies, the CBO put the cost of Puerto Rican statehood as $9.4 billion in the first four years. These costs do not include matters like government and court translation expenses should Puerto Rico declare itself to be a solely Spanish-speaking land. [3] [4] [5] Nor does it include the costs to the U.S. Treasury of as many as seven representatives and two Senators whose continuance in office will depend on their pleasing an impoverished constituency. Legislation to increase federal spending on social programs of all sorts need not fail narrowly in either house of the U.S. Congress, as it does at the moment, if Puerto Rico's delegation (twice the size of West Virginia's) enters the equation. [6] Clearly neither the United States nor Puerto Rico can afford Puerto Rican statehood, and it makes no sense for Puerto Rico to enter into such an unstable relationship where resentment against Puerto Rico (and Puerto Ricans living in the US) will breed fast.  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [2] NoPuertoRicoStatehood. “Puerto Rico Statehood”. 29 May 2011.  [3] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [4] Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association. “Statehood”.  [5] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.  [6] Fund, John. “Puerto Rico, the 51st State?”. The Wall Street Journal. 13 May 2010.

Statehood would prevent Puerto Rican independence  The US has treated Puerto Rico as little more than a colony for 100 years, and this has seeped into the Puerto Rican mentality in harmful ways. According to educational scientists Francesco Cordasco and Eugene Bucchioni, in their 1973 work The Puerto Rican Experience: a Sociological Sourcebook, the belief that Puerto Rico cannot survive on its own results from teachings since grade school. “Puerto Ricans here and in Puerto Rico are taught three things: Puerto Rico is small and the US is big, Puerto Rico is poor and the US is rich, Puerto Rico is weak and the US is strong.” [1] Popular author and Puerto Rican culture enthusiast Jesús Omar Rivera similarly argues that “in Puerto Rico, ever since you are a child, you are told that you live on a tiny island that has no natural resources, nothing. This is what they teach you in school, on TV, the media, and it’s always negative.” He argues says this perception is a by-product of the island’s political dependence on the U.S.. “There is this colonized mentality that everything from abroad is better.” [2]  None of this would change under statehood, and arguably would get even worse as Puerto Rican culture, still perceived as 'inferior' to all things American, would decline even further. Puerto Rican nationalist Juan Mari Brás has argued “Only through a great unified movement looking beyond political and ideological differences, can the prevalent fears of hunger and persecution be overcome for the eventual liberation of Puerto Rico, breaking through domination by the greatest imperialist power of our age”. [3] Attaining Puerto Rican independence us the only great cause which can unite all Puerto Rican people and allow them to break out of this colonized mentality and reclaim their dignity as a people and as a nation. To enter into US statehood would simply be to accept this colonized mentality and the denigration of all things Puerto Rican, to the advantage of the all-consuming American culture.  [1] Cordasco, Francesco and Bucchioni, Eugene. “The Puerto Rican Experience: a Sociological Sourcebook”. 1973. Littlefield, Adams, &amp; Co..  [2] Martorell, Carlos Rodríguez. “Have a Puerto Rican question? Ask El Boricuazo”. NYDailyNews. 3 June 2008.  [3] Peacehost.net. “Juan Mari Brás”.

The language barrier and Puerto Rican identity  Puerto Rico should not become an American state because linguistic and cultural differences continue to divide the other 50 states and Puerto Rico. This would mean that Puerto Rico would either fit incongruously into the union, or it would lose its distinct cultural identity. Historically the US administrations of Puerto Rico have pursued 'Americanization' campaigns there, focusing especially around imposing the use of the English language and casting aside 'old values'. This policy was deeply resented and strongly resisted by most Puerto Ricans, and it failed. Thus, after 91 years of intimate association, Puerto Rico remains a separate cultural nationality. [1] [2]  Furthermore in terms of national identity, Puerto Rico joining the US would result in it losing the semi-independent (or at least distinct) identity which it currently has in the eyes of much of the world. To name but two examples, Puerto would no longer have its own representative in the Miss Universe Pageant (which Puerto Rico has actually won on three occasions) and they would not be recognized as an individual nation in the Olympic games, as it currently is. These international representations would be curbed under statehood, as Puerto Rico would be required to participate in the same manner as the other 50 states, and to compete to represent the United States collectively, and not Puerto Rico individually, in these international events. [3]  Changing language policies would also undermine Puerto Rican culture: the territories that became Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma (who all had large and historically rooted non-English-speaking populations) were all admitted to the union by congressional enabling acts that required that “schools shall always be conducted in English” in order to ensure assimilation. [4] This would likely also be the case with Puerto Rico, and could undermine the access of future generations of Puerto Ricans to their Hispanic heritage and culture, subsuming it within the overpowering tide of English-speaking American culture. Thus the Puerto Rican people are highly independent and have immense pride in their district and rich Latin culture and Spanish language, and they should not be deprived of that culture, which statehood would arguably contribute towards.  [1] NoPuertoRicoStatehood. “Puerto Rico Statehood”. 29 May 2011.  [2] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.  [3] Essortment. “Puerto Rican Statehood, the An overview of the pros and cons”. Essortment.com.  [4] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.

Much of this argumentation assumes that the Puerto Rican economy will not expand with statehood, which there are many good reasons to believe would occur. Look at what happened to the last two states admitted to the Union, Hawaii and Alaska. Both economies grew substantially after being admitted to the Union and became net contributors to the U.S. Treasury. Puerto Rico would receive equal treatment in both taxes and benefits, the same as the other states. Benefits to the island under the current system are limited by Congress. Those limitations would be removed. At the same time, payments of federal taxes would be phased in, as provided by the enabling legislation. It has been estimated Puerto Rico as a state will contribute nearly $2 billion to the U.S. Treasury each year. [1] How is that possible? Through economic growth. With economic growth there are more jobs, fewer unemployed, and less of a public assistance burden.  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.

It does not matter if think tanks are used in this way, so long as the conclusions that are reached by the think tanks are true. If there is objective value in an idea it should be communicated as well as possible. If this cannot be done with conventional marketing, it is good for it to be possible through a think tank. If the think tank’s idea and conclusion is wrong, the fact that it is presented objectively makes it no less falsifiable. Think tanks do not exist in a vacuum, and for every false idea presented as positive there will be another think tank to scrutinise it. In either case, the consumer is given useful information in an accessible way that can still be questioned.

Think tanks’ power of objectivity is the best form of marketing for biased views  Think tanks are considered more credible than corporate marketing. [1] In the case of corporate marketing the recipient is aware that he is being sold a product. In the case of think tanks, the recipient believes he is being given unbiased information. Therefore, it is tempting for corporations to finance think tanks and encourage them to reach the conclusions that they otherwise would promote through marketing. This way, think tanks can be powerful tools for promoting a biased agenda: if done successfully the same message is communicated but in the form of credible information rather than manipulative marketing. In fact, it is common practice for journalists to quote think tanks without labelling their political bias. [2] And they most certainly don’t say if there is funding from a particular interest for example with the supposedly free market Institute of Public Affairs in Australia that somehow ends up arguing for government investment and intervention in Northern Australia – a position suspiciously close to several big mining companies. [3] This violates people’s freedom to make an informed decision, and can give biased views disproportionate and undue influence. By forcing them to disclose, any corruption or bias will become obvious to all.  [1] Mayer, Jane. “Covert Operations”, A Reporter at Large, The New Yorker. 30 August 2010   [2] Dolny, Michael. “What’s in a Label?”, Extra!, FAIR. 1 May 1998   [3] MediaWatch, “Disclosing the funding of think tanks”, ABC News, 27 May 2013,

It is already in the interest of think tanks to be transparent. Think tanks exist in societies that depend on open communication and the free flow of ideas. Numerous organisations exist to criticise and unmask non-transparent think tanks: [1] this is sufficient incentive for them to reveal their funding. There may be exceptions in which the benefits of non-disclosure overrule the disadvantages in terms of trust, but these are rare, and it does not follow that it will be abused.  [1] Who Funds You, Political Innovation,

Think tanks may become smoke screens for criminal groups  In the status quo, the ability of think tanks to be non-transparent potentially provides a framework for criminal groups, or in extreme cases organisations, to handle large amounts of money without revealing where their money comes from or goes. We are allowing extremist groups to be exempt from answering to the government or shareholders in their management of money or information. In the US and Canada, think tanks are also exempt from tax. [1] By this mechanism, false think tanks can be used, for example, to channel money from openly extremist groups that could otherwise not access those parts of the world.  [1] 26 USC § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc., Legal Information Institute

People have a right to know where their information comes from  Democracies rely on transparency. Our commitment to transparency means surrendering part of our autonomy for the collective. This does not mean that our autonomy does not still belong to us; the institutions that affect our lives are under a constant obligation to justify their decisions and existence in relation to us. I do not have a right to know everything about the local football club (if I don’t play football and they are not a public company their decisions don’t affect me). Think tanks, however, are highly influential, and directly affect the society in which we live: some have, for example, lobbied successfully against action to prevent global warming. [1] Therefore they are to be considered a power in society, and the principle of transparency must be extended to them.  [1] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013,

Think tanks don’t have any legislative power. At the end of the day, what they do is merely make suggestions. If they were active lobbyists they would lose their privileged legal position as an academic organisation. [1] Even if there may be other benefits of them being transparent, the legal concept of transparency cannot be extended to them. That would open the door to forcing other independent private institutions to reveal details of their organisation. Furthermore, think tanks rarely claim to be completely impartial. They usually have an agenda and are aligned with a political party. This concession in terms of impartiality merits equal concessions in terms of demanded transparency. At the end of the day it is their work that influences the agenda and that same work shows where their sympathies lie.  [1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524.

There is no necessity to disclose think tank funding publically in order to circumvent this issue. As long as there are public institutions that scrutinise think tanks and are also bound to secrecy unless there are anomalies, the risk of terrorism can be successfully regulated. Being a think tank does not prevent an organisation from having to be transparent to government about their finances. It is unnecessary to expose think tanks that do not act illicitly to the general public.

Think tanks can choose transparency in the status quo anyway (as shown by nef): this benefit is relatively small. On the other hand, it harms the many other think tanks that need to protect the information of who funds them if, for instance, the funders do not wish to disclose it. It is a loss of freedom for the majority, not a gain.

The status quo promotes non-transparency  Non-disclosure can be perceived as objectivity. It is easier for the public to criticise a think tank that is openly associated with a particular funder. That kind of prejudice is stronger than the more general the prejudice against non-disclosure. A person might distrust a non-transparent think tank, but dislike a think tank that is funded by an organisation they are already prejudiced towards. [1] In any comparison between two such organisations the distrusted organisation will have greater impact than the disliked organisation. [2] This gives non-transparent think tanks an advantage over transparent and honest ones. Billionaires are then able to buy influence by secretly funding organisations such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation or the Institute of Economic Affairs that is then listened to, by the media and therefore the public, when their own views would simply be dismissed due to the personal motivations of the backers. [3] By forcing all think tanks to reveal their funding, we level the playing field.  [1] Bentley, Guy. “The state funding swindle: how left wing think-tanks are pulling taxpayer-funded wool over our eyes”, Commentary, The Commentator. 20 September 2012,   [2] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524.   [3] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013

Legally requiring disclosure from all benefits think tanks  Even think tanks benefit from the introduction of this policy. The status quo leaves disclosure as a strategic device: think tanks are unwilling to disclose more than their competition for fear of being unfavourably portrayed. Such negative competition, i.e. competition in factors that do not improve the products of the market, makes them unable to make rational decisions about their funding if, for instance, potential funders want to contribute only on the condition that this funding be made public. As a consequence, the advent of organisations who call for transparency has been praised by prominent think tanks like the New Economics Foundation. [1] By depriving everybody of the strategic tool of revealing none or only a part of their funding, think tanks cannot be pressured into hiding or providing certain information about their funders, and they can thus act more independently.  [1] Read, Sam. “Think tank funding matters: it’s central to democracy”, the nef blog, 22 June 2012,

On the other hand, by disclosing funders more corporations and individuals will have an incentive to fund think tanks. They will be assured that they will be publically recognised for it, and thus be rewarded when the think tanks they support produce good ideas.

Such a system, in which one allows think tanks to accept substantial anonymous donations, has immense downsides. It is simply too easy for a think tank to claim all, or most, of its funding is anonymous to them when it is questioned, while in fact they have been having informal strategic talks with potential funders days prior to, during, or after the donation. We cannot adopt a policy that is so easy too abuse, and since all think tanks must know who their funders are, we are not restricting their independence any further by asking them to make it public.

Overregulating think tanks sets a dangerous precedent  The public scrutiny on think tank funders may backlash on perfectly innocent investors. Investors may be accused of corruption if think tanks that share their values independently reach favourable conclusions. Alternatively, minor investors may become guilty by association, for instance, if notorious companies or political parties have been seen supporting the same think tanks – even if this is done for completely different reasons. The motivations of think tanks cannot be made synonymous with their funders, but these funders should also not be made synonymous with each other. Thus for example Policy exchange is both seen as a think tank for UK conservative modernisers – the progressive wing of the party while also having been labelled as a “neo-con attack dog”. [1]  [1] Helm, Toby, and Hope, Christopher, “The top twelve think tanks in Britain”, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008,

Private investors have a right to privacy  The public scrutiny on think tank funders may backlash on perfectly innocent investors. Investors may be accused of corruption if think tanks that share their values independently reach favourable conclusions. Alternatively, minor investors may become guilty by association, for instance, if notorious companies or political parties have been seen supporting the same think tanks – even if this is done for completely different reasons. The motivations of think tanks cannot be made synonymous with their funders, but these funders should also not be made synonymous with each other. Thus for example Policy exchange is both seen as a think tank for UK conservative modernisers – the progressive wing of the party while also having been labelled as a “neo-con attack dog”. [1]  [1] Helm, Toby, and Hope, Christopher, “The top twelve think tanks in Britain”, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008,

Think tanks should be assessed by the value of their ideas, not by who funds them  One can conceive of an infinite amount of cases in which results of a think tank’s research are completely independent of their funders. Their opposition, however, will be likely to signal corruption, when in fact there may be no relation between a funder and certain results. Even if they are associated by sharing a perspective or an aim, this is not a sign of corruption or bias, and it should not enter into the value of a think tank. There has been one study of charity donations (as think tanks are) that concludes that anonymous donations are “a costly signal of a charity’s quality by an informed donor”. [1]  [1] Peacey, Mike W., “Masked Heroes: endogenous anonymity in charitable giving”, Centre for Market and Public Organisation Bristol Institute of Public Affairs, May 2013, p.27

Being subject to scrutiny discourages investors from supporting good projects  Think tanks depend largely on voluntary funding for their projects, [1] so they must be careful when risking potential investments. Investors are likely to be put off from funding think tanks with good aims if this funding will be scrutinised and their interests questioned. [2] They are likely not to wish to risk being associated with seemingly biased results: a system by which funders can support ideas in themselves, perhaps even anonymously for the think tanks themselves, is the one in which think tanks best flourish and best produce results. Those that produce the best and most interesting ideas will be those who succeed in obtaining funding.  [1] Think Tank Funding, On Think Tanks,  accessed 11 June 2013  [2] Butcher, Jonathan, “Does it Matter Who Funds You?” One World Trust, 12 July 2012,

This is not an inherent flaw in the system. In the status quo, large investors can still publically advertise the fact that they are funding a project, and this too can have repercussions and bring negative associations for other investors. It is a risk anyone makes when investing in a given idea. The right to privacy of investors in political campaigns was discarded once evidence of potential abuses and political arrangements surfaced. Similarly, this right cannot apply to think tank funders. [1]  [1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524.

Think tanks should be able to choose not to know who funds them  The information think tanks provide can be extremely useful to society. Therefore we should be hesitant to restrict their key strength, which is their independence. There may be scenarios in which think tanks, in need of funding for a purely positive project, ask for donations from anyone who believes in their values. Wanting to avoid any negative associations or any accusations of bias, they choose not to find out who their funders are, and thus they cannot disclose that information. For think tanks who claim independence by only asking for anonymous donors, this is no longer an option when they are forced to disclose. The attempt to create more objectivity actually removes one of the ways of being perfectly impartial.

People are capable of assessing a biased idea after discovering its bias, while it is dangerous to present potentially biased ideas as genuine, for this limits discussion. This is especially so in the status quo, where the suspicions of who may be funding think tanks remain when they choose not to disclose their funders. A blanket obligation of all think tanks to reveal their funding allows for open discourse and thus more space to discuss the ideas themselves.

Suggesting that feminising African politics will stop poverty and provide empowerment returns to the ideas we attach to women. Women are often associated with domesticity, care, and reproductivity. Who’s to say that this is what women are or what they stand for? Basing quota systems on what women are believed to do is dangerous – in reality behaviour cannot be predicted, as women remain diverse and heterogeneous. A study has shown that there is no relationship between the number of women cabinet members and the sex of the executive implying that women don’t really help other women in politics (Jalalzai, p.196).  Additionally who is to say that by having women in political roles they will instantly be able to implement and act on their desired policies? How resources and power are distributed within the political system is key. Resources may remain controlled by men.

Feminising the state: women helping women  Including women in politics helps enable poverty to be tackled. Poverty is a women’s issue; women are more likely to live in poverty than men, and women are needed in politics to change this. Women understand each other, and what they need.  Furthermore, although data varies, evidence shows gender inequalities remain intertwined to poverty and impoverishment [1] [2] . Women in positions of power and leadership can put the issues women face on the agenda and apply action. There is clearly a need to get women into politics to counter the current ‘boys club’ that exists in most countries where men help each other into positions of power squeezing out women and other methods of doing things.  [1] See further readings: Gender Inequality Index, 2014.  [2] See further readings: Chant, 2003.

Women become integrated into a man’s world. But the territory may not be changed. First, women may become like men in response to the jobs they take up and how one is expected to act in the given role. When we consider what conditions women are introduced, potentially with limited training in public speaking, confidence or acceptance, how will they fare? Their best way forward is to get help from the men already in parliament.  Secondly, how do women experience work and are they treated at work? Quotas introduce more women, however, they may experience gender-based harassment and unfair treatment at work. In the case of Kenya, a female politician was publicly slapped [1] . Who will ensure their rights are protected and they are treated equally in a political world?  Finally, is power redistributed? Frequent protests in Senegal show that despite quota systems being implemented women do not end up with power despite being in parliament. [2] Women are legally enrolled into local and national parties but do their seats ensure they can lead political parties? Does being a local candidate ensure the potential for national progression?  [1] African Spotlight, 2013.  [2] Kabwila, 2012.

Democracy must be representative  Quotas are building representative democracies. Through the quota system women are given a voice in society. Quotas mean women are represented in politics. Women are half of the electorate so should be around half of the legislature. Although not there yet the rising numbers symbolise positive change. In 2012, on average, 1/5 of MPs in sub-Saharan Africa were women (The Economist, 2013). In South Africa and Rwanda the number is far above this. Women make up 42% of parliament seats in South Africa, and 64% in Rwanda (ibid.). At present, in Africa we have 2 female presidents (Liberia; Malawi); and 1 prime minister (Aminata Toure, Senegal). Notably Malawi, Rwanda, Senegal, and South Africa all have some form of quota system (quotaProject, 2014).

Having more women does not mean a representative democracy is built as it is not just gender balance that needs to be considered but ethnicity, language groups etc. as well.  Additionally, the bias quota system will cause future problems. In the future men will need to be targeted and receive help. For example in Rwanda the focus on including women has pushed men out of politics. Implementing quotas favours the creation of a certain ‘representative democracy’. The democracy becomes ‘represented’ by what we think democracy should look like.

When we don’t just consider battle deaths the extent to which violence is declining is questionable [1] . Furthermore, we cannot suggest women in politics will limit war, conflict, or violence, as anomalies are found – such as Margret Thatcher’s use of violence in closing down industries across the UK and willingness to engage in the Falklands conflict. Furthermore the idea returns to a preconceived image and ideal women. The women are represented as the caregiver, submerged within traditional constructions of women as nurturing and empathetic.  [1] See further readings: WDR, 2011.

Changing the male territory  African politics remains masculinised and strongly male dominated. Implementing quotas shows a commitment to change gender inequalities by increasing women’s political participation (Bachelet, 2013). More women mean gender imbalances can be changed, women empowered, and the territorial boundaries defining what men and women do will become blurred.  Additionally women in African politics can change the ‘boys club’ of bad governance in Africa. Bad governance can be tackled as the prominence of males controlling decisions will be changed, and internal political relations altered. The least corrupt countries on the continent; Rwanda and Botswana both have some form of quota system(quotaproject, 2014, Transparency International, 2013)

A safer world  International relations debates, and conflict theories, suggest more women in politics makes for a safer world. In Pinker’s (2011) book the feminisation of politics is identified as a key factor to explain the decline in conflict and violence – battle deaths have declined from 20 per 100,000 people to only 1 or 2 today. Women are more inclined to call for peace resolution and being ‘maternal beings’ reflect nurturing behaviours.

It remains difficult to compare the experiences of women in Scandinavia and Africa. The contexts – history, ideas, and social geographies – are completely different. While Scandinavia may well not need quotas to change perceptions in Africa it may be the best way to do so. Women in Africa need a voice, and therefore politics provides a platform for their empowerment both vocally and in their use of public space. Quotas are a fast-track. It’s not forcing change but guiding and enabling it.

The women’s quota is a vital start to tackle underlying inequalities. Quotas of multiple identities such as race, class, age, sexuality, class and ethnicity will need to be included following the implementation of a women’s quota.

The woman’s ‘political job’  Quotas mean more women are able to enter the political world; however, how is it decided what political jobs and positions they can utilise? The inclusion of women into politics in Africa has mainly been in certain departments i.e. gender and health. More powerful women are needed in positions that remain masculinised – such as defence and security. Therefore the quota may introduce more women in politics, however, how active are they in deciding what area of politics? The quota may well be seen merely a means to introduce women passively into new distinct gender roles.  If women are believed to be granted positions as a result of the quotas, rather than it being a position they have earned, they may be more at risk of marginalisation at work. Having a quota provides a reason to argue that an exceptional woman has received her place no based upon merit but due to the quota. This may be used as an excuse to prevent women reaching the most important positions.

Assuming causality: Africa Vs Scandinavia  Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden and Denmark – have high female participation rates in parliament. However, Rwanda is one African nation that has even greater female parliamentary representation. In Scandinavia the quota has been introduced but is only implemented by some parties. Nevertheless there is little difference between parties in Denmark, for example, that utilise the quota and those that do not. This shows that voluntary quotas can work but also that they are not really necessary. This is because the position of women and capability to engage in politics was tackled first. The key thing is the perception of women; if they are perceived equally and voted for on their own merits women will win as often as men. This shows, crucially, political participation by women should not be dependent on quotas. We should not rely on quotas for gender equality.  Women face multiple barriers to political participation; deeper action is required to adjust imbalances rather than simple quotas. Having quotas simply encourages a perception that gender matters in politics when the desired outcome is the opposite; a belief by the electorate that politics is genderless with both as able to perform the role. In Senegal for example, the quota is being criticised as challenging traditional culture and patriarchal society norms it is however those norms that need to be changed not just the number of women in politics [1] .  [1] See further readings: Hirsch, 2012.

Are the women representative of all women?  How can it be assured the women entering African politics are representative of the women in that African nation? Further, will the leader implement politically popular ideas or required policies?  If we are introducing quotas for women in politics we need to think about what women are entering. The concern with race, ethnicity, age, sexuality, and class is fundamental as if we accept the principle that an unrepresented group should get a quota of parliamentarians this should not just apply to women. We need to think about who the women are, what they represent, and who. Even for women simple quotas do not ensure effective representation of what all women want, or ensure the means for change. Women are heterogeneous, as are their challenges in life.

Working within gender departments does not mean a woman will be limited in integrating with departments of security. Politics is integrated, and interconnected, therefore learning how to run one political department shows how to run another. Having a woman represent a department shows them in a position of power regardless of the department. We should not believe that the department of health is somehow less important than Defense.

The opinions of foreign governments and the international community have frequently failed to have any real impact upon the situation 'on the ground' in Tibet. For example, The US joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese 'aggression' and 'invasion' of Tibet in 1950, however the Chinese exerted their authority there anyway. [1] The international community will therefore acquiesce with whatever is decided between Tibet and China – they will applaud any deal or condemn any repression but this will not affect the positions of either side. Rather, what matters is what the Tibetan population support, and there is good reason to believe that the 'Middle Way' does not satisfy them. Many younger Tibetans would prefer that the Dalai Lama push for total independence, an regret that he did not pursue a more confrontational path with China over the 2008 Olympics. [2]  [1] The Office of Tibet, New York. “Historical Overview”. The Office of Tibet, New York.   [2] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008.

The 'Middle Way' has international support  The USA, the most powerful nation in the world, has been vocal in its support for the 'Middle Way' strategy. Concurrently, the US has not given any indication that it would support complete Tibetan independence – nor is it likely to. America is unlikely to jeopardise trade relations with China over the Tibetan issue by giving political legitimacy to those advocating complete independence. [1]  The European Parliament and the Scottish Parliament have also both passed motions advocating for the 'Middle Way' as a solution in Tibet. [2] [3] Such international support for the 'Middle Way' should be compared to the fact that no country in the world has ever recognised Tibetan independence. [4]  Only the involvement of international actors and inter-governmental organisations can guarantee that Tibet and China will be able to attain a peaceful and equitable equilibrium with each other. International support means that the international community would accept any change when it occurs and gives China a further incentive to negotiate for some form of the ‘Middle Way’ as it would positively benefit its international relations.  [1] Valdes, Manuel. “Dalai Lama to begin 6-day U.S. visit in Seattle to discuss compassion amid turmoil in Tibet”. Associated Press. 10 April 2008.   [2] TibetCustom. “European Parliament Discusses Current Situation of Tibet”. TibetCustom. 26 March 2010.   [3] Australia Tibet Council. “Sino-Tibetan Dialogue Presented to Scottish Parliament”. Australia Tibet Council. 2011.   [4] The Economist. “Britain's suzerain remedy”. The Economist. 6 November 2008.

China's supposed strategic interests in Tibet are also why the promised autonomy under the 'Middle Way' will never truly emerge. If China's need to hold onto Tibet is really so important as made out, China will always need to keep tight control over all happenings in Tibet so as to further guarantee its security. This of course assumes China really does have vital strategic interests in controlling Tibet (as the Chinese Government claims, and as is argued opposite), however it is not entirely clear exactly what these strategic interests are. The 'Middle Way' is just a smokescreen for perpetuating the predominance of China's security interests as the most important issue in Tibet. Thus, if China does have vital strategic interests in Tibet, it will never allow it true autonomy (and so the Middle Way is hopeless), and if it has no vital strategic interests in controlling Tibet then Chinese rule there is unjustified -and independence, not the ‘Middle Way’ should be adopted.

The 'Middle Way' is the most realistic path for Tibet and China  The Dalai Lama believes complete independence is not a viable solution for the Tibet crisis. Rather, his advocacy is aimed at creating common understanding between the Chinese and the Tibetans. He points to the model of the European Union as an example of a modern supranational political system in which different ethnicities and nationalities can cooperate to achieve an agreed ideal of prosperity.  “Look at the European Union … What is the use of small, small nations fighting each other? Today it's much better for Tibetans to join [China].” [1]  The 'Middle Way' is the most practical and realistic path for Tibet and China, as it bridges the needs of the Tibetan people with and interests of China.  Specifically, the "Middle Way" offers a mutually beneficial course of action, as it avoids the concerns that China has regarding national unity and separation and at the same time it enables the Tibetan people to achieve de-facto equivalent of a right to self-determination.  Acceptance of the 'Middle Way' would work as a signal demonstrating the increasing openness and accountability of Chinese political culture. As it is beneficial for both parties, it can be considered as a practical political course with a great potential to alleviate an ever growing strained situation. [2]  China is more likely to negotiate with Tibetan activists and leaders if their demands are limited to greater political autonomy. Conversely, China is unlikely to give up control of Tibet, as doing so would constitute a grievous blow to the territorial integrity of China itself.  The 'Middle Way' provides the current generation of Chinese leaders with an opportunity to accord greater autonomy to Tibet, without risking their domestic political capital or jeopardising China’s international standing.  A key aspect of the 'Middle Way' is an undertaking by Tibetan leaders not to push for further independence if greater autonomy is granted.  The 'Middle Way' also has the advantage of being in keeping with Tibetan Buddhist beliefs, mirroring the religion’s own ‘middle way’ tradition. The Buddhist 'Middle Way' is the descriptive term that Siddhartha Gautama (the Supreme Buddha) used to describe the character of the path he discovered that led to liberation. It was coined in the very first teaching that he delivered after his enlightenment. In this sutta- known in English as The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Dharma- the Buddha describes the middle way as a path of moderation between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. [3]  The Dalai Lama's “Middle Way” in Tibet is designed, per its name, around these Buddhist principles, and so it has the advantage of being in keeping with the religious beliefs of most of Tibet's population. This adds to its practicality as it would offer a political strategy consistent with the cultural norms of most Tibetans. Therefore, the Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way's is the most practical and realistic path toward rapprochement between Tibet and China.  [1] Liu, Melinda. “Fears and Tears”. The Daily Beast. 19 March 2008.  .  [2] Gyaltsen, Kelsang. “The Middle-Way approach”. Tibetan Bulletin, July-August 1997.   [3] Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya, 56:11  .

The 'Middle Way' is no different from the current situation. Although, theoretically, the 'Middle Way' proposition offers the Chinese authorities and ordinary Tibetans a way to harmonise their conflicting interests, it is practically no different from the political accommodation that Tibet currently subscribes to. Under the ‘Middle Way’, the Dalai Lama has expressed willingness to accept socialist rule in Tibet. He has also dropped former Tibetan demands that their homeland be offered a political relationship as expansive as China’s offer in the early-1980s to Taiwan in favour of an insistence on a Hong Kong-style ‘association’ relationship with Beijing. Since the early 2000s, in keeping with the ‘Middle Way’, his hints about a residual international personality have been kept to a minimum. Further, the autonomy arrangement sought is an amalgam of the Hong Kong ‘one country, two systems’ formula and the existing autonomy provisions of the PRC Constitution. [1] This gradual dropping of Tibetan demands under the name of the ‘Middle Way’ means that it offers little improvement from the status quo.  The background in terms of political events that led to a proposition of a "Middle Way" sheds more light into the fact that his strategy is just a new name on the board for the same as the provisions currently existing within the PRC constitution. [2] If the PRC sees that the ‘middle way’ is slowly reducing the demands for more freedom for Tibet then they are unlikely to embrace it as they can equally wait for more concessions. Despite all these concessions to the PRC position there are still things that China will never accept such as any idea that Tibet will be transformed into a ‘zone of peace and non-violence’ or that there should be a popularly elected legislature – it would inevitably mean others in China would believe they should have more democracy. By giving away so many concessions before negotiations but still making it impossible for the PRC to accept the Dalai Lama makes it unlikely that his middle way will get anywhere in negotiations so it is not really ‘realistic’.  [1] Gupta, Sourabh. “The Dalai Lama’s Middle-Way approach needs re-adjustment”. EastAsiaForum. 8 March 2010. http :// www . eastasiaforum . org /2010/03/08/ the - dalai - lamas - middle - way - approach - and - the - need - for - re - adjustment /  [2] ChinaDaily. “What is Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way'”. ChinaDaily.com.cn 26 July 2007.

The 'Middle Way' respects China's right to territorial integrity  The Chinese government has a right to protect the unity of China against Tibetan separatism. US President Abraham Lincoln, in justifying efforts to maintain the union in the face of an imminent civil war, said in 1858, “A house divided cannot stand”. [1] Unity was argued to be essential to the integrity and future of the union if the United States as a much more decentralized federal union cannot sanction such a division then a much more centralized China cannot. China can put forth the same rationale as Lincoln for forcing Tibet to remain part of China, for example when it notes argues that the concept of an independent Tibet has historically been used by what it calls ‘foreign imperialists’ to interfere in China internally and split it up so that it can more easily be controlled from abroad. As an example of this, the CIA’s support for Tibetan separatists during the Cold War is cited. [2] [3]  Mongolia provides a striking precedent for for Chinese worries about Tibetan independence, as it gained independence through Soviet backing and subsequently came under effective control of the USSR. [4] If Tibet were to achieve independence, both China and Tibet would be weaker, with less geopolitical strength and with greater tensions and opportunities for conflict. This is especially true in light of the history of foreign attempts to interfere with China internally, as noted above. The Dalai Lama made a similar argument himself when he stated: “Look at the European Union … What is the use of small, small nations fighting each other? Today it's much better for Tibetans to join [China].” [5] In 2008 the Foreign Minister of Cyprus similarly argued that the ‘One China’ policy, including Tibet, was necessary to safeguard China’s territorial integrity. [6] The government of Fiji has offered similar support. [7] The 'Middle Way' accounts for this need of China's whilst also offering greater autonomy to the Tibetan people, thus respecting the rights of both parties.  [1] Abraham Lincoln Online. “House Divided Speech”. Abraham Lincoln Online.   [2] Xinhua News report Xinhua News Report. Xinhua News. http :// news . xinhuanet . com / zhengfu /2002-11/15/ content _630888. htm  [3] Wonacott, Peter. " Revolt of the Monks : How a Secret CIA Campaign Against China 50 Years Ago Continues to Fester ; A Role for Dalai Lama ' s Brother " . Wall Street Journal . 30 August 2008. http :// online . wsj . com / article / SB 122005956740185361. html ? mod = googlenews _ wsj  [4] Xinhua News report Xinhua News Report. Xinhua News. http :// news . xinhuanet . com / zhengfu /2002-11/15/ content _630888. htm  [5] Liu, Melinda. “Fears and Tears”. The Daily Beast. 19 March 2008.   [6] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus. “Cyprus supports the principle of a ‘single’ China”. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus. 20 March 2008/ . http :// www . mfa . gov . cy / mfa / mfa 2006. nsf / All /5 B 640 E 57 BE 973 A 1 FC 22574120050 A 086? OpenDocument  [7] Fijilive. “Fiji backs China’s action in Tibet”. Fijilive. 24 March 2008. http :// www . fijilive . com / news _ new / index . php / news / show _ news /3075

China will simply never accept independence for Tibet, and so it is not a reasonable alternative to hold up against the 'Middle Way'. Rather, whatever gains can be made by adopting the 'Middle Way' should be embraced, as the alternative is not independence but rather unchanged Chinese dominance and control.

The average Tibetan does not actually want independence from China. For example, Dr. Lobsang Sangay, who was born in a refugee camp in India in 1968 and was named Prime Minister of the Cental Tibetan Administration (Tibetan exiles) on April 27, 2011, was once a militant of the Tibetan Youth Congress, a group that unequivocally supports Tibetan independence, but who now says he has matured and now supports the Middle Way Approach. [1] Certainly, many Tibetans want independence- of a type different to that proposed by the Dalai Lama- and some protest in favour of it. The Tibetan exile population is particularly vocal in this regard, but this should not be taken to mean that a majority of Tibetans want complete independence from China. Most Tibetans like everybody else would be happy with more freedoms within China rather than full independence. This is reflected in the views of the Dalai Lama, who seeks only greater freedoms and autonomy, but not independence, under the 'Middle Way'. [2]  [1] Editorial Board of The Tibetan Political Review. “Investigating the Candidates on the Middle Way”. The Tibetan Political Review. 15 March 2011. http :// sites . google . com / site / tibetanpoliticalreview / project - updates / investigatingthecandidatesonthemiddleway  [2] Barnett, Robert. “Seven Questions: What Tibetans Want”. Foreign Policy. 26 March 2008.

The Dalai Lama is no longer relevant to Tibet's future  The Dalai Lama's influence and significance in the debate over Tibet’s future has been fading; he has resigned from all ‘formal authority’ and handed over his political role [1] , and his support for the 'Middle Way' strategy- over attempts to secure full independence- may well have reduced his influence. During the 2008 riots and protests in Lhasa in favour of Tibetan independence, a feeling of incongruity between the Dalai Lama and the desires of the Tibetan people was vocalized. A Tibetan teacher at the protests stated “We are demanding a peace dialogue between His Holiness and the Chinese. But at the moment, Dalai Lama is out of the picture. It's a Tibetan people's movement.” [2] Tibet appears to have moved beyond the 'Middle Way', but the Dalai Lama has not. For a new generation of Tibetans the Middle Way is considered to be an ineffective negotiation strategy, one that will not allow them to obtain the rights and political equality that they seek.  Many activists operating within Tibet itself believe that violent confrontations comparable to the Palestinian intifada will be more effective in extracting concessions from the Chinese than the non-violent protests advocated by the Dalai Lama. [3]  The Dalai Lama himself has recognized that the 'Middle Way' may become a redundant aspect of the Tibet debate. In 2003, he told a French reporter: “If no results can be achieved in two or three years of negotiations, I would find it hard to explain to the young that the 'middle way' is more effective than seeking independence... If I fail, these young people would raise torches and cry for independence”. [4]  Events on the ground are simply the Dalai Lama's own prediction coming true, as he become less relevant and less in touch. The Chinese government has also tried to discredit Dalai Lama. The Beijing authorities have released a documentary portraying the Dalai Lama as exploiting the Tibetan people to further his own political agenda. The documentary also emphasized the increased pace of economic development in the region. [5]  Quite simply, Tibet has moved beyond the Dalai Lama and his 'Middle Way', and both are increasingly irrelevant to Tibet's youth and future. The 'Middle Way' continues to be followed mostly out of a nostalgic fascination with the Dalai Lama, or out of the international community's desire for a single, moderate Tibetan voice, even if he does not represent the Tibetan people.  [1] Banyan, ‘The Dalai Lama resigns So long, farewell’, The Economist, 14 March 2011,   [2] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008.   [3] Sonam, Tenzing. “Until the Last Tibetan”. Tibet Writes. 26 December 2007.   [4] ChinaDaily. “What is Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way'”. ChinaDaily.com.cn 26 July 2007.   [5] Little, Matthew. “CCTV-4 Steps up Propaganda Against Dalai Lama”. Epoch Times. 10 April 2008.

The Chinese government is exploiting the 'Middle Way' against Tibet's interests  The Chinese government manipulates people every day, and it is clear how Beijing is manipulating the good intentions of the Dalai Lama and his 'Middle Way'. The Middle Path is therefore not only hopeless, but also dangerous.  Henry Kissinger once said that in politics, one never pays for goods that have already been delivered. True to form, China is using the moderate stance of Tibet’s leadership-in-exile to extort concessions while giving nothing of substance in return. For example, Beijing spread false rumours that the Dalai Lama would be invited to China to prevent demonstrations when Hu Jintao visited the U.S. The 'Middle Way' policy is sapping momentum from the Tibet movement, depriving it of focus, and obscuring its goals. People are drifting away from a movement that appears to be drifting itself; political fervour can be difficult to sustain – especially when the Tibetan government-in-exile actually asks its supporters to behave in a passive a non-confrontational fashion. [1]  By asking Beijing for an official agreement to grant autonomous status to Tibet, the Tibetan government-in-exile will be surrendering many of the rights they are now entitled to and locking the entire Tibetan people into a constricted and precarious situation from which they cannot withdraw. Chinese restrictions will remain on the practice of Tibetan religion, culture and traditions within "autonomous" Tibet, the promotion of Tibetan culture, religion and traditions abroad will either be prohibited or restricted as it concerns foreign affairs, and all foreign travel will be controlled and restricted by the Chinese. [2] Accepting the Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way' will forever close the door on independence but leave Tibet still victim to China's cultural repression and control, and so it should not be supported.  [1] Dondup, Ketsun Lobsang. “Independence as Tibet’s Only Option: Why the ‘Middle Path’ is a Dead End”. Phayul.com. 25 January 2007.   [2] Shakabpa, Tsoltim N. “The Case Against Autonomy for Tibet”. Tibet Writes. 2 January 2008.

Tibetans want independence, not the 'Middle Way'  The Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way' is far from popular amongst the Tibetan population. Many ordinary Tibetans have criticised the Dalai Lama's conciliatory approach to China. His refusal to call for a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games is symbolic of this conciliatory approach where the majority of the Tibetan population, particularly the young disagreed with him. "China does not deserve to host the Olympics. It's evident that they do not deserve the Olympics," said Tsewang Rigzin, the leader of the Tibetan Youth Congress, at Dharamshala in 2008. [1]  Tsewang Rigzin also stated “There is a growing frustration within the Tibetan community, especially in the [younger] generation... I certainly hope the Middle Way approach will be reviewed. As we can see from the protests here and all over the world, the Tibetan people remain committed to achieving independence.” [2]  The (sometimes violent) 2008 protests made it clear that many Tibetans don't support the Dalai Lama's peaceful, non-revolutionary, non-independence 'Middle Way'. The Dalai Lama even had to threaten to resign if violent protests continued. Clearly, these protests showed that the Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way' lacks support amongst the young of Tibet – the individuals who will comprise successive generations of political, religious and business leaders. [3]  Within Tibet, pro-independence protesters have recently had more leverage than 'Middle Way' voices. The 'Middle Way' is a nuanced approach to the Tibetan issue and, therefore, is a less potent rallying for Tibetans who have been marginalised or excluded by Chinese policies in the region. Calls for Tibetan Independence mobilise more support among grass-roots activists in other areas of the world. [4] This is valuable, and is an argument in favour of, at least, continuing to call for Tibetan Independence, not merely the 'Middle Way'; it has a greater impact.  In this situation, it makes no sense for the Dalai Lama to alienate so many of his young people, so many of the most dedicated to the Tibetan cause, by preaching his 'Middle Way' when he should be calling for what his people truly want and need -Tibetan independence.  [1] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008.   [2] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008.   [3] The Economist. “Trashing the Beijing Road”. The Economist. 19 March 2008.   [4] The Economist. “A flaming row”. 9 Arpil 2008.

The Dalai Lama is the only solution for Tibet. His political advocacy as a leader and religious figure is imperative for the problem of Tibet. His commitment for non-violence and cohabitation and cooperation serves the peaceful interests of Tibet while accommodating for moderate changes. His 'Middle Way' platform is the bridge between China Tibet and world-wide international consensus on the Tibetans' right to self-determination. If resistance to China becomes more violent, as it did in 2008, then the Dalai Lama’s third way will become much more relevant as a solution that both sides can potentially sign up to. It may become the only way forward towards a compromise.  Irrespective of some discontent, the Dalai Lama still enjoys the loyalty and respect of most Tibetans. [1] During the 2008 protests in Tibet, the protesters regularly chanted the Dalai Lama's name, displayed his picture and recited a "long life" prayer for him. [2] He remains the undisputed moral leader of Tibetan people, and as such his 'Middle Way' path still has weight.  [1] The Economist. “A colonial uprising”. The Economist. 19 March 2008.   [2] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008.

Status in the world is not based upon having one extremely powerful weapon; there are much more important factors such as a country’s economy and use of diplomacy. Britain would still be a major financial centre, a major economy, a member of the UNSC (which is not based on nuclear weapons) as well as being one of the biggest contributors to peace and security in the world through peacekeeping and aid.  ‘Status’ is one of the popular justifications for acquiring nuclear weapons. However while countries like North Korea that develop nuclear weapons may acquire deterrence they don’t gain any more diplomatic clout. Britain giving up its deterrent or combining it into a European deterrent would help to undermine this perception by showing that nuclear weapons are not needed to maintain a powerful role in the world.

Trident allows the UK to maintain its global status  Currently the UK is recognised as a nuclear power by the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty along with the USA, China, France and Russia. All of whom are either modernising or maintaining their current nuclear arsenals. This means to not replace Trident would mean that we'd suffer a severe loss of status in relation to the other permanent members of the UN Security Council. This would also raise questions of whether the UK even deserves its place as a member there as it would show the UK’s declining global role and military power. Other countries that can be considered "more representative" such as India (the world's largest democracy) now would be an obvious replacement at the top table. [1]  Churchill said that the H bomb that it was "our badge to the Royal Enclosure [at Ascot]" [2] and today Trident remains one of our master keys to the Britain’s status at organisations such as the United Nations Security Council. There are already plenty of reasons why other countries might be more deserving of a security council place than the UK; we don’t need to add another.  [1] James Wirtz in "Contemporary Security Studies" Oxford University Press, First Edition 2007, Chapter 15, p273  [2] Adamson, Samuel H., ‘Supreme Effort: A lesson in British decline’, BC Journal, Vol. 16, 2010.

We already rely on the USA for our Trident missile systems so our ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ is already a fiction. The USA can at the moment easily pull the rug out from underneath us. While the UK maintains command and control over its weapons the United States is needed to keep the weapons operational. This means we are reliant on the United States one way or the other anyway.

Deterrence is still necessary.  The Trident Weapons System while it may be a "horrific part of our system" is still necessary even in today’s post-Cold War world. Firstly through deterrence it protects us from being blackmailed by any other states, and in particular so called "rogue states" like North Korea and potentially in the future Iran who could threaten our vital interests – such as closing the straits of Hormuz. [1]  Moreover having a second strike capability, the ability for nuclear weapons to survive a nuclear assault by an opponent so allowing retaliation, is also still necessary. [2] It may currently seem unlikely that any of the major nuclear armed states will threaten the United Kingdom however we do not know what may happen in the future and by the time a threat appears it would be too late to build a new nuclear second strike capability.  [1] The Secretary of State for Defence and The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’, Ministry of Defence, December 2006.  [2] James Wirtz in "Contemporary Security Studies" Oxford University Press, First Edition 2007, Chapter 15, p276

A deterrent is useless if no one thinks it will ever be used. The only conceivable use of Britain’s nuclear deterrent would be in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK, and if that has happened then there is little point in firing the missiles as there will be nothing left to save. Any blackmail today is likely to be much smaller, no state is going to threaten the use of nuclear weapons in order to get their way on trade. The only real possibility of nuclear blackmail is by terrorists who could not be deterred by a nuclear armament.

Can we rely on US nuclear umbrella?  The UK nuclear weapons programme was first created in late 1945 a time when people were concerned about the US commitment to Europe which was uncertain as the rise of the Iron Curtain had not been yet apparent. Currently if we didn't replace trident and disarmed more likely than not we would fall under the American strategic nuclear umbrella which would be fair enough in the short term and medium term as the relationship is currently strong despite certain cobblestones. A similar thing also applies with the French  But can we really rely on the Americans to keep that umbrella extended over the long term when their interests and emphasis may shift, regardless of cultural or ideological links? Relying on someone else’s deterrent will always be risky as the US or France would not want to put themselves at risk of being attacked in order to deter an attack on us. [1] An independent deterrence arsenal is necessary to maintain deterrence.  [1] The Secretary of State for Defence and The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’, Ministry of Defence, December 2006, p.18.

That Britain is not currently threatened with nuclear Armageddon as it was during the cold war does not mean that such a threat could never again occur. Britain must remain prepared for any eventuality which has to include the unthinkable such as the United States no longer being an ally.  The world is not yet a safe place there are many unstable states, such as North Korea, developing nuclear weapons capabalities. Beyond these dangers it is easily conceivable that the world will once again face tensions similar to those of the cold war. Given the length of time it would take to rearm should such tensions occur Britain would be safer to keep its nuclear armament.

A state of the art nuclear weapons system is always going to be costly and no one wants to cut corners for the risks that could create. Yet it is money well spent when compared to the damage which would be caused if Britain was attacked due to not having a nuclear deterrent.

The UK should encourage others to reduce their own stocks of nuclear weapons.  Britain as a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty the United Kingdom is obliged to pursue “nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” [1] While complete disarmament by all states with nuclear weapons is a long way off the United Kingdom could make a good start by getting rid of its own weapons. A Nuclear Weapons state giving up its weapons after sixty years would show that nations can manage without nuclear weapons and so act as an encouragement to others to do the same.  [1] ‘Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’, International Atomic Energy Agency, INFCIRC/140, 22 April 1970, Article VI.

Trident is not an independent weapons system  Britain tries to maintain that it has an ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ but this is just a fiction. Britain has not had an independent nuclear deterrent for fifty years. The United Kingdom has used American missiles since the Polaris Sales Agreement of 6 April 1963 first with the United States supplying Polaris missiles and then Trident missiles. [1] The UK does not own its missiles, they are leased, and the UK is completely dependent on the US for the maintenance of the missiles and even for targeting data. [2] The United States certainly appears to consider Britain’s deterrent to be dependent on them; wikileaks revealed that the US handed over the serial numbers of the missiles it transfers to the UK over to Russia to help the Russians verify the number of UK missiles. [3]  [1] Jimmy Carter: "Sale of Trident I Missiles to the United Kingdom Exchange of Letters Between the President and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom. ," July 14, 1980. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.  [2] ‘UK’s Trident system not truly independent’, Select Committee on Defence Written Evidence, 7 March 2006.  [3] ‘Geneva: Agreed statements meeting, 10Geneva135 26 February 2010’, The Telegraph, 4 February 2011.

Nuclear weapons are no longer needed  When the United Kingdom first tested Nuclear Weapons in 1952 she was still a great power with a large empire to defend. In the early 1980s when trident was being conceived [1] the UK fought a war with Argentina and the Cold War was perhaps at its deepest following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The Country was therefore in an international situation in which nuclear weapons were potentially required to deter the Soviet Union.  A study of the vulnerability of Nuclear Weapons states shows that the UK is the least vulnerable nuclear weapons state because the country is surrounded by allies and is nowhere near any states that may potentially become failed states. [2] The only conclusion from this can be that the UK no longer has any need for nuclear weapons.  [1] Fairhall, David, ‘£5 billion Trident deal is agreed’, The Guardian, 16 July 1980.  [2] Asal, Victor, and Early, Bryan, ‘Are We Focusing on the Wrong Nuclear Threat?’, Foreign Policy, 24 May 2012.

The cost of replacing trident is prohibitive  Britain is in the longest recession it has ever been in – longer even than the great depression of the 1930s – with the economy not having recovered to pre-recession levels four years after the start of the downturn. [1] This is obviously completely the wrong time to be wasting money on ruinously expensive new weapons systems. The cost of replacing trident is disputed with the Government saying it would be between £15 and £20 billion [2] but campaign group Greenpeace puts the total cost at £97billion once running costs over the missiles thirty year lifetime are included. [3] Both figures are incredibly costly for a system which we hope we won’t ever have to use and for which we have allies with similar systems. The money should instead be spent on helping to get the economy moving or services that benefit society such as health and education.  [1] Oxlade, Andrew, ‘Economy watch: What caused the return to recession and how long will it last?’, This is Money.co.uk, 4 May 2012.  [2] BBC News, ‘Q&amp;A: Trident replacement’, 22 September 2010.  [3] Greenpeace, ‘£97billion for Trident: five times government estimates’, 18 September 2009.

Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons. [1] It is independent in the way that matters.  [1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005.

One country disarming is not going to persuade others, particularly those like China and Russia that still consider themselves great powers, to do so. At the same time the United Kingdom’s situation can never be compared to other countries; Israel would argue it is surrounded by enemies, China that it needs them if the US has them etc. These countries would only consider whether to disarm based upon their own national interests not what other states have done. We should do the same and renew trident as being necessary for the defence of the realm.

States seek nuclear weapons not primarily in order to use them, but in order to take advantage of the security they offer. If states existed in a world post-disarmament, the incentives to develop nuclear weapons for reasons of security would not have disappeared, in fact they would have increased as no other state would be able to use their more powerful conventional forces against that state. As Paul Robinson notes, ‘conventional armaments…will remain the backbone of U.S. defence forces, but the inherent threat to escalate to nuclear use can help to prevent conflicts from starting, prevent their escalation, as well as bring (them) to a swift and certain end (Robinson, 2001)’. Such potential advantages will not be lost on states in a nuclear-free world.

The purported efficacy of nuclear deterrence drives nuclear proliferation and therefore increases the risk of nuclear weapons being utilized  By claiming the efficacy of nuclear weapons as a strategic deterrent, the current nuclear powers encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (Krieger, 2003). To be a part of the so-called 'nuclear club' is seen as a matter of great prestige; when India and Pakistan recently declared their nuclear capability and held mutual tests in the 1990s, it was seen in both countries as increasing their international status. Nevertheless, tensions in the region have only increased since the mutual announcements, not least the Kargil War of 1999 that almost precipitated a nuclear war. Nations opposed to a nuclear power therefore feel that they need to develop their own capability in order to protect themselves. The declared nuclear powers must therefore take the lead in disarmament, as an example for the rest of the world.

The abolishment of nuclear weapons does not reduce the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. While nuclear weapons can be dismantled, the weapons-grade plutonium which forms their warheads cannot simply be destroyed. Instead, they must be stored in special facilities; in Russia, there are some three hundred sites were military nuclear material is stored (National Intelligence Council, 2002). It is producing this plutonium which is in fact the most difficult stage in building a weapon - by dismantling missiles, you are therefore not destroying their most dangerous part, and hence the risk of theft does not decrease. In fact, it may increase: missile silos in Russia are still the most heavily funded part of the military, whereas in recent years it has become clear that security at storage facilities is often inadequate. Moreover, it is far easier to steal a relatively small quantity of plutonium than an entire Intercontinental Ballistic Missile; there were three such incidents in Russia in the 1990s of weapons-grade uranium theft (National Intelligence Council, 2002). Ironically, the safest place for plutonium in present-day Russia may be on top of such a missile.

Nuclear weapons can be abolished through the co-operation of nuclear powers and the establishment of an independent verification system  The co-operation of the United States and Russia, demonstrated in their regularly-renewed START treaties, confer the ability of nuclear powers to work towards a reduction in nuclear stockpiles. A new campaigning body, Global Zero, has laid out the path to nuclear abolishment, concerning first bilateral accords to reduce stockpiles in the manner already occurring. From there, they advocate the ‘universal acceptance of a comprehensive verification and enforcement system accompanied by tighter controls on fissile materials produced by civil-nuclear programmes’ (The Economist, 2011). The process will not be swift, but it is plausible and not a stretch considering the success of previous START treaties and the example of the International Atomic Energy Agency as an independent body charged with verifying nuclear installations.

States should not possess such destructive, cataclysmic weapons  Nuclear weapons are, by their very nature, indiscriminate and disproportional; any weapon which could not possibly be used in a responsible manner should not be permitted. Over the past fifty years, we have seen a general tendency towards limited warfare and precision weapons, allowing military objectives to be achieved with minimal loss of civilian life. The entire point of nuclear weapons, however, is their massive, indiscriminate destructive power. Their use could kill tens of thousands of civilians directly, and their catastrophic environmental after-effects would harm many more all around the world. These effects could never be morally acceptable, particularly as the basis of one’s national security strategy. They place ‘humanity and most forms of life in jeopardy of annihilation’ (Krieger, 2003). No state or leader can be entrusted, morally, with a power and responsibility that could come close to annihilating humanity.

States have the right to possess any weapon that will materially support their ambitions of survival, regardless of their destructive power. There is no greater principle than that of self-defence, and a state is entitled to develop any means by which it improves its position vis-à-vis an enemy and subsequently promotes peace in the region and internationally. Furthermore, the damage done by a nuclear weapon is no more indiscriminate or disproportional than the damage potentially caused by a prolonged aerial bombardment. In World War II for instance, far more damage was wrought by fire-bombing Tokyo than either of the nuclear attacks. The issue is therefore not whether nuclear weapons should be held, but under which circumstances they are used, or threatened. Either way, they should not be abolished.

The process is implausible, primarily because whilst the actual weapons can be dismantled, the technology remains and the only effective means to deter the development of a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. Even if this were not the case, such a gradual and incremental process of disarmament does not account for the weapons held by states who have not officially declared their presence, like Israel. Furthermore, though a verification agency may have universal access to nuclear stockpiles, it has little power to enforce states to adhere to treaties, precipitating the scenario whereby one state refuses to give up its final weapon and stalling the process indefinitely. Finally, this process assumes that states wish to see nuclear weapons abolished, rather than the more common assumption that states view nuclear weapons as necessary, not merely to deter other nuclear powers but for traditional deterrence and nuclear blackmail. Would all states willingly give that up?

The Count was only asked to provide an advisory opinion; their adjudication had no subsequent basis in law. Anyhow, the very same jury voted unanimously that ‘there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such’ (International Court of Justice, 1996). Unlike biological and chemical weapons, for which specific treaties have been developed to regulate and prevent their use, the absence of regulation for nuclear weapons implicitly recognizes wide-held appreciation for their deterrent effects

Risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands  While nuclear weapons exist, they can fall into the wrong hands. This is particularly prevalent in an environment whereby there are extremist groups actively seeking to cause instant, egregious harm to their ideological and political enemies. Such groups do not lack for funding; therefore the fear of weapons falling into the wrong hands has never been higher. This is particularly true in Russia, which now has control of all of the nuclear weapons which were distributed around the former Soviet Union. In particular during the 1990s the military was disastrously underfunded; technicians and officers who were used to a high standard of living found themselves without pay, sometimes for years. At the same time, other states and extremist groups are willing to pay substantial sums for their services, and to gain access to nuclear weapons. This same danger is now as much, if not more, of a problem in Pakistan (Ambinder, 2011). The danger of a weapon being stolen, or a nuclear base being taken over by disgruntled members of the military or other extremists, can only be ended by destroying the weapons (Allison, 1997).

Both the use and threat of nuclear weapons are illegal  The disproportionate and indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons use renders their possession illegal under international humanitarian law. The International Court of Justice in 1996, asked to provide an advisory opinion, declared unanimously that any use or threat of nuclear weapons had to be compatible with existing international law relating to armed conflict (International Court of Justice, 1996). The principles of discrimination and proportionality inherent in the laws of wars are codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and are quite clearly violated by nuclear weapons. As such, a majority of the judges present felt that any such use or threat would ‘generally be contrary’ to those rules of international law and therefore, unanimously, ‘there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control’ (International Court of Justice, 1996).

Nuclear weapons provide the source of the greatest possible barbarity in warfare; therefore it is disingenuous to suggest that their abolishment would only exacerbate conflicts. States do not start wars with major powers contemporaneously merely because those major powers happen to have nuclear weapons; traditional deterrence will still be as effective as it is currently. Furthermore, the abolishment of nuclear weapons would allow thereafter mutual co-operation on the issue of non-proliferation without the current fear that others are only concerned with preventing proliferation in countries likely to be opposed to their interests.

The idea of a so-called 'nuclear deterrent' no longer applies – the United States would not be deterred from attacking a newly nuclear Iran because the U.S. would have a first strike capability so would be able to wipe our Iranian nuclear weapons before they could be used. While it is true that political leaders on both sides during the Cold War were terrified of a nuclear conflict it was as much the balance of power that maintained the peace. Neither superpower had an advantage large enough to be confident of victory. However, there is no longer nuclear deterrence. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, some rogue states may develop the ability to strike at enemies who have no nuclear weapons of their own. Unless the country under attack is allied to another nuclear power It is not clear that any of the major nuclear powers would then strike back at the aggressor. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the emerging nuclear threats would not be from legitimate governments but from dictators and terrorist groups. Would it ever be acceptable to kill thousands of civilians for the actions of extremists?

Abolishment is an unrealistic goal  The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to go back. Nuclear technology exists, and there is no way to un-invent it (Robinson, 2001). Much as the ideal of global disarmament is fine, the reality is that it is impossible: it takes only one rogue state to maintain a secret nuclear capability to make the abolition of the major powers' deterrents unworkable. Without the threat of a retaliatory strike, this state could attack others at will.  Similarly, the process by which nuclear weapons are produced cannot easily be differentiated from the nuclear power process; without constant oversight it would be possible for any state with nuclear power to regain nuclear capability if they felt threatened. This is the same as the nuclear ‘breakout’ capability that many states such as Japan have whereby they can create a nuclear bomb in a matter of weeks or days – if a country has nuclear power and the technology they have this capability even when they have disarmed their nuclear weapons.

Abolishment would be counter-productive and only lead to greater barbarity in warfare  Nuclear weapons have a restraining effect on warfare, preventing escalation through fear of their destruction. To abolish them is therefore to act counter-productively: ‘it will not advance substantive progress on non-proliferation; and it risks compromising the value that nuclear weapons continue to contribute, through deterrence, to U.S. security and international stability’ (Robinson, 2001) Nuclear weapons are a necessary evil; the doctrine of mutually assured destruction prevented the outbreak of nuclear war during the Cold War because in the neither side was willing to risk the response and neither side could risk even a small scale war due to the threat of escalation. Nuclear weapons therefore act as a check upon the very institution of war between those states that have nuclear weapons, restraining aggressors through fear of escalation and certain destruction.

Nuclear weapons are required for deterrence  The use of nuclear weapons would indeed be a great tragedy; but so, to a greater or lesser extent, is any war. The reason for maintaining an effective nuclear arsenal is in fact to prevent war. By making the results of conflict catastrophic, a strategic deterrent discourages conflict. The Cold War was in fact one of the most peaceful times in history, particularly in Europe, largely because of the two superpowers' nuclear deterrents: ‘the principal function of nuclear weapons was to deter nuclear attack’ (Record, 2004). During the Gulf War, for example, one of the factors which prevented Iraq from launching missiles tipped with chemical weapon warheads against Israel was the threat the USA would retaliate with a nuclear strike. Although there is no longer as formal a threat of retaliation as there was during the Cold War, the very possibility that the use of nuclear weapons by a rogue state could be met a retaliatory strike is too great a threat to ignore. Moreover, although the citizens of the current nuclear powers may be against the use of force against civilians, their opinions would rapidly change if they found weapons of mass destruction being used against them.

In 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The treaty, which calls for an end to all nuclear testing, includes provisions for extensive and independent mechanisms for the monitoring of nuclear activities. Such mechanisms could easily be co-opted for use in implementing, monitoring and verifying any future nuclear disarmament process.  "The de facto global nuclear test moratorium and CTBT’s entry into force are crucial barriers to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states and are essential to the future viability of the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). They are the first two of the 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive nuclear disarmament that were unanimously adopted in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference (Kimball, 2005).” Even if countries could rapidly produce a bomb without any testing they would not be able to see if it works and any state engaged in breakout would take time to make their bomb deployable on delivery vehicles.

It is clearly too early to condemn Erdoğan’s desire to change Turkey to a presidential system. We do not yet have much idea what this actually means and there is no clear reason why this could not be a step forward. Erdoğan clearly wants a powerful presidency but there is no saying that this is what he will get once the horse trading is done and even if he does there are systems with powerful presidents that are clearly democratic such as the US and French systems. The change to a presidential system could also solve problems; it would replace a constitution that was drafted under military rule, and it would increase regional autonomy, [1] but much more importantly if done correctly it could create strong durable institutions that will ensure democratic rule far into the future. [2]  [1] ‘Presidential Dreaming’, The Economist, 16 March 2013,   [2] Tremblay, Pinar, ‘Will Presidential System Move Turkey Forward?’, Al Monitor, 14 April 2013,

Attempts to change into an executive presidential system  Turkey has been heading towards being a one party, even a one person, state. Erdoğan is intending to change the constitution is an attempt to institutionalise this. His new presidency would have the power to issue decrees with force of law, dissolve parliament and call elections, and to command the military. [1] The attempt to change to a presidential system is clearly a move to enable Erdoğan to avoid the limit of three terms in much the same way as Vladimir Putin did by switching jobs. A presidential system is not bad in principle but it should not be simply used as a vehicle for a particular politician. Moreover any change of such a magnitude in a democratic country should be done only with popular consent – something that this change does not have. In a February 2013 poll 65.8% of Turks favoured keeping the parliamentary system and only 21.2% were in favour of a change to a presidential system. [2]  [1] The Editors, ‘Erdogan Shows Why Turkey Shouldn’t Give Him More Power’, Bloomberg, 3 June 2013,   [2] ‘Majority of Turks against switch to presidential system, survey reveals’, Today’s Zaman, 19 February 2013,

Having one dominant party does not make the country an autocracy or prevent Turkey being a liberal democracy. There have been many countries that are considered democratic that have had single parties ruling for long periods. In the UK the Conservatives in the 1980’s and Labour in the 2000’s won three elections just as the AKP has. In Japan the LDP has only lost two elections since the start of Japan’s post World War II democratic system yet it is accepted as being a legitimate democracy. Rather than worrying about a single party dominance we should be applauding parties that are successful in putting together such a broad coalition that they can win election after election, they clearly represent most of the population which is the point of democracy.

Decline of secularism  The AKP is not just making Turkey authoritarian it is making it an Islamic authoritarian state. Since a 1928 amendment to the constitution Turkey has been a secular state. Recently Turkey rushed through restrictions on the sale of alcohol prohibiting sale overnight. [1] More worryingly than minor restrictions is a decline in gender equality and respect for religious minorities; in 2002, the year the AKP came to power Turkey was ranked 63rd in the UN’s Gender Empowerment Measure, by 2009 it had dropped to 101st out of 109 countries. [2] Without respect for these groups it is difficult to see how Turkey can be considered a liberal democracy that provides for equal and personal rights.  [1] Letsch, Constanze, ‘Turkey alcohol laws could pull the plug on Istanbul nightlife’, guardian.co.uk, 31 May 2013,   [2] Onanç, Gülseren, ‘Women’s place in Turkey is alarming’, United Nations Development Programme, New Horizons Issue 47 November 2009,

Turkey does not have the freedoms associated with democracy  The rule of law, limits on the power of the state, and the provision of personal rights are key to any country being considered to be a liberal democracy but these are being undermined in Turkey. This is most noticeable when it comes to freedom of the press. Turkey’s press freedoms have been in decline. It is a dismal 154th on the press freedom index [1] and most notable is that it is the country with the most imprisoned journalists with at least 76 imprisoned, mostly without having been convicted and as a result of their work. [2] The lack of freedom of the press and how cowed the press is has been shown in the recent rioting; CNN covered the protests live, at the same time its Turkish language subsidiary CNN Turk was broadcasting a cooking show. [3]  [1] ‘21013 World Press Freedom Index: Dashed Hopes After Spring’, Reporters Without Borders, 2013,   [2] Greenslade, Roy, ‘Turkish press freedom crisis’, guardian.co.uk, 23 October 2012,   [3] Cook, Steven A., and Koplow, Michael, ‘How Democratic Is Turkey?’, Foreign Policy, 3 June 2013,

Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions. [1]  [1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011,  , pp.2, 19

Liberal democracy is flexible; it can incorporate secular and non-secular, different religions, cultures, or views of the role of the state. Many liberal democracies have restrictions on the sale of alcohol; some parts of the United States are entirely dry. Gender equality is more of an issue but women are allowed to vote in Turkey – which is essential to democracy. [1] Other rights however are up to individual culture to decide. Even if we don’t like a lack of gender equality in Turkey we should not consider the country not to be democratic because of it.  [1] ‘February 6, 1935 Turkey Holds First Election That Allows Women to Vote’, OUPblog, 6 February 2012,

This is one of the flaws of a parliamentary system; when a single party has a large majority, as the AKP does, they can essentially get whatever they want through parliament. This is why systems such as Britain’s have been called elective dictatorship, something which a change in the constitution could potentially solve but clearly does not preclude the country in question being considered to be a liberal democracy.

One party state  Under the AKP Turkey has effectively become a one party state; this means that there is not the competition necessary to make Turkey a genuine liberal democracy. Yes alternative parties exist but this does not mean they are going to get any power any time soon if the government can help it. The AKP has been able to get twice as many votes as its nearest rival making it by far the dominant party. The party consolidates power and there are signs that competition in the party is more important than with other parties. [1] The rioting across the country has shown this in several ways. First the resort to violent and street protest shows the opposition don’t think they can oust the AKP at the ballot box. Secondly the response from the leaders of the AKP have been mixed. While Erdoğan has vehemently condemned the protests while President Abdullah Gül has taken a more nuanced line saying “Democracy is not just about elections” and that “If there are objections, there is nothing more natural than voicing them” effectively endorsing some protest. [2]  [1] Yinanç, Barçin, ‘AKP ushering in 'dominant-party system,' says expert’, Hürriyet Daily News, 17 June 2011,   [2] ‘Democracy is no just about elections, says Turkish President’, Hürriyet Daily News, 3 June 2013,

Railroading without consultation  The trigger for the rioting; construction projects building over a park and a square are a good analogy for the government as a whole. The AKP government does not care for public opinion and is happy to push through projects without reference to it. In the case of Taksim square the government did not consult about plans to bulldoze the park despite it being the site of a massacre in 1977 making it a place of historical significance. A court ruling to stop construction was also ignored. [1] It is the same with legislation, the controversial changes to alcohol laws were only proposed a month before they were passed and debate was limited to two days, [2] while some important business particularly involving day to day running of foreign and defence has very little oversight. [3]  [1] Yackley, Ayla Jean, ‘Insight: Simmering anger at Erdogan's authoritarianism boils over in Turkey’, Reuters, 2 June 2013,   [2] Resneck, Jacob, ‘Anti-alcohol bill leaves many Turks dispirited’, USA Today, 29 May 2013,   [3] ‘Turkey Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi (T.B.M.M) (Grand National Assembly of Turkey)’, Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2009,

We do not yet know if this is a false dawn when it comes to peace with the Kurds. Erdoğan could simply be using the process for his own ends; either to secure the Olympics for Istanbul or to secure a powerful presidency for himself. Alternatively he may simply be seeking to divide the Kurds so making them easier to defeat. [1] As yet with no political deal or real knowledge of what the settlement might be considering this a democratic advance seems a bit farfetched.  [1] Hannah, John, ‘Erdogan's Great Gamble’, Foreign Policy, 14 May 2013,

High electoral turnout is in large part a result of turkey having compulsory voting so it is difficult to see how this statistic is an indicator of the democratic health of the country. There is also a big difference between having a liberal democracy and a ‘tyranny of the majority’ Turkey under AKP has been much more the latter. Erdoğan has threatened the opposition “if you gather 100,000 people, I can gather a million” showing that the majority and numbers are simply being used to browbeat anyone who opposes his plans. [1] A democracy means more than holding regular elections; even regimes everyone recognizes as authoritarian, such as Kazakhstan or Iran, hold them.  [1] Cook, Steven A., and Koplow, Michael, ‘How Democratic Is Turkey?’, Foreign Policy, 3 June 2013,

Less army influence – no coups  There has now been more than thirty years without an army coup but it has only been during the AKP government that the army has finally been cowed with the army being forced to defend its actions in court. [1] The AKP has brought about a fundamental transformation in the relationship between the military and civilian governments reducing the military’s influence; consistent with military subservience to civilian authority in other democracies. The National Security Council was turned from a executive body into an advisory board that was dominated by civilians and Parliamentary control over the military’s budget was strengthened. The Government’s control over the military was shown by the Ergenekon trials where senior army generals were accused of plotting a coup, with the result that the government showed the power of the judiciary over the military and took control over promotion. [2]  [1] Demir, Firat, ‘Here's What You Need to Know about the Clashes in Turkey’, Foreign Policy, 1 June 2013,   [2] Balta-Parker, Evren, and Akça, Ismet, ‘Beyond Military Tutelage? Turkish Military Politics and the AKP Government’, in Ebru Canan-Sokullu ed., Debating Security in Turkey, 15 December 2012,  , pp.80, 87

Turkey has an effective and legitimate government  It is clear that the government is legitimate; it received 49% of the vote in the 2011 elections, an increase. By comparison Tony Blair’s ‘landslide’ win in 1997 was achieved with 43.2% of the vote. [1] And it is a legitimate government in large part because it is an effective government. This has particularly been the case on the economic front. There are of course a few problems, as there always are even in booming economies, but Turkey has an enviable record over the ten years of AKP rule. Public debt fell from 74% in 2002 to 40% in 2011, productivity growth has averaged 3-3.5%, economic growth has hovered around 8% and inflation took a tumble from almost 70% when the AKP was elected to high single figures. [2] It is no surprise that the electorate has rewarded the government that has pulled this off.  [1] Johnson, Ron, et al., ‘Anatoimy of a Labour Landslide: The Constituency System and the 1997 General Election’, Parliamentary Affairs, 1998,  , p.1  [2] ‘Istanbuls and bears’, The Economist, 7 April 2012,

Ending the conflict with the Kurds – inclusive government  Democracies are only truly democratic when they accept that their minorities have rights and deserve a place in the political system even if those minorities themselves want a separate state. Only then does the country truly represent and work for everyone within the state. It has only been during Erdoğan’s time as Prime Minister that this has happened in Turkey.  Turkey has spent its history since its founding ninety years ago discriminating against the Kurds by denying they are a separate ethnicity. Now however there is a cease fire in place and serious consideration for major constitutional changes that would recognize the Kurds. [1] Already there have been significant changes like allowing the use of Kurdish in public life and the launch of a Kurdish language TV station and courses in universities. [2]  [1] Hannah, John, ‘Erdogan's Great Gamble’, Foreign Policy, 14 May 2013,   [2] Zalewski, Pitr, ‘The Kurds’ Last Battle in Turkey: Teaching Kids Kurdish’, The Atlantic, 9 May 2013,

Turkey has elections, it is a democracy  The most fundamental part of democracy is the ability of the people to influence their government. In almost all democracies this is done through elections to parliament. This is the case in Turkey. There was general acceptance that the elections that the AKP won were free elections. The US state department said the elections were carried out “in a free and fair manner” [1] while the OSCE election observers said “The parliamentary elections demonstrated a broad commitment to hold democratic elections” although there was the odd complaint. [2] Turnout in elections is very high compared to many democracies and is actually rising; it was 79% in 2002, the election that brought AKP to power, increasing to 88% in 2011. [3] If turnout is any indicator (and clearly it is or else mature democracies such as the UK would not be worried about their own falling turnout) the AKP would appear to be strengthening democracy in the eyes of voters.  [1] Toner, Mark, ‘US Congratulates Turkey on Elections’, Embassy of the United States Turkey, 13 June 2011,   [2] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011,  , p.1  [3] ‘Voter turnout data for Turkey’, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 5 October 2011,

Democratic legitimacy cannot simply be equated with economic growth even if most people see the economy as the main issue when it comes to voting. The economy is important but there are plenty of countries which have used economic growth to buttress undemocratic regimes; China being the obvious example where the state’s legitimacy is intimately bound up with economic growth. [1]  [1] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,

While coups were frequent during the twentieth century each time power was quickly returned to civilian hands meaning that even including the coups Turkey had a vibrant democracy. [1]  [1] Baran, Zeyno, ‘Is Kemalism Dead in Turkey?’, Defining Ideas, 13 December 2010,

This happens in theory but in practise does not work this way. Precedent in the United States has shown that political discourse is still fractious despite the presence of Open Primaries as it is still the ideologically focussed base that that vote and decide such elections on a low turnout.  Even if Propositions contentions were true, it can be argued that it is the lack of clear dividing lines between parties that can cause major disillusionment in politics, with many parties now subscribing to a broadly neoliberal world view as has happened in the UK where parties regularly cross-dress, appeal to the same groups and steal each other’s policies. [1] The lack of clear ideology engendered by Open Primaries would make such disillusionment worse. Two parties that agree on everything would seriously damage turnout as no clear choice is presented to the electorate.  [1] Ash, Timothy Garton, ‘If our political parties did not exist would we ever need to invent them?’, The Guardian, 25 October 2007,

Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics  By creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections.  An Open Primary is more likely to choose more centrist candidates for the general election, providing a degree of moderation to the process of election and politics in general. This in turn can help foster a consensual atmosphere in political discourse with general agreed points, focusing the debate on more core issues between the main parties. [1]  This then means that much more is likely to get done. At the moment American politics is plagued by gridlock both in the states and in Congress. Individuals elected under open primaries are much more likely to be willing to compromise across the aisle. [2] As a result government will begin moving again.  [1] ‘Editorial: California should switch to open primary elections’, The Stanford Daily, 12 May 2010,   [2] Michael Alvarez, R., and Sinclair, Betsy, ‘Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes’, P.2

The whole point of Democracy is that there are losers as well as winners. It is not up to political parties to accommodate those who disagree with them by accommodating their policies. Parties and the candidates who stand on their behalf must be able to justify their own views and polices to the electorate, without them being diluted by the outside influence of those who may actually fundamentally disagree with what the party believes in. Those on the fringe are better off advocating their policies better instead of voting for candidates of the party they do not support.  Very occasionally an open primary may allow an independent to seriously run, but this will be so rare that it will not compensate for having their independent platforms at elections.

Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices  Open Primaries allows for the electorate to make a considered choice between candidate and party, with other considerations beyond the partisan being up for consideration.  In safe districts, voters are given a choice between members of the same party, allowing for voters to effectively choose the next member based upon past record and views on big issues, allowing for the ideological cleavages within parties to brought under closer examination, with voters in the safe seat choosing the type of Conservatism/Liberalism/Socialism they prefer. [1]  This can help to provide choice even when one party is already assured of winning the seat, thus providing a degree of competition in the district, engaging voters in the electoral process.  [1] Skelton, George, ‘California open primaries? Give them a chance’, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2010,

Increasing voter engagement  A major problem with politics in Western Liberal Democracies is that electorates feel disengaged from the political process as they are generally presented with a choice between parties at irregular intervals without much oversight over the calibre of candidate presented to them by each party.  This issue would be countered by introducing Open Primaries for candidates to elections. By making candidates from the same party compete for a party candidacy by appealing to the same group that will choose between all parties in General Elections, voters will have a chance to greater examine each prospective candidate at greater detail, allowing for a more considered choice of candidate than the binary choice made at elections. [1]  By giving more time to voters, this will increase interest in what candidates have to say, and allow those of all political persuasions to contribute to the debate, turning contests away from ideology and towards representation.  [1] Hannan, Daniel, ‘Conservative Democrats prove the case for open primaries’, The Telegraph, 18th July 2009,

People feel disengaged with politics in general not because they don’t have a say over candidacies, but because of the constant merry-go-round that is electoral politics. The voter fatigue that comes from the constant chase for votes from parties will not decrease. If anything, it will increase as candidates and media coverage is dominated by speculation over who will be a candidate for office rather than who will gain the office actually up for election, causing further disillusionment with the political process.

Contests between those of the same party are in their nature divisive and distract from the aim of winning the general election. Debates about Ideological nuance are not major reasons for non-political voters to go to the polls. Debates about those issues have largely been the preserve of those who are party members and as a result should stay within that sphere.  Greater competition can be engendered through other means, such as Proportional Representation that leads to real competition between all parties in all areas of a country as opposed to a contest between candidates who have no real differences of opinion.

Party power is exercised heavily in countries where Open Primaries exist. In the United States, it is common for a political party to openly back a candidate in Primary Elections for Congressional seats. This can give said candidate a major head start, with the massive financial backing and exposure in the public eye that follows resulting in predictable results. [1] Only special circumstances see incumbents defeated (See the rise of the Tea Party and its effect on the US Republican Party), with Primaries being largely predictable affairs. These results in a lack of interest in many Primary contests, making them little more than sideshows that distract from the process of government.  [1] ‘“Open” Primaries and the Illusion of Choice’, open salon, 9 June 2010,

Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities  A major problem with general elections, specifically in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada which use Majoritarian Simple Plurality electoral systems, is that only two major parties (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) are in contention for power or in some cases representation, leaving those that have loyalties elsewhere feeling disenfranchised from a political system that does not take into account of their point of view.  Open Primaries counters this by allowing these voters a chance to vote for candidates of a major party that are closer to their own political persuasion, thus giving as many people as possible the opportunity to register their opinion on who will be their representative for the next term, ending disillusionment with predictable election results. This means that third party candidates may become serious candidates in elections when they pass the primary test. [1]  [1] Nielson, Susan, ‘Open Oregon’s primaries’, The Oregonian, 13 October 2008,

Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power  Political Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents. [1]  By instituting Open Primaries, the focus of representatives shifts from the party leadership to the constituents whom prospective candidates hope to represent. Scrutiny over the representative’s conduct would be in the hands of the voters, with reselection in an Open Primary being contingent upon the member looking after the interests of their constituents, rather than the interest of the party as is the case in many countries that do not have Open Primary systems. [2] By using Open Primaries, elections once again becomes about representing the people as opposed to being a means to power as is the case under the status quo in countries that do not use it.  [1] Stone, Daniel, ‘Prop 14’s Winners and Losers’, Newsweek, 8 June 2010,   [2] Triggs, Matthew, ‘Open primaries’, Adam Smith Institute, 16 September 2010,

This Argument does not stack up. The large numbers of people voting in Primary elections will mean many ‘apoliticals’ will counter the worst partisan tactics (if any) being used in the election. If there has been any impact of opposition party involvement upon the internal politics of a party, it has been to elect more centrist candidates that the greatest number of voters can find palatable. That in itself is no bad thing, as politics can become extremely partisan at times, it does help to have candidates who can be moderate and be more prepared to compromise in order to the best possible outcome for all they represent.

Open Primaries have proven themselves to be a means of engagement in the political process, providing scrutiny of individual candidates before approving the program that they stand for. Open Primaries maintain scrutiny over individual action as opposed to merely scrutinising the actions of the party as a whole, giving voters a chance to provide a nuanced results in elections. Politicians can still focus on their job of representing the people under an Open Primary system, as it is their actions in conducting that particular role that will decide their success in reselection by the electorate they represent.

Open primaries obscure the distinctions between political parties  Primaries tend to favour candidates that are more centrist in nature, as non-committed voters are more likely to vote for such a candidate than grass roots members of the party hosting the primary, who are much more likely to prefer a candidate who is more ideological.  The dominance of centrist candidates in primaries may lead to convergence between the major parties to the extent that there is little difference between them for voters to choose from in the general election. [1] This creates the harm of not presenting a clear democratic choice to voters, which can help feed the discontent with politics that discontent hopes will be countered by Open Primaries.  [1] White, Stuart, ‘Why open primaries are a really bad idea’, NextLeft, 26 May 2009,

Open primaries will lead to an increase in disputes internal to political parties  Primary elections can be extremely damaging to parties as it engenders cleaves and splits which damage chances of election. Election campaigns between candidates from the same party can become feverish, particularly if the contest is close (See the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2008).  This can be damaging as parties are made to spend their time focussing their energies on themselves instead of the opposition only to create an image of a divided party that alienates voters who prefer parties who can convey a coherent message about what they can provide for the future.  Primaries obscure what a party is about, changing the focus from being about policy and the message of the party to the candidate with personal attributes such as image being of importance. This makes politics much more superficial than it already is.

Open primaries will lead to an intensification of lobbying activities  Elections, particularly in the United States, can be prone to excessive lobbying by various interest groups who fund candidates who are more likely to support their point of view whilst also pouring efforts into ensuring the defeat of those who are opposed to their interests (See the fate of Rep. Richard Pombo, who was defeated after a campaign by the Sierra Club [1] ).  Primary elections exacerbates this, with 527 groups affiliated to certain interest groups being able to lobby and fund numerous candidates in the primary to ensure that regardless of the result, their interests are best preserved. This can be harmful as it further allows for corporate capture of the election cycle, with candidates positioning themselves in relation to the aims of those who helped them gain the candidacy rather than the voters who put them there. This undermines the ability of legislators to arbitrate between competing claims when making law, creating less effective government.  [1] Carlton, Jim, ‘Pombo Embarks on Fresh Path’, The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2010,

Open primaries are open to manipulation  Because political persuasion is no bar to voting in a Primary election, it can make the internal elections within parties be open to manipulation from those hostile to the aims of the party and the candidates running for election.  We have seen instances where ‘unelectable’ candidates have been elected by Open Primary as means of discrediting a party and helping their opponents win the general election. A famous instance of this was in the Democratic Primary for the US Senate seat in South Carolina, where the winner, Alvin Greene became the candidate with little advertising or successful fundraising, leading to accusations of a Republican campaign to make re-election of their incumbent, Jim DeMint, much easier. [1]  In other instances, it is also possible that the opposition party can use the election as a means of electing a candidate that most reflects their views, neutering the effect of losing the general election. Either way, Open Primaries can be manipulated to create unrealistic outcomes that neither the party nor the electorate truly want, damaging the political process.  [1] ‘Alvin Greene’s implausible S.C. victory: 6 theories’, the week, 10 June 2010,

Only in exceptional circumstances are major splits caused by Primary election. What tends to happen is that Primaries act as a stimulus to healthy debate over what the party stands for, with candidates from all parts of the political spectrum engaging in a contest to define the party in line with the wishes of the electorate.  Candidates focus on themselves, while the party leaderships can still play the role of holistically overseeing proceedings to make sure that the focus still remains the general election and what happens after the ballots in the primary election have been counted. It is possible to have rigorous primary campaigns without there being major splits that harm the party’s performance in the general election (The performance of The Democratic Party in 1992 bears this out).  While there maybe an emphasis on candidacy and personality, it helps to form a clear of what the party stands for in the general elections, marking out a clear choice between the parties at election time.

Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate  Primary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just to be re-elected but also to seek selection as their party’s candidate.  This may create a dangerous precedent of politics being little more than one constant election cycle, with decision being made to please constituents in order to win two elections. We see this the most in the US House of Representatives, where decisions influencing ‘pork-barrel’ spending are made with the main aim of keeping constituents happy in order to avoid primary defeat, to the detriment of government being more disposed to dysfunction. [1]  The constant election cycle can cause disillusionment with voters who fail to see tangible effects of what the politicians the elect do yet face constant electioneering. By only hosting general elections, a clear focus is provided for candidates and electorate alike, allowing for scrutiny to be based upon the actions of politicians and the party they represent against the opposition who seek to replace them.  [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, NationalJournal, 14 March 2009,

There is a large problem with lobbying in the United States but the influence they exert would be worse if there was no system. The efforts of interest groups would be exerted upon one candidate from each party, whereas Primaries make it harder for interest groups and 527’s to gain access to power as there are multiple hurdles for their candidate to overcome to win power and gain influence over policy. Primaries can also prevent capture of entire parties by interest groups as can happen in countries where funding of candidates comes directly from the central party such as the United Kingdom (where the role Trade Unions for example have 50% of the vote in the labour party conference [1] ). Candidate discretion is more likely in Primary systems, giving more choice over what the general election candidate will support as opposed to just following the lead of the party leadership, which causes more disillusionment to politics in the long run.  [1] ‘Ed Miliband ‘plans to water down trade unions’ influence over labour’’, The Telegraph, 3 August 2011,

While centrist candidates maybe preferred in Primary elections, but it is a choice that has been made by the people when presented with a full ideological spectrum by the range of candidates standing for elections.  Appeal to Swing voters is what matters in elections anyway so what Open Primaries do is make that abundantly clear, with the candidate most likely to carry swing voters in the general election most likely to win the candidacy. This makes party leaderships think hard about what voters want and how to incorporate that into policy.

The referendum is not an example of progress. It is not hard to see why many of those who demonstrated in Tahrir square were in the no camp for this referendum. “The president remains extraordinarily powerful. The amendments do nothing about due process and neglect other authoritarian aspects of the state” [1] The referendum was attacked for not dealing with large scale structural issues. Leading opposition figures such as Mohamed El Baradei argue “The referendum deals only with minutiae. It doesn't talk about the imperial power of the president, it doesn't talk about the distortion of the parliament, it doesn't talk about the need to have an independent constituent assembly that represents everybody. So we are going to say no.” [2] This means that the institutional problems that helped create an over-mighty presidency and autocracy have remained in place.  These countries have also not become much more stable. There have been clashes between Christian Copts and Muslims following the burning of two churches on the 7th of May, which have left 180 injured and raises the specter of sectarian violence. [3] Meanwhile in Tunisia the government has re-imposed night time curfews after four days of demonstrations were ended by police firing tear gas. [4] It is difficult to consider such unrest progress.  [1] Steven A. Cook, ‘Interview, Egypt’s Referendum: Nervous Steps Forward’, Council on Foreign Relations, 21st March 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [2] ‘Large turnout for Egypt's constitutional referendum’ BBC News, Mar. 19, 2011,   [3] Egypt Christians protest in Cairo after church attack, BBC News, May 9., 2011,   [4] Post-revolution Egypt and Tunisia gripped by unrest May 8, 2011,

Progress has been made.  Egypt as the biggest Arab state and one of only two so far that have had largely peaceful revolutions is perhaps the best example of the progress that has been made. There was a referendum in Egypt in March on amending the constitution that passed with a yes vote of 77.2%. That there was a referendum at all surely counts as progress. It limits the number of presidential terms to two, promises to strengthen the judiciary and abolish some of the emergency laws. A turnout of 41% is not as good as it could have been but it was a great advance compared to other polls in recent Egyptian history. Mohamed Ahmed Attia, the chairman of the supreme judicial committee that supervised the elections, explained its significance as being “the first real referendum in Egypt's history, we had an unprecedented turnout because after Jan. 25 people started to feel that their vote would matter.” [1] Because Egypt has historically been at the center of the Arab world success in Egypt will be vital to show that a stable Arab democracy can be created.  [1] Egyptian Voters Approve Constitutional Changes, New York Times, Mar. 20, 2011,

While these examples prove that in some iterations Islam can work with democracy, it is likely that other factors made democracy viable in Inodnesia and Turkey. Indonesia is free of the hostile relationship with the West that often undermines the stability of the Middle East, and has benefitted from a strong trade relationship. While the AKP in Turkey is Islamist, it operates within the Turkish constitution which requires the military to dissolve any government that threatens the secular nature of the state. Without a constitutionally defined commitment to strict secularism, like in Turkey, the Islamist parties in Egypt and Tunisia will resort to undemocratic practices.  While Indonesia’s revolution superficially looks similar it should be remembered that no two revolutions are really the same. They are different in almost every respect, culturally, geographically, economically. Indonesian Minister Natalegawa argues “I think the lesson form us is that it is possible for the democratization process to return to the military to it must be its original function.” [2] However this really shows a difference. In Indonesia the military never stepped in to take over the government as they have done in Egypt. If the key is reducing the role of the military Egypt has barely begun.  [1] Wolfango Piccoli, Full steam ahead on Turkish Constitutional reform, ForeignPolicy.com, 29th May 2011,  accessed 20/05/11  [2] Julia Simon, Reformasis and Revolutions, Asia Calling, 17th April 2011,  accessed 20/05/11

There are preexisting institutions in Arab countries.  Many middle eastern states already have institutions that are similar to the representative institutions that a stable democracy needs so can easily become the real thing. Arab dictators have grown adept at holding elections, setting up parliaments; constitutional courts etc. as window dressing to show either to their people or to the outside world that they are reforming and are ‘democratic’. No matter how undemocratic these regimes have been the simple existence of these institutions is useful when there is a revolution as they allow some continuity and the possibility of a transition to democracy.  To take Egypt where protests toppled the Mubarak regime as an example. It has a parliament with the Majilis Al-Sha’ab (People’s Assembly) as its lower house and Majilis Al-Shura (Shura Council) as its upper house. In both houses a majority of the members are directly elected. [1] Egypt held elections for its parliament as recently as November 2010, these elections had very poor turnout and blatant ballot rigging while the main opposition the Muslim Brotherhood have to stand as independents. [2] Egypt also has previously had local elections for 52,000 municipal council seats in some 4,500 towns and cities. These elections are just as fraudulent as those for the national parliament. According to Muslim Brotherhood MP Jamdi Hassan “The ruling party used to allow opposition candidates to run and then simply rig the elections. Now, it has adopted a new strategy to ensure its continued domination: preventing the opposition from fielding any candidates at all.” [3] This may not be the best democratic tradition but at least it is a start. Similarly Egypt has a Supreme Constitutional Court that is supposed to be independent. [4]  While these institutions may have ceased working in a democratic way they could quite easily be changed in to being fully democratic. This would create the necessary checks and balances to sustain democracy over the long term. The people are used to elections and will know what to do when they have the option to vote freely, they would vote in a broad range of candidates. Many of them may be islamist but it would be democratic.  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Parliament of Egypt’,  accessed 19/05/2011  [2] Egypt hold parliamentary poll, 28/11/2010, BBC News,   [3] Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani Opposition Squeezed in Local Elections, IPS News, 17/3/08,   [4] The Supreme Constitutional Court, ‘Historical Overview’,

While the presence of pre-existing institutions is an advantage in transitioning to a democracy, that advantage may be compromised when these institutions are largely seen as illegitimate and have not fostered a democratic political culture. Key to the development of a democratic political culture is confidence in institutions and a willingness to accept the popular will as carried out by those institutions.  The predominance of the Executive over the Legislature is rather reminiscent of the Imperial Russian State Duma (1905-1917) as with Tunisia and Bahrain the lower house was directly elected, although the system was heavily weighted to produce pliant Dumas from 1907 on, and the upper house appointed. There was quite a plurality of parties and the Duma had control over a wide area of legislation but not over areas such as military policy and the Tsar had veto powers. [1] It certainly cannot be said that the Duma’s existence proved to be conducive to the creation of a stable democracy after the fall of the Tsar, or even a stable state of any sort.  The existence of the necessary institutions therefore does not mean anything if those very institutions are not seen as legitimate.  [1] E. A. Goldenweiser, ‘The Russian Duma’,Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 1914), pp. 408-422

Islamic parties have led governments before  The economic, social, and political history of the region show there are many obstacles to establishing stable democracies in the Middle East. Many in the West fear that Islam is among these barriers, with claims that Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Ennahda in Tunisia will turn their countries into theocracies like Iran. However, there are majority-Muslim states with Islamist parties that have succeeded in creating stable democracies, including Turkey and Indonesia. Both countries are good case studies that disprove the widespread notion that Islam is incompatible with democracy.  Turkey is most often cited as a good example for the Arab spring to follow. The election of the AKP has shown that an Islamic party can also uphold democracy, so providing a good example for the powerful Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world. Elections are free and fair and the press is relatively free. The Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has faced down coup threats from the military, again something that may well be necessary given the large role the military has had in the previous regimes. Turkey’s economy is growing briskly and Turkey is following a foreign policy of reaching out to everybody and is touting itself as a model for Arab countries to follow. [1]  In Indonesia in 1998 there was a revolution that ousted President Suharto who had like Mubarak been in power for thirty years. This revolution progressed in a very similar way to the ongoing revolution in Egypt – in both countries the protesters were middle class and young, the president went relatively peacefully and the military helped during the transition. [2] Indonesia is now the largest Muslim democracy in the world and while there are islamist parties in parliament their support is now below 30%. [3] Indonesia can therefore provide a road map for moving from an interim government with the military in control to a fully functioning and successful democracy.  [1] A Muslim Democracy in Action, The Economist, 17th February 2011,  accessed 20/05/11  [2] Banyan, Remember 1998 The Indonesian Example, The Economist, 7th February 2011,  accessed 20/05/11  [3] Thomas Carothers, Egypt and Indonesia, The New Republic, 2nd February 2011,  accessed 20/05/11

In the Libyan case the dictator remains (as of 20th April 2011) but cannot sell oil even if he retakes the refineries. The rebels cannot sell oil either (legally) even though they control most of the infrastructure. The sanctions imposed against Gaddafi apply to the whole of the country. [1] Therefore the desire for oil pushes for further support of the rebels in this case as the sanction regime is only likely to be deconstructed following a rebel victory. Should Gaddafi remain in power the west may have to cut itself off from Libyan oil for years to come.  Obviously the above case represents a regime in flux. Once a regime is toppled then anything can happen. There is then no reason why outside actors should want to encourage another dictatorship rather than a democracy. A dictatorship may bring stability faster but a democracy is much more stable in the long run. Countries ideas of their strategic interests can be very divergent. An example is the Suez crisis. Prime Minister Eden considered it “an obvious truth that safety of transit through the canal…[is] a matter of survival [however] world opinion seemed to be that Nasser was within his rights in nationalising the Canal Company.” [2] As Nasser promised “freedom of navigation would not be affected by nationalisation” reducing the matter in the view of the US Secretary of Defence to “a ripple”. [3] So while Britain was still willing to fight for control over the Suez canal the US condemned that very action forcing a withdrawal.  [1] Libya oil stuck in legal limbo as UN panel shunned, Reuters Africa, 20th April 2011,  accessed 19/5/11  [2] Sir Anthony Eden, Full Circle: The Memoirs (Cambridge, 1960), p.533.  [3] Dwight D. Eisenhower, Waging Peace 1956-1961 (New York, N.Y., 1965), pp.39, 41-3.

The question is as much whether once a democracy has been established it can sustain itself as a system through multiple changes in government without reverting to dictatorship by coup. Notionally at least Lebanon has been a democracy continually since 1932, if the interruption of the brutal civil war is ignored. While that event shows that it can hardly be called stable in the general sense, it has been in the way that democracy survived even that cataclysm. Such ethnic tensions are hardly conducive to stable government even in Western Europe. [2] When Belgium’s current political quagmire is looked at next to Lebanon the differences between Flemish and Walloon seem insignificant compared those which a Lebanese government must bridge, so even if its effectiveness may be questioned Lebanon’s democracy surely holds out hope for all, particularly for countries that are much less divided.  There are excessively high hopes for Arab democracy this early, given that democracy has only been the prominent governing system in the West for the past century or so, and only without widespread violence since the end of World War II. It may take more than a few months for the Middle East to establish durable democratic systems, but the first steps are certainly established.  [2] Belgium: Still No Government, Mar., 1. 2011,

The west only supports democracies that fit with its world view.  Fincial and diplomatic engagement with the international community is essential for democracy to take hold. Tensions turn to conflict when governments are unable to provide basic services to the people, as was the case in Gaza when Hamas was elected in 2006 and the US and EU immediatey froze nearly all the funds and resources that were reaching the occupied territory. Furthermore, support from the West is necessary to provide the financial resources to rebuild after the revolutions damaged business and scared tourists away.  However the West’s does not support democracy unless the ruling party is guaranteed to act in the interests of the West. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the United States has either directly aided or executed the overthrow of over thirty foreign governments, many of which were popularly elected.a The US has in the past warned that aid to Lebanon could be jeopardized if Hezbollah was dominant in the government. [1] The US has a history of confrontation with the party that is the main political representation for the Shia element of Lebanese society which has eroded rather than supported Lebanese stability. [2] The victory of Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian elections, winning 76 of 132 seats, did not result in any rapprochement with the Bush administration despite their professed desire to see democracy in the Middle East. [3] The result was that aid from Europe and the US was reduced to humanitarian aid only, rather than as before being a major element of Palestinian government income and expenditure. [4] The result being that in 2007 the ‘country’ was rent in two as Hamas seized control of Gaza. Of course another Middle Eastern state that holds democratic elections, Iran, is the very model of a pariah state from the western point of view. It seems that the west is less concerned about democracy in the middle east and more about stability.  a. Wikipedia, 'Covert United States foreign regime change actions;,   [1] ‘U.S. warns on ties with Hezbollah-backed Lebanon gov’t’, Reuters, 25 January 2011,   [2] Nicholas Noe, Lebanese government collapse: a history of missed opportunities, guardian.co.uk, 14th January 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [3] Scott Wilson, Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast, Washington Post Foreign Service, 27th January 2006,  accessed 19/5/11  [4] Palestinian Parliamentary Elections 2006, GlobalSecurity.org,  accessed 19/5/11

Rentier economies lead to dictatorships.  Most economies in the middle east are oligarchic with the wealth in the hands of a few. Oil has created rentier economies. These economies rely upon systems of patronage relying upon kinship groups, merchant communities and patron-client relationships, economic considerations become subservient to political considerations. [1] This occurred because of the small size of Middle Eastern private sectors forced the creation of state centred development programs. [2] While it remains the case there is a very small group of people in each Arab country that need to keep political power in order to perpetuate their economic power. As they already have the economic power and are often the best educated they are the most capable of forming any new government. In such an oligarchic society it would be very risky for these people to allow the creation of a democracy that may well wish to redistribute resources more equally.  [1] Michel Chatelus and Yves Scehmeil, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262  [2] Timur Kuran, ‘Why the Middle East is Economically Underdeveloped: Historical Mechanisms of Institutional Stagnation’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.18, No.3 (Summer, 2004), pp.71-90, p.87.

Outside powers want oil so support dictatorial regimes who can deliver it.  Oil creates interdependence between the producing states in the Middle East and the consumers in Asia and the West. Although rising prices are good for producers they can also threaten the world economy and create inflation that in turn will damage the producers by reducing demand. [1] The consumers have to listen to Saudi Arabia and the other Arab regimes who provide their oil whereas they often don’t for poor countries in Africa who would otherwise be no different. Oil is the main reason for external interest in Arab regimes some of the strongest alliances in the Middle East are built with oil as their foundations. [2] Saudi Arabia is a US ally due to it being a major supplier while Egypt is an ally due to its vital position controlling a major trade route – the Suez canal. In neither case would any external powers such as the EU nor the U.S. really want a long an unstable transition to a democracy making a strong man a much easier option. This is shown by how the Obama administration has always been behind events, being unwilling to call for democracy in Egypt and President Mubarak to go. Instead the administration made statements such as that by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people”. [3] Many previous administrations would probably have been even more supportive of Mubarak.  [1] Daniel Yergin, The Prize The Epic Quest for Oil, Money &amp; Power (New York, N.Y., 1993), p.703.  [2] Eric Watkins, ‘The Unfolding US Policy in the Middle East’, International Affairs, Vol.73, No.1 (Jan., 1997), pp.1-14, p.1  [3] John Barry, Inside the White House’s Egypt scramble, Newsweek, 30/1/2011,

Factionalism is too strong  Since the 1970s, Arab state governments have become especially corrupt and oppressive, and have failed to provide essential social services on a consistent basis. Over the past forty years, people in the region have had to become increasingly reliant on informal networks and institutions in order to ensure personal and familial security and livlihood. This has degraded hopes of a relationship of trust between the state and people, causing people to committ themselves to differing factions, gangs, tribes, and parties in order to sustain themselves. It is apparent that the resulting factionalism may stand as a barrier to democracy, as parties hold fast to ideological committments and interest groups instead of political compromise and power-sharing.  This is especially rampant in post-conflict states, as is the case in Iraq. The current Iraqi government took 249 days to form. [1] The conditions for creating a stable government in Iraq seem to be based more on appeasing all the relevant groups than creating a working government. Lebanon, perhaps the most democratic Arab country also has its problems, the national unity government collapsed this month after 11 ministers from Hezbollah and its allies resigned. [2] , [3] The third example of an emerging democracy is of course Palestine. President Mahmoud Abbas, elected in 2005, continues in office despite his term having expired in January 2009. He extended his term, which opponents say breached the Palestinian Basic Law. [4] In 2007 clashes broke out between Fatah and Hamas, the two most prominent political parties, as a result of over a year of attempted political sabotage after Hamas won the election and Fatah refused to form a coalition in order to govern. These examples show that in environments where there are high levels of violence and conflict, factionalism takes hold over democratic governance. When law and order become difficult to establish under normal means, these regimes tend to seek security through autocracy and de-facto martial law, as has been happening under Maliki in Iraq or under Hamas and Fatah in the Occupied Territories.  Libya may face this same challenge after its July 2012 election, as tensions remain high after the country was divided between Qaddafi loyalists and the patchwork rebel network. Egypt also faces the risk of the military seizing power from the civilian government, as SCAF has already given itself additional powers and intends to create a shadow council that would allow it to veto parliamentary decisions.  [1] Ranj Alaaldin, The Iraqi government’s patchwork alliance may struggle to survive, guardian.co.uk, 24th December 2010,  accessed 19/05/11  [2] Hezbollah and allies topple Lebanese unity government, BBC News 12th January 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [3] Lebanon is the most democratic Arab country, ranks 86th Globally, iloubnan.info, 25th December 2010,  accessed 19/05/11  [4] Khaled Abu Toameh, Hamas challenges Abbas term extension, The Jerusalem Post, 29th September 2008,  Accessed 19/05/11

For these states perpetuating the resources that give their regime its legitimacy, as a provider, is absolutely vital, the regime needs to be able to fulfill its side of the bargain with the people. [1] This is exactly what Egypt and other Middle Eastern states have been failing to do for the last couple of decades. Increasing food prices sparking riots shows that this is the case. Instead they have to rely more and more on force.  Once a rentier system has begun to break down there may well be an opportunity for a more democratic system to take hold and better redistribute the economic resources of the state that have previously been so concentrated in a few hands.  [1] Gerd Nonneman, ‘Rentiers and Autocrats, Monarchs and Democrats, State and Society: The Middle East between Globalisation, Human “Agency”, and Europe’, International Affairs, Vol.77, No.1 (Jan., 2001), pp.141-162, pp.146-147.

The western reaction to victories by Hamas or Hizbollah while on one level hypocritical do not show that the west would be unsupportive of Arab democracy. Both parties are opposed because they are perceived to be both anti-democratic in nature and, through their opposition to Israel, agents of instability. Opposition to Hamas was always qualified, according to Tony Blair former British PM “Of course, we recognize the mandate for Hamas because the people have spoken in a particular way in the Palestinian Authority. But I think it is also important for Hamas to understand that there comes a point, and that point is now following that strong showing, where they have to decide between a path of democracy or a path of violence.” [1] Certainly when it comes to more moderate parties like Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP)’s victory in 2002 was cautiously welcomed by the United States despite the party’s islamist roots. With State Department spokesman Richard Boucher saying immediately after its electoral victory “Let's not speculate on the future of the Turkish government, but let us at this point congratulate the Justice and Development Party on its electoral success. [2] Although the press tended to present the party’s islamist leanings as a problem this was balanced by some in the western media welcoming the opportunity to marry Islam with liberal democracy, and the example that Turkey could show. [3] It has to be remembered that there is a great deal of religion in US politics, to dismiss any parties that had Islamic roots would be seriously hypocritical. It has to be assumed that democrats in Muslim nations would express piety in order to connect with the general population, if politicians did not reflect the views of their constituents they would not be very good democrats.  [1] Bush: no change in US policy on Hamas, The Independent, Jan., 26, 2006,   [2] Michael Rubin ‘Green Money, Islamist Politics in Turkey’, Middle East Quarterly Winter 2005,   [3] Christian Christensen, ‘Pocketbooks or Prayer Beads? : U.S./U.K. Newspaper Coverage of the 2002 Turkish Elections’, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2005 10: 109, pp.120-1

NATO cooperates with Russia to decrease tensions. Since 2002, NATO and Russia have an on-going dialogue to discuss strategic issues in the NATO-Russia Council. This Council aims to ‘enhance political consultation and practical cooperation with Russia in areas of shared interests’ with Russia as a ‘true strategic partner’. [1] Obviously, political differences over specific issues remain: NATO stresses Georgia’s and Ukraine’s sovereignty and maintains an open door policy for their membership if they themselves want this. What matters is that through this on-going, institutionalized dialogue, NATO makes clear it sees Russia as a strategic partner, and possibly even as a future member, not as a potential enemy.  [1] NATO. NATO’s relations with Russia.

NATO destabilizes peaceful relations with Russia  There are two issues keeping Russia cautious of NATO as a military alliance. The first is a proposal by the U.S. to put up a missile defence system in Poland, the Czech Republic and on warships in the Black Sea under the flag of NATO to protect against missiles from Iran or North Korea, which, according to Russia, would never fly over these countries in any attack. Russia concludes that the missile defence system therefore must be directed at them. The second issue is NATO’s plans to expand with Ukraine and Georgia, which Russia has traditionally regarded as part of their ‘sphere of influence’. As Russian president Medvedev stated in 2008: “No state can be pleased about having representatives of a military bloc to which it does not belong coming close to its borders.” [1]  [1] BBC News. Medvedev warns on Nato expansion. 2008

NATO has sufficient safeguards to prevent accidental escalation. Article V indeed specifies that members commit themselves to assisting a fellow member when attacked, but this clause leaves enough room to remain on the safe side. First of all, the clause is only defensive, to ensure that NATO doesn’t become involved in a war of choice of any of its members, like the Gulf War. Secondly, article V allows members to choose their assistance in proportion to the actual security threat and according to their own means and goals, instead of the automatic triggers that led to World War I.

Continued existence of NATO makes the world less safe  Originally, NATO had a clearly defined purpose and a common enemy: the Soviet bloc. With the demise of that shared enemy, NATO’s original purpose has disappeared but its well-functioning military structure remained, leaving it open to be seized by opportunistic politicians in a classic case of ‘scope creep’. This has happened with U.S. President George Bush jr.’s push to let Ukraine and Georgia in as new members in his global campaign to spread democracy. This has only served to increase tensions with Russia (see next argument). Who is to say that something similar isn’t going to happen vis-à-vis China? [1]  [1] Hamilton, Time to disband Nato now the Cold War is over? 2008

Continued existence of NATO doesn’t make the world less safe. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is only natural for the members of NATO to have been trying to define a new purpose. But discussing to define a new threat, whether that be an enemy state or a broader global security threat, isn’t the same as creating that threat. It’s not NATO’s so-called ‘scope creep’ that makes the world more unsafe, it is actual threats that make the world unsafe, and NATO’s formidable military structure can be useful in combating these. [1]  [1] NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010

NATO does not cont too much it saves money. Through joint exercises and sharing intelligence, member states learn to cooperate and communicate more effectively with each other, saving efforts when, if ever, they are forced to cooperate. These benefits alone are worthwhile. Moreover, defence contractors could expect a larger, more unified market, thus driving down average cost per unit, because of NATO’s efforts in standardizing requirements.

NATO runs the unacceptable risk of accidental escalation  The clause that ‘an attack against one means an attack against all’ (Article V) runs the risk of entangling the entire alliance in an unwanted conflict. This has happened before: World War I started out as a local conflict between the Austro-Hungarian empire and Serbia, but through their security alliances inadvertently drew in all the major powers of the world. Given that many members of NATO have unstable countries near their borders (i.e. Turkey bordering Iraq) there is a risk they could become involved in a small regional war, which then inadvertently draws in the entire world.

NATO costs too much  Maintaining an administration for NATO, with personnel and buildings, costs money. Moreover, whenever NATO-members engage in a mission, they’re supposed to fund their activities under these missions themselves. [1] Given that the original threat has passed and given that the organisation still struggles to redefine itself, why spend money on it?  [1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011

The EU would do better to develop its own military capability. Slowly but surely, the European Union is attempting to build its own defence capability through the Common Security and Defence Policy, with a strategy, defence agency and coordinating official separate from NATO. The process of creating this is slow, because it involves EU-member states sharing the sovereign control of the monopoly of violence on their territories. The EU wants this because in its own region, the EU has its own interests which it wants to protect by itself. Moreover, why would NATO-members outside of the EU consider it fair that their collective assets are used for Europe’s particular interests, especially when it involves their own related interest, as for example Turkey’s strenuous relation to the Berlin Plus Agreement shows? [1]  [1] Ülgen, The Evolving EU, NATO, and Turkey Relationship.

Strategic alliances should reflect the specific interests they serve. The threats mentioned are global threats affecting all developed countries, but they affect different countries differently. For example, Australia and New-Zealand are closer to North-Korea than Europe is. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with U.S.? Indonesia and India are growing economies and burgeoning democracies, both regularly suffering terrorist attacks. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with the U.S. and Europe? Turkey continues to have a different strategic view of the threat Iran poses and has a radically divergent strategic interest in Cyprus than the EU-members in NATO. Why is the EU allied with them through NATO whilst it has opposing strategic interests?  Without a clearly defined shared purpose and shared enemy, NATO will remain a talking shop where members with divergent interests will continue to frustrate any possible ‘coalition of the willing’, rendering NATO practically useless.

NATO provides the UN with an effective joint military capability  When in early 2011 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, calling upon countries and regional organizations to take “all necessary measures” to protect the citizens of Libya against its dictator Ghaddafi, NATO provided effective support through their ‘Operation Unified Protector’, through which it enforced the arms embargo against Ghaddafi and the no-fly zone over Libya. Moreover, the smooth cooperation between France, the UK and the US in their active campaign to provide air support for the rebels in Libya has probably been made easier by the previous cooperation these countries have had through NATO.

NATO allows burden-sharing and specialization amongst its members  For many members, maintaining a fully operational military that has all the required capabilities (air, sea and land plus required logistics) is impossible: they don’t have enough budget, manpower or political will to maintain a full military. NATO allows members to share their burdens and to specialise. Examples of this are NATO’s AWACS-aircraft (Airborne Warning &amp; Control System) and NATO’s Strategic Airlift Capability. Both are instances of NATO-allies pooling resources and sharing burdens. [1]  [1] NATO. AWACS: NATO’s ‘eye in the sky’.

NATO provides the EU with an effective joint military capability  As of yet, the European Union has little independent military capability to intervene in regional conflicts in neighbouring countries. The relevance of this became glaringly apparent during the 1990’s Bosnian war and later, the Kosovo War: the EU called for the ending of hostilities but only when NATO and/or the UN became involved militarily, was peace effectively enforced. Consequently, in 2002 NATO and the EU agreed on the Berlin Plus Agreement, allowing the EU to use NATO assets, provided no NATO members vetoed it. Under this agreement, the EU has been able to hold their own peacekeeping missions in the Republic of Macedonia (EUFOR Concordia) and Bosnia Herzegovina to oversee the Dayton Agreement (EUFOR Althea). [1]  [1] NATO. NATO-EU: A Strategic Partnership.

NATO is a vital instrument to make the world safer  In spite of all the bickering, the members of the NATO-alliance still face shared threats: a nuclear armed North-Korea for example, but also international terrorism, threats to international security stemming from weak or failed states and a possibility of a nuclear Iran. As in the past, NATO provides an institutionalized dialogue between partners with shared interest: America has an easily accessible diplomatic forum through which it can garner an international coalition for its policies, and European member states can benefit from access to US military technology and know-how. That’s why throughout 2010 and 2011 NATO has successfully formulated a new ‘Strategic Concept’, a joint strategic vision shared by all members, as well as a policy to improve NATO’s involvement in stabilisation and reconstruction. [1]  [1] NATO. Key NATO policy on stabilisation and reconstruction released to the public. 2011. NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010.

NATO has allowed many members a free ride on U.S. military capability. The little ‘burden sharing’ that is going on can’t hide the fact that the main contributor is the U.S. and that especially the EU-members have not been investing enough in their own military capability. This has led to NATO becoming, in the words of U.S. Defence Secretary, a “two-tiered alliance” between “those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership”. As long as Europe continues to take a free ride on the U.S., it will never be able to either shoulder its fair share of the burden, or operate independently outside of NATO. [1]  [1] Gates, Transcript of Defense Secretary Gates’s Speech on NATO’s Future. 2011

NATO actually undermines the authority of the UN. The attack against the Libyan regime, as well as NATO’s participation in it, has drawn severe criticism, especially from Russia and China, who see the military campaign NATO and the UK, US and France undertook as overstepping the boundaries set by resolution 1973, against their explicit wishes. If NATO ever were to operate as the de facto military arm of the UN Security Council, then China and Russia would feel alienated from the UN Security Council, simply because they’re not (veto-wielding) members of NATO. [1]  [1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011

The suggestion that superdelegates vote for one of their own are simply disproved by the selection of Obama over one half of the most influential couple in the entire party. [i] Obama drew his support from the grassroots and his funding and that was quite sufficient.  There is simply no evidence that the superdelegates act as a drag on the party, indeed they have consistently followed the popular decision of party activists and respected that decision. Indeed the Republican system, without superdelegates, have most recently selected George Bush followed by John McCain; it would be difficult to think of two candidates who would more accurately fit either of the descriptions “old, powerful, white men” or “party establishment”.  [i] 2008 Democratic Delegates, Real Clear Politics, 2008,

The disproportionate influence of former politicians inevitably benefits old, powerful, white men  The influence of superdelegates acts as a vehicle for an elite that needs little help. The situation in which the superdelegates would be most likely to act were as the result of the membership of the party selecting someone from outside the political class or their friends in business. It was worried that this might happen in 1998 in the close primary contest between Clinton and Obama. [i]  There is no reason that this decision should not be left to the members, it is after their party and they should be represented by whosoever they see fit. The decision in a democracy over the governance of the country – or the leadership of the party – should be determined by the populous or the members.  Allowing a disproportionate influence to past leaders and those they have selected inevitably discourages new ideas and new voices.  [i] Younge, Gary, ‘It’s up to the superdelegates to prove Democrats believe in democracy’, The Guardian, 18 February 2008

Overwhelmingly senior party figures have publically declared for a candidate and the suggestion that this does not involve a degree of horse trading is simply naïve. Equally the suggestion that leaving such negotiations until after the election is over would be reckless in the extreme.  For anyone seeking reelection their most likely request is the candidates involvement in their campaign. In terms of cash donations the amounts concerned are tiny - Obama donated under a million to election campaigns and Clinton less than half of that, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that someone wanting to lead the party into an election campaign should deploy some of their own funds to help get a congress they can work with.

One person, one vote is a basic principal of democracy when the vote of one person is worth 10,000 time as much as that of another is simply undemocratic  It’s simply a violation of basic democratic principles for one vote to be worth more than another. There have been plenty of other attempts to restrict the rights of party members and activists to select candidates by party insiders keen to sew up the selection without members being consulted, super-delegates were created as a watered down response to one of these but the effects are the same [i] .  Regardless of how votes are actually cast it gives a very poor appearance a sends a bad message for a major party – especially one called the Democratic Party - to be justifying such a situation.  [i] Paul Rockwell. “Screw the voters. Let the superdelegates decide!” Common Dreams. 18 February 2008.

Primaries are a process of selection, not one of election. There are plenty of other situations in which political parties recognise the need to introduce particular expertise into their processes such as in drafting policy or developing campaign materials.  Superdelegates act as a balancing mechanism in the event of an emergency or a tie. Other than that the system simply ensures that the winning candidate has a clear majority and to provide the leadership with the party a legitimate reason to attend and show their support to those watching at home.  Rather than providing an unwatchable parade of faces and names that the electorate has never heard of the superdelegate system means that senior party officials have the opportunity to say that they have actively and publically voted for the successful candidate.

Candidates solicitation of superdelegates damages the political system and requires candidates to go through contortions to secure their support  Superdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up for negotiation or go to which candidate will be best for their own reelection chances rather than in the best interests of the party. Presidential candidates are often prepared to make concessions to superdelegates to secure their support. There is public acknowledgement of the fact that this process takes place and the fact that they are not obliged to support the candidate designated by their state parties gives them enormous bargaining power. For example in 2008 several Democratic Representatives of Ohio formed a ‘Protect American Jobs’ pact to hold back from endorsements until a candidate addresses issues of importance to the Ohio economy. [i]  The system of superdelegates simply extends the pork-barrel buffet into the convention. With votes to be bought through offer of jobs or political support, the political process is distorted and corrupted [ii] .  [i] Czawadzki, ‘Ohio’s Superdelegates Hold Endorsements Hostage’, Ohio Daily, 6 March 2008,   [ii] Robert Schlesinger. “Superdelegates: Show me the money!” Huffington Post. 17 February 2008.

The very fact that the only time since its creation when the superdelegates played a significant role, they managed to select the most unelectable candidate in modern American history – and by their involvement made him, more unelectable still suggests that the system may not be working.  Their intervention in 1984 to nudge Mondale over the winning line produced a candidate who lost in 49 states. If ever there were a situation when the party elders subtle understanding of the electorate might have been useful then it was at that election.  Instead they supported the party insider with a mechanism he had helped design and for exactly the purpose he had wanted it in place.

In such a scenario – which is a little concerned – it can be assumed that exactly the same party elders could be relied on to pressure the candidate to resign.  Equally the only ‘crisis’ it is conceivable to imagine after months of primaries being raked over by the press and political opponents would seem to be that party grandees considered that the voters had made ‘the wrong choice’.  The reason that the Mondale case was contentious was that he wanted – and had wanted for some time – the party apparatus to have an even greater say but this was the best he could get. It also gives the lie to the party ‘experts’ capacity to ensure winning candidates are selected.

It’s in the interests of ordinary party members that they don’t have to compete with congressmen to be a delegate  Most delegates are either party activists or, in some states, those selected by the candidate or state party leaderships for a particular role in the campaign.  It would be unfair to all concerned if they had to compete for their place at the convention with senators and congressmen, as is the case with the Republicans where the elected representatives often get to be delegates due to being a recognisable name. [i] Likewise ensuring that former party leaders and other elders are in attendance shows both continuity and unity.  It seems unlikely that the average activist from Arkansas would be likely to be sent if the alternative was W.J. Clinton  [i] Klonsky, Joanna, ‘Backgrounder The Role of Delegates in the U.S. Presidential Nominating Process’, Council on Foreign Relations, 10 June 2008,

The party leadership has the experience and expertise of actually winning elections, they provide a useful buffer against activists – usually from the party’s extremes  It is a standing joke in both parties that to win the nomination candidates need to run to the extreme and then, to win the election, run back to the middle. The very fact that this disparity exists suggests that having a stop button of people who have actually won some elections because, by definition, they have an understanding of the electorate might not be a bad idea.  In essence the superdelegates act as what in parliamentary terms as a reviewing chamber, rarely used but useful in a crisis. [i]  [i] Thurow, Glen E., "The 1984 Democratic Primary Election: Issues and Image," in Peter W. Schramm and Dennis J. Mahoney, eds. The 1984 Election and the Future of American Politics (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press), 1987

It’s useful to have an informed and experienced group involved in the event of a tie and also to deal with any other issues such as a last minute scandal  The superdelegates are really a valve to deal with the unexpected. Even in the most contentious case of Walter Mondale – in reality only contentious because it was the first time the system had been used – the party had already decided and the superdelegates were just ensuring a clear majority.  Imagine a scenario in which a candidate had won the popular vote only to face a major scandal on the eve of the convention. The role of those electors with a free hand would suddenly look very useful to party members.

There is absolutely no reason for the party leadership not to be invited – and to speak – without being given a vote. Every other party manages to do so.  Working on the basis that Bill Clinton managed to get an invite to – and address – the British Labour party (with Kevin Spacey as his sidekick) in 2002, [i] it seems unlikely that Democrat party managers would forget to give him an invite.  Indeed the fact that the parties great and good have already had an influence over the outcome of the nomination in terms of giving their support and appearing on the campaign trail with candidates to give them an extra say at this late stage seems doubly unfair.  [i] ‘Speech by Bill Clinton, former US President, at the Labour Party Conference, 2002’, Winter Gardens, Blackpool, Wednesday 2 October 2002,

If the terrorist organisation was elected as Hamas was it is likely that as in 2006/7 when much of the power in the PA remained with the Fatah President, Mahmood Abbas, one or other of the presidency or the parliament would remain in non-terrorist hands so funding should be continued in order to strengthen that party. In any case, any party that is willing to stand and contest relatively free and fair elections, is in the long term likely to want to bring peace. Working with such a government would encourage the moderates within that organisation, and allow them to understand that helping the Palestinian people to a better future requires compromise and negotiation. This move from terrorism to a political process will take time in order for attitudes to change and trust to build. It can only be achieved by western commitment to work with the new government rather than to cut it off entirely.

Withholding funds will prevent PNA terrorism and anti-Semitism.  It is clear what Hamas, or any other terrorist organisation, has to do in order to convince western governments to continue funding the Palestinian National Authority with it in charge. It must formally give up terror, accept the existence of the state of Israel and drop any anti-Semitic ideology. Yasser Arafat’s PLO and Fatah Party made these commitments in the early 1990s, and this allowed them to become negotiating partners in the Oslo Peace process. [1] Hamas has to take the same steps if it wants to enjoy the same level of support from western donors which the previous Fatah government had. Until it makes these public changes, there would not be any funding.  [1] Schlaim, Avi. “The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process.” International Relations of the Middle East. 2005.

It would be anti-democratic to punish the Palestinian people for exercising their right to vote. Their vote may not be a vote for terrorism or against the peace process, but rather a response to the corruption and anarchy of the ruling party, currently Fatah, and its mismanagement of the Palestinian National Authority. Withdrawing funding is not just a signal of disapproval for the party which is elected, but a clear attempt to bring down the PNA government and overturn the election result. After all the years of western criticism of corrupt dictatorial regimes, what message does it send to Arab governments and people if the west refuses to respect the result of an election and imposes a collective punishment?

The law prevents US and EU governments from funding terrorist groups.  Hamas is a terrorist organisation, responsible for killing hundreds of civilians, often by sending suicide bombers into Israel. Both the European Union and the US State Department have recognised this by listing Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Their governments are barred by law from providing any funding to such groups. [1] It is extremely worrying that such a violent organisation managed to win power in the most recent Palestinian election, and that committed terrorists are in government in Gaza and in control of the Palestinian budget and security forces. In 2007 both Western law, and the moral disgust at the thought that aid funding could be used to fund terror attacks, required the EU and US to stop funding the Palestinian Authority while under a Hamas government, the same would almost certainly be the case again if Hamas were to regain power.  [1] Schulenburg, John. “Fatah Reconciles With Hamas.” Gateway Pundit. 27/04/2011.

It is these western governments themselves who define what groups are terrorist groups. They both make the definitions of terrorism and decide what groups fall into these definitions. For example the United Kingdom regarded the IRA (Irish Republican Army) as being a terrorist group while the United States did not consider them a terrorist organisation. [1] Therefore if these countries wished to deal with and provide financial aid to a new Palestinian government, even if it was the political arm of a terrorist organisation they could simply redefine it, as would almost certainly be the case if the terrorist organisation was perceived as doing something that is in the interests of these western nations.  [1]

The outcome of the Palestinian elections should not be rewarded with aid.  A terrorist organisation such as Hamas may be democratically elected, but that does not mean we have to fund its government. Respecting the decision of the Palestinian people is not the same thing as liking their choice or rewarding it with aid. The Palestinian people should realise that a vote for Hamas or any other terrorist organisation is a vote for international isolation. Showing our clear disapproval of terrorists in government sends a clear message for future elections both in Palestine and in other countries.

The history of the IRA does not provide a useful precedent for dealing with Hamas. Leaving aside questions of how genuine the IRA’s conversion to peace and democracy really is, parallels with Hamas and the Palestinian conflict are misleading. Compared to the religious fundamentalism of Hamas, Irish republicans were pretty secular and focused on gaining and using power in this world. They wanted to force Britain out of Northern Ireland, but not to wipe Britain itself off the map. There has never been an IRA suicide bomber and, faced with a failing armed struggle, the movement’s leaders chose to compromise. Hamas is entirely different in its beliefs and attitudes, and there is no reason to suppose that funding it in power will encourage it to change its strategy or aims.

Arab and Muslim states won’t necessarily make up any budget shortfall if the EU and USA stop funding the PNA. Many Arab governments would be deeply unhappy at seeing Islamists in government and even though they do not like Israel, they have no wish to inflame the situation further. More moderate countries in the region recognise Israel and want the peace process to move forward so would be just as likely to demand that a terrorist group gives up terror and disarms as the west. Iran may be more sympathetic, but almost all Palestinians are Sunni rather than Shia Muslims, and Iran has its own international problems such as sanctions that are making an economic impact so it may not be in a position to subsidize other governments.  There is also no evidence that the Palestinians would turn to such states. In December 2007, 87 countries and international organisations, including Serbia and Nicaragua, pledged to donate $7.4 billion to the PNA over three years. [1] This amount is far more than previous US and EU funding and there is no evidence that its acceptance has led to Palestine depending on anti-Israel regimes.  [1] Stotsky, Steven. “Does Foreign Aid Fuel Palestinian Violence?” Middle East Quarterly. Summer 2008.

The loss of funding would destabilise and radicalise Palestine.  Palestine is very dependent on foreign aid, the PNA is dependent on aid for 50% of its budget and per head the Palestinians are the biggest recipients of aid in the world. [1] The loss of funding would therefore destabilise both the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian society as a whole. 140,000 PNA jobs are dependent upon the income from western funding, and these workers in turn help support more than a third of the Palestinian population. [2] Cutting funding could lead to the collapse of any government system and cause great suffering among the people who would lose their chief source of income has gone. Both these things are likely to radicalise the Palestinian people further and make peace less likely.  [1] Levy, Judith, ‘Palestinian economy dangerously dependent on foreign aid’, The Washington Times Communities, 27 May 2011,   [2] “Palestinians ‘face financial crisis’.” BBC News. 21/02/2006.

Western donors should support fair government  The west should support democratically elected, just, uncorrupted government no matter who provides it. Hamas could make a much better government than Fatah, it is a religious movement dedicated to political and social action. For many years it has run the most effective welfare programmes in the Palestinian territories, especially Gaza, including orphanages, schools, clinics and help for the needy. [1] The honesty and discipline of its leaders and followers provide a stark contrast with the corruption and chaos of the Fatah-run administration of Yasser Arafat and Mahmood Abbas. They paid lip service to the peace process but either could not, or would not control their followers so as to make a clear commitment to peace. At least with Hamas in power, the Palestinians would be better and more honestly governed, and billions of dollars in aid money will no longer be stolen by a corrupt elite. Hamas in Gaza by comparison has established an efficient public administration and has an ambitious infrastructure program. [2] In addition, militias and security forces are likely to be under much more effective control, making genuine negotiations about a long-term ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians much more plausible. After all, a deal which excludes Hamas has no chance at all of holding.  [1] Putz, Ulrike. “Uncle Hamas Cares for Palestinians.” Spiegel. 12/20/2006.   [2] Shaikh, Salman, ‘Don’t Forget Gaza’, ForeignPolicy.com, 24 January 2011,

Engaging with Hamas is the best way to secure a peace deal between Israel and Palestine.  There is a clear precedent for engaging with terrorist groups moving towards a political track. Like Hamas in recent years, at the end of the 1970s, the IRA was a terrorist organisation which rejected the political process. In the early 1980s, Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, decided to stand for elections. As elected representatives grappled with local issues and had to work with others on councils and committees, the movement changed and, in 1994, the IRA declared a ceasefire. [1] More recently, Sinn Fein leaders have held ministerial positions in Northern Ireland and the IRA has ended the armed struggle. This was a long process but it shows clearly how, if we respect any elected terrorist group’s popular mandate and are prepared to engage with them, they may be encouraged to give up terrorism and make concessions for peace. Indeed some hard liners in Hamas controlled Gaza worry that exactly such a scenario may happen. [2]  [1] Schmidt, William E. “Cease-Fire in Northern Ireland.” New York Times. 01/09/1994.   [2] Shaikh, Salman, ‘Don’t Forget Gaza’, ForeignPolicy.com, 24 January 2011,

Withholding funds will cause Palestine to rely on anti-Israeli regimes.  Cutting off aid to the Palestinian National Authority would be counter-productive no matter who is elected in. The PNA would have to replace funding from somewhere, this would inevitably mean turning for aid to Muslim and Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran as Hamas did. [1] The west may therefore simply force the Palestinians in to the arms of countries that are much more hostile to Israel resulting in the Palestinians simply being more hard-line to please their new paymasters. Allowing the Palestinians to become dependent upon such anti-Israel regimes will end any influence the west has had with the PNA and push it in a more extremist direction. Potentially, such alliances could make a regional conflict more likely.  [1] Watt, Nicholas. “US urges Arab states to fund Palestinians after Hamas victory.” The Guardian. 31/01/2006.

This assumes that it is Hamas that is elected or another group that has been involved in running welfare programmes. It should however be noted that while Hamas has effectively provided welfare programmes it has at the same time used those same civilians as human shields. During its time in power in Gaza Hamas has had little impact except for starting a conflict with Israel, as a result Gaza is in a worse position than the West Bank with 80% of the population dependent on international aid, 61% are food insecure and 90% of water supplied is not suitable for drinking. [1]  [1] Hasan, Mehdi, ‘No end to the strangulation of Gaza’, New Statesman, 6 January 2011,

Cutting off aid to the PNA need not result in mass suffering among the Palestinian people. Humanitarian aid would certainly continue, although this could no longer be channelled through the PNA but rather to individual schemes run by non-governmental organisations. In any case, the greatest suffering is caused by a lack of a peace process with Israel. A commitment to peace talks shown by a terrorist group pledging to end terrorism would help allow the economic development needed to create jobs and relieve poverty in the Palestinian territories.

Buying time only helps the terrorists. It gives them time to arm themselves and gain allies abroad so enabling a more deadly series of attacks later on. Terrorist groups usually only have a very finite number of resources so the state should seek to press the terrorist group until it has nothing left to fall back on. It is notable that each time Israel has failed to destroy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza they have quickly been resupplied b allies in Syria and Iran making them more difficult to fight next time. [1]  [1] Spiegel, Peter, and King, Laura, ‘Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah’, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2006,

No negotiation encourages the hunt for a bigger lever  When fighting terrorists the state either needs to answer some of the terrorists demands or fight back. When the state fights back the by the terrorists response is almost always more bloodshed using more and more extreme methods for example the first intifada was fought using sticks and stones, but when this, and the peace process that followed it failed, or rather did not show the results that was hoped for, the second was a major step up to suicide bombing. This is because when the terrorists fail they are unlikely to pack up; instead they will try to find a bigger lever to course the state into making the move they want. In this case Arafat hoped a round of violence would bring about concessions. [1] The best way to prevent this cycle of violence is to negotiate, even if this is mostly to buy time. Even when there is no cease fire there will be no reason for the terrorists to escalate if their demands are being taken seriously.  [1] Pressman, Jeremy, ‘The Second Intifada: Background and Causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’, The Journal of Conflict Studies, Vol. CCIII, No.2, Fall 2003,

Whether this happens really depends on the negotiations. Unfortunately negotiations without result are likely to strengthen the radicals who can show that the peaceful route is not going anywhere. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to give them what they want, and if this has to be done the concessions could have been given before there was a turn to terrorism.

Negotiation isolates those who are only interested in violence  Just as negotiations strengthen the moderates they isolate those who are most radical and interested in a violent solution. This isolation is key to actually winning a fight against groups using terrorist methods because terrorists are almost always hiding within the community. The only way to prevent these acts is therefore to encourage their community to persuade the terrorists to reject violence, or if they are not willing to change to aid the state. The need for help from the community is recognised in almost all conflicts against terrorist groups and insurgencies. The state succeeds when it gets the moderates on board, this is shown by the conflict in Iraq where the United States turned the tide against al Qaeda in the Al-Anbar Awakening. This victory was only made possible through the engagement and cooperation with local leaders who wanted an end to violence so were willing to talk to, and join with the US military if the result was likely to be security. [1]  [1] Smith, Niel, and MacFarland, Sean, ‘Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point’, Military Review, March-April 2008, pp.41-52,  p.48

Negotiation saves lives  Almost all terrorist groups kill people, whether innocents or members of the military. Even those who limit casualties by giving warnings of their atrocities are unperturbed when they do end up taking lives. Negotiation can then be the best way to save lives both in the short and long term. In the short term negotiating can mean a cease fire, and if there are hostages their release. Over the long term negotiation is necessary if there is to be any peaceful conclusion to the conflict. As the right to life is the most fundamental right, and the duty of the states to protect its citizens is primary role of the state it is clear that the protection of these lives should be the main consideration for the state.

In the long term negotiation and compromise of some form is needed to bring about a final peace but it is not correct that negotiations in the short term saves lives. First of all not all terrorist groups will initiate a cease fire if they are negotiating with the government, about half continue their violence while negotiating, [1] and even if they do there is no saying all their supporters will take part. Negotiating also shows that the government is weak; the determination to 'save lives' can end up costing more lives as the terrorists see that they violence is paying dividends. They may come to the conclusion that if they kill more they will gain more concessions.  [1] Cronin, Audrey Kurth, ‘Negotiating with groups that use terrorism: Lessons for policy-makers’, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue Background papers, 2008,  p.6

Negotiations are not needed to isolate terrorists. The vast majority of citizens will abhor violence as they simply desire a quiet life in which they can make a peaceful living. The best way for the government to isolate the terrorists is to ensure the security of the community and meet some of their grievances. When the community sees that they government is in a better position to provide what they want they will support the government. The situation in Iraq was unusual in that there were important people in the community who at one point or another actively supported Al Qaeda so there needed to be negotiations with these people. In most circumstances the important members of the community are on the sidelines so negotiating with them would not be analogous to negotiating with terrorists.

There is nothing wrong with attempts to solve the individual grievance without reference to the terrorist group. The aim of resolving the grievance is to prevent more people joining the extremists and to isolate them from the people. When this is done it will be much easier to catch the people who are responsible for the terrorist atrocities and bring them to justice. Being willing to negotiate with the terrorist group on the other hand will likely lead to some of the concessions being that terrorists or former terrorist manage to escape justice for their acts as they will want such an amnesty to be a part of the concessions they receive in return for giving up violence.

Negotiation encourages moderation  In every terrorist movement there are different factions and disagreements about how best to achieve their collective aims, and often terrorist groups have either direct or indirect ties with political parties with whom they share the same goals. It is clearly then in the interest of the state to strengthen the more acceptable parts of the movement whether can seriously talk to. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to negotiate. This then makes their path to a solution the more credible course for the movement as a whole to take. To demonstrate a negative example the United States and Israel were unwilling to negotiate with moderates within the PLO for fifteen years during which time not only was there a lot more bloodshed but much more radical groups formed on the Palestinian side making negotiations much more complicated in the long run as there would be multiple groups who would need to sign up to a final peace treaty. [1]  [1] Chamberlin, Paul Thomas, ‘When It Pays to Talk to Terrorists’, The New York Times, 3 September 2012,

Negotiation is the only way to solve the underlying problem  UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in 2003 “terrorism will only be defeated if we act to solve the political disputes and long-standing conflicts which generate support for it. If we do not, we shall find ourselves acting as a recruiting sergeant for the very terrorists we seek to suppress.” [1] Terrorist campaigns don't just come out of nowhere (with the exception of some single individual acts), there is a grievance behind the acts. The terrorist is trying to have this grievance dealt with and believes the best way to this end is through violence. It is clear that the easiest way to end the conflict is simply to resolve the grievance. Even when there are no negotiations the state will usually attempt to resolve some of these grievances, however doing so unilaterally will simply show that the terrorist's violence is working without getting any guarantees of an end to the violence in return. Negotiation therefore benefits both sides. It is notable that 43% of terrorist groups that have ended since 1968 have done so as a result of negotiations compared to only 7% being defeated militarily. [2]  [1] Annan, Kofi, ‘Ability to reason vital in fighting terrorism, Secretary-General tells conference’, un.org, SG/SM/8885, 22 September 2003,   [2] Jones, Seth G., and Libicki, Martin C., How Terrorist Groups End, RAND, 2008,  p.xiii, xiv

It is very rare for such negotiations to provide a benefit to terrorist groups. Many states, such as the UK and USA, are unwilling to provide ransom payments so where they are provided they are often privately raised thus cannot be considered to be a result of negotiation. In such circumstances the state will have secured the release of hostages and the life of a state's citizens should be placed above comparatively small amounts of money. Where prisoners are being released as a confidence building measure the terrorists will usually be making some concession as well such as giving up some arms so the state does not end up worse off but there is more trust to enable negotiations to prevent more violence.

A precondition that terrorists must give up their arms and renounce violence before negotiations will ensure that negotiations never come and the violence will continue indefinitely. Terrorists realise that their influence is only as a result of their threat of violence; once this has been renounced the government will never have any reason to give them what they want. The only response to such a precondition is to force the government to drop that condition through violence.

Negotiation encourages more terrorism  There are two ways in which negotiation encourages more terrorism. First it shows that violence can achieve its aims, a group that has committed violent acts and received negotiations in return will believe that they will gain even more from greater levels of violence. Secondly as argued in the previous point negotiations with terrorist groups gives legitimacy to political violence. This in turn will encourage other groups to resort to violence to achieve their political goals as they have seen it work for another group. Thus for example when the Fatah movement and the Palestine Liberation Organisation were legitimised by a peace process and the recognition of a form of Palestinian government other groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas came to believe that they could take terrorist actions further in order to liberate Palestine through an armed struggle. [1]  [1] Schweitzer, Yoram, ‘The Rise and Fall of Suicide Bombings in the Second Intifada’, Strategis Assessment, Vol.13, No.3, October 2010,  p.40

Even if negotiation with one group is successful others will take their place  Terrorist groups are rarely static, they change, evolve, and break up. Negotiating with one group may create peace with that group while at the same time causing a split that creates another group that is more willing to use violence. This is what happened in Northern Ireland where the peace process tamed the IRA and spawned the Real IRA, [1] a group that was more even more willing to kill innocents than its predecessor through attacks such as the Omagh bombing which killed 29 people in 1998. [2]  [1] Moran, Michael, ‘Terrorist Groups and Political Legitimacy’, Council on Foreign Relations, 16 March 2006,   [2] Elliott, Francis, ‘Real IRA admits to Omagh bomb and disbands’, The Telegraph, 20 October 2002,

Terrorists can’t be trusted – better to crush them  Any group that is willing to resort to violence cannot be trusted not to simply take up arms again as soon as they perceive some new grievance. Groups that believe they can achieve what they want through force of arms will turn to violence again and again. This can be seen all over the world; thus ETA regularly declares ceasefires and breaks them just as often (1989, 1996, 1998, 2006), [1] or civil wars that have seemed to be coming to a close reignite because one or more groups believe they can gain more from another round of fighting. Thus the Tamil Tigers fought what might be considered to be four separate wars with the Sri Lankan state with a lot of ceasefires along the way. [2] It was however not negotiations but the pursuit of a ruthless military campaign that finally brought the reunification of the country. [3]  [1] Dingle, Sarah, ‘ETA militants declare end to armed struggle’, ABC The World Today, 21 October 2011,   [2] ‘Sri Lanka profile Timeline’, BBC News, 16 May 2013,   [3] Smith, Niel A., ‘Understanding Sri Lanka’s Defeat of the Tamil Tigers’, NDU Press, 2009,

Negotiation provides more resources to terrorists  Negotiation can help the terrorists who are negotiating in several ways. First it buys time; if the terrorist group has previously been hard pressed by the state's military then this time can be used to rest, recover and resupply, in effect for preparing for the next campaign. This is what happens whenever there is a ceasefire, or a unilateral break, in the campaign in Lebanon or Palestine as those states which are aligned to the terrorist groups such as Syria and Iran seek to resupply their allies. [1]  Second in some cases negotiation can involve the state handing over resources to the terrorist group. This is most often the case with hostage negotiations where the terrorists demand the release of other terrorists who have been captured so boosting the groups manpower or else demand a ransom in return for the release of hostages. Somalia has over the last decade regularly seen payouts of ransoms to groups of pirates who have links to islamists [2] and are accused of having links to terrorists. While pirates are the highest profile ransoms the same occurs with terrorist groups, it is estimated that $70million has been paid to secure the release of western captives since 2010. [3] Releasing terrorists can also sometimes be used as a confidence building measure leading up to negotiations, which can mean helping the terrorist groups even before there are negotiations. This has most recently occurred with Israel releasing 26 Palestinian prisoners, including Yusef Irshaid who murdered an Israeli, three suspected ‘collaborators’ and planned car bombings, in order to restart peace talks. [4]  [1] Spiegel, Peter, and King, Laura, ‘Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah’, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2006,   [2] Spiegel Staff, ‘Terror on the High Seas: Somali Pirates Form Unholy Alliance with Islamists’, Spiegel Online, 20 April 2009,   [3] Press Association ‘David Cameron To Tell G8 ‘Stop Paying Ransoms To Terrorists’’, Huffington Post, 18 June 2013,   [4] Harris, Ben, ‘Who Israel released’, Jewish Telegraphic Association, 14 August 2013,

The real IRA also shows how negotiation is successful. The new group did not have the tacit support from abroad in the form of the Republic of Ireland or the USA or resources of its predecessor. The violent campaign destroyed any public support and the group disbanded, its leaders were eventually found liable for the bombing. [1] The political process through the Stormont Parliament is now the accepted way to peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.  [1] McDonald, Henry, ‘Four Real IRA leaders found liable for Omagh bombing’, theguardian.com, 8 June 2009,

Negotiations cannot take place while innocents are being threatened  Governments cannot negotiate while innocent civilians are being threatened by illegitimate violence. The state is the only wielder of legitimate violence in the form of the police and military that are needed to keep order and defend the state's citizens. To negotiate with terrorists is to provide them with legitimacy making violence an accepted way of achieving political aims. Before legitimacy is granted upon the terrorist group they must first give up their weapons and renounce violence. By taking such a position the state ensures that no lives will be taken during the political process.

Simply because a terrorist group has broken ceasefires numerous times does not mean that the next attempt will get nowhere – in ETA’s case the current ceasefire is holding. [1] We should also remember that not every time the terrorist group breaks a ceasefire it has been result of actions by the terrorist group – the state can also be the one that is walking away from talks. Ultimately there needs to be trust on both sides, to the terrorists the state seems as untrustworthy as the terrorists do to the state.  [1] ‘Spain and ETA Always around’, The Economist, 17 August 2013,

There is no question that violence can sometimes achieve its aims but each individual campaign is different and is responded to in different ways thus for example a terrorist group that achieves minimal aims through violence cannot be used as a model by a group whose aims present an existential threat to the state. Thus for example the IRA achieved devolution after years of bombings but this does not them mean that the Real IRA was ever going to be successful in obtain a complete break with the UK.

There will always be some wasted spending but earmarks often appropriate money for projects that are considered very worthwhile by the local community. [1] After all, representatives know that useless vanity projects will not attract positive headlines back home, so they have every incentive to ensure that the money goes into stimulating local economies, investing in neglected communities, and making a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. [2] For example Senator McCain singled out $6.6million for research on Formosan termites as unjustified but for local people they represent a threat to buildings as they consume wood. [3] Furthermore, who is more likely to appreciate the needs on the ground, a faceless, unaccountable Washington-based bureaucrat, or an elected local representative closely in touch with the needs of their constituents? As Rahm Emanuel argues “I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue.” [4] Finally, if there are some worthless examples of earmarks, then by all means eliminate those through scrutiny and votes in Congress on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to abandon the whole system.  [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009  [2] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [3] Grace, Stephanie, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2009  [4] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007

Earmarks do not represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money  Earmarks usually represent expensive programs of little worth to the American people. As the main means of pork barrel politics, earmarks are typically vanity projects with little economic benefit. Examples include the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” (a $400 million project to connect an island community of just 50 people to the mainland), [1] $1 million for shuttle buses at Western Kentucky University, [2] and a grant of $300 000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Hawaii. [3] Worse, a recent Harvard Business School study found that states which received the most federal spending via earmarks from well-connected Congressmen actually suffered economically as a result, because the federal money crowded out private investment and distorted the local jobs market. [4]  [1] Volpe, Paul, ‘Politifact: ‘Bridge’ Going Nowhere Before Palin Killed It’, 2008  [2] WKU News, ‘Funding secured for 2 more projects’, 2009  [3] Mendoza, Jim, ‘McCain criticizes Voyaging Society earmark’, 2010  [4] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011

What erodes trust in Congress is the endless squabbling between parties who put their own partisan advantage over the national interest, not the lobbying of individual representatives and senators on behalf of their constituents. Politicians erode trust by loudly arguing that government is the problem. [1] Earmarks are in fact important in linking Congress to citizens, as they produce concrete benefits at a local level that can be associated with the activities of elected officials. This increases trust and helps to legitimise the wider activities of the federal government, including its taxes. This helps to explain why opinion polls find that most people trust their own Congressman to do the right thing, even as confidence in Congress as a whole sinks to record lows. [2]  [1] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009  [2] Reich, Robert, ‘House of Ill-Repute: It’s Time to Ban Earmarks”, 2006

Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice  Earmarks are fundamentally unfair, benefiting some states and congressional districts much more than others regardless of the merits of their case for federal spending. Where spending priorities are decided by the executive they can set objective criteria and organise competitive bidding processes for specific projects. Earmarks avoid this merit-based approach and instead channel money to specific projects according to how well-connected their Congressional representatives are. [1] Congressmen on the key spending committees, especially the Appropriations Committees, are best placed to channel pork back to their districts. It has been found that earmark spending rises between 40-50% in a state if one of its Senators becomes Chair of a top-three committee. [2]  [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [2] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011

Abolishing earmarks will save money  Scrapping earmarks will save billions of dollars and contribute to reducing the appalling US budget deficit. Earmarks totalled about $16 billion of the 2009-10 budget, [1] unnecessary spending which should be cut in the interests of both present and future US taxpayers. Earmarks can be a large amount of a department’s budget, in 2005 the Office of Naval Research derived a quarter of its budget through earmarks. [2] Granted, removing earmarks alone will not be sufficient to eliminate the budget deficit and get rid of wasteful government spending, but earmarks are the obvious place to start. Until these most egregious examples of waste are tackled, it will not be possible to move on to cut bigger spending programs.  [1] Kane, Paul, ‘Congressional earmarks worth nearly $16 billion’, 2010  [2] Charging RINO, ‘The Problem with Earmarks’, 2006

Scrapping earmarks won’t save money, it’s just a distraction from the real challenge the government faces. As Earmarks are just a way of describing a government funded program [1] they do not represent additional government spending, they simply appropriate small amounts of it (less than 0.5% of the whole US budget, and only 1.5% of discretionary spending) for specific projects. [2] If the earmarks were not there, the money would still be spent; its use would simply be decided by the executive branch rather than directed to a particular end by Congress. For this reason, ending the use of earmarks will do nothing to cut the deficit. If you were serious about doing that you would have to think about cutting entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, raising the pension age further, reducing military expenditure, and increasing taxes. [3]  [1] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009  [2] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009  [3] Hoyer, Steny H., ‘’Pork’ doesn’t fatten budget’, 2009

All spending benefits some states over others, all that depends is the actors who are deciding on where the money goes. If spending is equal per person then it can be accused of not being progressive or benefiting states that need it more. If it is made by some other method then it will always favor some over others. It is right that those who are determining where money is going should be elected representatives rather than a bureaucrat or a simple formula.

Some observers would argue that Congress suffers from a lack of party unity, rather than too much of it, and that anything that helps the leaderships to deliver on their party’s campaign promises is of value. So the promise of earmarks is part of the normal give-and-take of legislative politics, often allowing a representative to ameliorate the adverse impact of a policy at a local level and allow necessary bills to be passed. [1] However, even if you think this is bad, eliminating earmarks will not get rid of undue influence on voting in Congress. Instead it will hand that power to the executive, with the White House being able to offer incentives to wavering Congressmen to get them to vote for its programs in the form of promises about increased spending on projects in their state or district.  [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006

Earmarks erode trust in the government  The use of earmarks erodes trust in politicians and the federal government for two reasons. First, it reinforces a belief that politicians ignore the wider national interest but are simply out for themselves, scrabbling to channel as much federal pork as possible back home in order to aggrandise themselves and ensure re-election. Second, it assumes that the answer to every local problem or issue is for the federal government to raise yet more tax revenue and bestow it from on high because Washington-knows-best. It is a symbol that makes it hard to resist spending both for politicians and their constituents. [1]  [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’

Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership  The ability to support or withhold approval from earmarks strengthens the party leaderships in Congress too much. Effectively the leadership can bribe elected representatives with pork for their state or district in order to get them to vote for flawed legislation or budgets. This was clearly seen in the 2010 Healthcare bill where in the Senate votes were secured from conservative Democrats by offering federal spending or subsidies that only affected the states of Louisiana and Nebraska. [1] One consequence of the temptation provided by earmarks is poor policy-making, but more broadly it discourages Congressmen from thinking and voting independently, according to their consciences and their belief in what is best for the nation.  [1] Murray, Shailagh and Montgomery, Lori, ‘Deal on health bill is reached’, 2009

Earmarks may represent relatively small sums in themselves, but they act as a “gateway drug” to more profligate spending. By giving individual Congressmen the gratification of directing small amounts of taxpayers’ money to their own advantage, it makes it more likely they won’t say no later when major new spending proposals like Obamacare are put up for a vote. An addiction to earmarks also reinforces the Washington assumption that more government spending and intervention is always the answer.

The power of the purse was given to congress in order to keep taxation down, and therefore spending as well. Unnecessary spending on earmarks is therefore opposed to the founding fathers intentions. [1]  [1] ThisNation.com, ‘Congressional Power’

Earmarking should become a transparent and publicly monitored process  The use of earmarks has become progressively more transparent and accountable in recent years. [1] [2] There is now a Congressional database of earmark requests, a requirement on representatives and senators for disclosure on their websites, as well as a certification obligation that they declare that neither they nor their family will benefit from the requested appropriation. Earmarks are thus a “nonbureaucratic, transparent system of rapid-response grants for pressing local concerns”, something which is genuinely useful. [3] There however could be further reforms such as having committees authorize all spending and banning last minute vote buying. [4]  The attention given to earmarks by the media and campaigning groups means that requests now receive far more scrutiny than they did in the past so we can be sure that campaigners and the press will make sure what they do is benefiting their constituency. [5]  [1] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007  [2] Marlowe, Howard, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2008  [3] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [4] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009  [5] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009

Imposing a ban on earmarking will destabilise congrerss  There is very little chance of Congress ever being willing to give up on having earmarks for their constituency’s. If the ban is voluntary many will not comply and if the ban is mandatory it will need congress to agree to it in the first place. Even those who voice opposition to earmarks make use of the system so it would never pass. [1]  [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009

Earmarks help to create congressional stability  In a system with a two-yearly election cycle, a certain element of incumbent advantage provides stability and continuity in the legislature (and re-election rates have been sharply down in both 2008 and 2010). Many other factors promote incumbency, including the media attention a Congressmen rightly receives back home, perks of office such as large staffs and generous travel expenses, redistricting, and the ability of an incumbent to call upon an existing network of volunteers and donors to support their re-election bid. In any case, earmarks are only a tiny share of overall spending, and donations from local interest groups are usually heavily outweighed by both individual contributions and those from national organisations. Their money goes to candidates who share their ideological position and who they feel will vote to support the major legislative and budget initiatives they favour.

Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch  The ability of Congress to earmark funds is an important check on the Presidency. Remember, removing earmarks does not save any money, it just means the executive rather than the legislature determines how it will be spent. [1] There are plenty of examples of US administrations spending money wastefully, [2] and others of Congress forcing them to commit money to worthwhile programs – both the improved body armour for troops and the Predator drone program originated as earmarks. As it is difficult to determine what is waste and what is not the books should be opened to scrutiny letting the public decide rather than there being an outright ban. [3]  [1] Rockwell, Lew, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2008  [2] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009  [3] Los Angeles Times, ‘Earmark games in Washington’, 2009

A ban is perfectly possible and Congress has come close already, for example with the house banning earmarks to for profit companies. [1]  [1] Kane, Paul, ‘House bans earmarks to for-profit companies’, 2010

Earmarks are part of the power of the purse  Earmarks are an important aspect of Congress’s proper powers and role within the constitution, they have been used since the early 19th Century. [1] The US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse – exclusive authority over the raising of money and its appropriation to particular spending areas. Directing federal funds to individual projects at a local level is an important part of this; [2] indeed many Congressmen such as Rahm Emanuel consider it their duty for which they can be held accountable by voters. [3] It is part of having several layers of accountability and representation at the federal level, congressmen for local interests, Senators for states and the President for the whole country. [4] The unconstitutional alternative is for Congress to cede this power entirely to the executive branch.  [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006  [2] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009  [3] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007  [4] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009

Earmarks serve to strengthen the advantages of incumbency when Congressmen seek re-election. They are used to generate pork barrel spending in the constituency, for example a former senator of Nevada claims the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired, [1] which the Congressman can point to as an argument for their re-election, especially if they have seniority and a place on a major spending committee. [2] They may also make it easier for incumbents to raise large campaign contributions from grateful companies and industry associations, in 2007 people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million. [3] These reasons help to explain why incumbent re-election rates in Congress are regularly above 90%, a worrying trend as it suggests there is limited democratic accountability.  [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [2] Henke, John, ‘Why Earmarks are a Problem’, 2008  [3] Heath, David and Bernton, Hal, ‘$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted’, 2007

Transparency is difficult in such immense spending bills as there is no way the appropriations committee can vet all the thousands of earmarks. [1] [2] Earmarks move below the radar so earmarks encourage corruption. [3] Although collusion cannot easily be proved, the ability of a Congressman to solicit campaign contributions in exchange for using earmarks to provide federal investment, subsidies, tariff protection and tax breaks for individual firms and industries is worrying. [4]  [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [2] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [3] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [4] Lessig, Lawrence, ‘the wong in earmarks’, 2008

Cooperation and compromise often does not happen and acknowledging a wide range of public opinion is the main reason why they cant compromise. Firstly, they frequently won’t agree, which will lead to tortuously slow progress or even to having no government for the country. This happened after the general election in Belgium in 2010, when the record was broken for the time taken to form a new democratic government after an election (The Telegraph, ‘Belgium wins Guinness World Record for political impasse’). This occurred because none of the parties are willing to compromise over election promises and yet do not want to have to fight another election. However if a government is to be formed the parties involved will have to make compromises and resulting in tearing up some of their promises, betraying those who voted for them. The alternative is the expense of going to the country again, with no guarantee of a different result.(DW-world.de, 2011)

Coalition government is a good thing.  Adversarial democratic systems such as the United States, Britain and Australia have been becoming increasingly dysfunctional with politics simply being a shouting match. Coalition governments lead to cooperation and compromise between parties.(Woldring, 2011) Governments which are forced to acknowledge a wide range of public opinion are less likely to introduce policies which victimise minorities or ride roughshod over public opinion for ideological reasons; for example, the poll tax in the UK, 1988-92. Empirically, countries with PR systems, such as Germany, show that great prosperity can result from the policies of such governments.

There is no reason to assume that there will be an increase in political engagement. Votes will simply not count in different ways. If there are more coalitions, people could feel their vote doesn’t count even more strongly, as they will see that the parties they vote for change their policies once in government. What is the point in voting for a platform if the party that is pledging to fulfil these promises is simply going to drop them as soon as the election is over and the negotiations begin?

PR produces fairer results  First past the post (FPTP) often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament. Minority parties, such as the Green party and UKIP (in the UK), which can win 5-10% or so of the vote all over the country, can fail to win a single seat. In the UK 2010 general election, UKIP received 919,546 votes across the country, but not a single seat (BBC News, UK 2010 general election results). Parties with a uniform vote across the country are punished unfairly. Thus in Singapore’s general election of 2011 the National Solidarity Party contested 24 seats and won 39.25% of the valid votes across the wards it contested yet still failed to win any seats.(Wikipedia, Singaporean general election, 2011) Theoretically parties could win huge numbers of votes, potentially up to 49% in every constituency, without ever getting any representation in parliament. As such FPTP favours parties that appeal to local issues or to particular segments of the population these parties that are losing out are likely to be those parties that either appeal to a broad segment of the population or whose support is based upon an issue that affects everyone. Furthermore, in the UK 2010 general election, two thirds of MPs were elected without receiving a majority of the votes in their constituency (Lodge, 2011). This suggests that most people are being represented by people they didn’t vote for.

As there are many different forms of proportional representation some of them will be fairer than others. Implementing AV for example may help sort out the problem of MPs not receiving a majority in their constituency as they will now need to receive 50% of the vote in order to be elected. Yet it will do nothing for the other two problems identified. Minority parties are still unlikely to get any seats and parties with their vote uniformly spread across the country will still be punished. AV in both cases still favours geographically centered parties and still favors the top two parties over any smaller one as the small parties will drop out as the ballots are counted.

If seats are safe, that is because people are continuing to vote for a party that they are satisfied with. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for politicians to lose safe seats if the electorate is no longer happy with them; for example, in 2008, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won Glasgow East, one of Labour’s safest seats (BBC News, ‘SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East’).  In almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party. This means if those who don’t vote all got out and voted the election could go any way, they could elect in a fringe party if voting together. So look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the country, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote,(Electoral Calculus, 2010) with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009.(Wells, 2010) However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat.(Vote 2011, 2011)

PR increases political engagement which benefits society.  PR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005, p5-6)

Safe seats will be reduced.  All political parties have seats that they consider safe and unlikely to lose. If a person in an inner city constituency that has a strong Labour history, wishes to vote for someone other than Labour, then their vote is effectively null and void. Labour will win a majority however they vote. The fact that the seat is so safe means that there is effectively very little effect people can have, resulting in thousands of people's vote being wasted and having no effect when it comes to forming a government. In the 2010 UK general election the result was decided by less than 460,000 voters in only 111 constituencies. This gives an unfair amount of political influence to a tiny minority of the electorate while making the majority’s votes close to worthless.(Miliband, 2011)

On the contrary having several manifestos used by a coalition actually means that there are many more people who get some of the policies they voted for passed. Under FPTP only a minority has ever voted for the manifesto that wins and gets implemented. If there is a coalition created by PR then more than 50% of the electorate will be getting a large amount of the policies they voted for implemented.  The whole issue of manifesto promises also makes the assumption that parties always stick to them when they get into power. This is not the case even under single party government. Election promises are often not implemented as politicians are simply using them to win an election, they may realise that the policy will not form the basis of a sensible government policy, or be too politically difficult to implement. Creation of a democratically elected House of Lords was in every New Labour manifesto, yet after three terms in power was at best half complete.(Summers, Labour’s attempts to reform the House of Lords)

A lot of successful countries use PR, so clearly it doesn’t lead to instability. In particular coalitions don’t always mean weak government. For example, Germany uses PR and has coalitions, yet is one of the strongest economies in the world and a significant power within Europe. Furthermore, Canada, India and the UK use FPTP and all have had coalitions. The UK coalition has so far proven to be both strong and radical. Michael Portillo, a former Conservative Minister of Defence has argued "They have been more radical on deficit reduction than say Margaret Thatcher was, but on top of doing that very difficult fiscal adjustment, they are also reformed schools, health, welfare, and pensions - areas where Margaret Thatcher didn't care to tackle."(Today, 2011)  The assumption that Proportional Representation leads to coalition also needs to be examined. Australia has for decades had strong single party government under the Alternative Vote.

PR creates an unfair balance of power.  Coalition government is actually unfair, as small parties with only a few percent of support nationally can hold the balance of power. This can result in them being able to force through unpopular or sectarian policies with no national mandate as a price for their support in parliament; for example, the Dutch coalition lost its majority in 2011, meaning it may have to rely on the support of the SGP, a very small conservative Christian party that does not even allow women to be members (Financial Times, ‘Dutch Coalition loses Senate majority).  Particularly when there is only one potential small party that could be a coalition partner for the biggest party(s) that small party potentially holds a lot more power than their number of seats in parliament would imply. When either of the main parties could form a government the small party can negotiate with both to get the best deal possible. And once in government they can threaten to walk out if they do not get their way on the issues that matter to them.

Extremist parties will rise under PR.  A democracy means that everybody’s view should be valued equally. However much some people might dislike one party, other people still have the right to vote for them. If extremist parties do gain seats, then it shows the government needs to do more to address concerns. Moreover there are plenty of ways to avoid this problem in a proportional system, for example the German model of setting a lower bar that needs to be crossed before a party can have any representation in parliament. This would show that it is a party that can attract sufficient support to be worthy of representing those views in parliament.

The link between constituencies and Members of Parliament is important.  Most PR systems would result in a break between the constituency and parliament. It is important that there is a single MP that represents a particular area. Having constituencies means that every citizen feels that they have a personal representative in parliament. Much of the work of an MP is constituency business, resolving problems encountered by constituents and raising the particular concerns of their geographical area with the government. The importance of this link can be shown in the difference in feeling towards individual’s own representative and the parliament as a whole. In 2010 there was a dissatisfaction in parliament as a whole of 38% whereas only 16% were dissatisfied with the job of their own MP.(Hansard Society, Audit of Political Engagement 7, p.29, p.88)

PR decreases political engagement.  PR results in less engagement in politics as voters do not get what they voted for – instead post-election deals between the parties create coalitions which do not feel bound by manifesto promises. In order to create coalitions there is a need for parties to be flexible on their manifestos especially where they contradict each other. As elections seldom result in all the parties in a governing coalition leaving power, in practice accountability is blurred and voters feel alienated from the political process. In addition, many PR systems are very complex and off-putting for voters.

PR leads to weaker government.  Typically under PR, no one party gains a majority of the popular vote, so coalition governments have to be formed often between four or more parties. This tends to produce unstable governments, changing as parties leave or join the governing coalition, and frequent elections. Governments are unable to put a clear, positive legislative agenda in place over several years or act decisively in time of crisis. Compare this to the strong governing majorities produced by FPTP, such as the Conservatives in the 1980s in the UK, which allowed them to push through unpopular but necessary policies, such as tackling trade unions and reducing inflation.

A proportional electoral system is more likely to return seats for smaller parties. Amongst these smaller parties, it is likely that we will find parties on either extreme of the left-right spectrum. The British National Party campaigned for PR for this reason (Channel 4 Fact Check, ‘Would AV help or hinder the BNP?’). Potentially even more extreme parties, such as the English Defence League, could get members of parliament under some proportional systems. It is not beneficial to the country to have extremist groups like this in parliament.

Junior partners are by definition junior. It is the biggist party in the coalition that gets the top job; President or Prime Minister while the minor party has to make do with much more junior roles – the Foreign Ministry has been popular in Germany. In the UK Conservative-Liberal democrat coalition the senior partner the conservatives hold all the big offices: Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Office and Home Office. Even if they have to compromise on some issues it is the senior partner that is setting the government agenda.

In a corrupt system the military is likely to be corrupt too. It will have its own sectional interest; getting as much funds for itself, or hyping possible threats. The military interest can often lead to far worse things than corruption – such as wars. 1 In countries where the military is powerful it is likely to have large private interests too; in Egypt the military's holdings in the economy is estimated at anywhere from 5 to 60% of GDP though the military itself says its revenue from its private businesses is only 1% this is still a large interest. 2  1 Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991  2 Hauslohner, Abigail, 'Egypt's 'Military Inc' expands its control of the economy', Guardian Weekly, 18 March 2014,

A technocratic government is needed to prevent corruption  Democracy does not mean that a country is not corrupt, or that the political leadership is not corrupt. There are many countries where democratic elections stand side by side with a large amount of corruption; Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq countries that have recently had elections following western intervention are ranked 175, 172, and 171 out of 177 on the corruption perceptions index. Even countries with long established democracies can be perceived as being corrupt, India is 94th. 1 If the political class is incapable of reforming itself it may be necessary for another actor to do it for them.  There have been several coups in which the military has taken power in order to reform the political system before handing over to a civilian government at elections; Turkey in 1960, Portugal in 1974, and the relatively recent coup in Bangladesh in 2007. 2  1 Transparency International, 'Corruptions Perceptions Index 2013',   2 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013,  , p.5

A military government may well be as riven by factionalism and division as the system which it replaces. The main interests of the military is often simply to maintain or increase the position of the military, this makes it likely there will be disagreement on other issues including over how quickly to return to democratic government. The military will often opt to return to barracks rather than have such splits become too deep “Military regimes thus contain the seeds of their own destruction” as there is almost bound to be a split into factions at some point when governing a country. 1  1 Geddes, Barbara, 'What do we know about democratization after twenty years?', Annual Review of Political Science, Vol.2, 1999, pp.115-144,  , p.131

Necessary to restore peace to the country  The clearest, and most common, reason for the military stepping in is to restore peace to the country. When the stakes are so high, power through control of government, the ability to distribute resources, it is something well worth fighting for. The result can be that democracies become unstable and violent with election campaigns particular flashpoints. The runup to the Thai elections in 2014 shortly before the coup left 10 dead and 600 injured 1 with no sign of stability returning after the flawed elections General Prayuth Chan-ocha the head of the army said the coup was necessary “in order for the country to return to normality quickly, and for society to love and be at peace again.” 2 When there violence creating violence it is the military's role to step in the prevent such instability.  1 Wilkinson, Laura, 'Thailand elections: Violent clashes in Bangkok over disputed poll', The Independent, 2 February 2014,   2 Hodal, Kate, 'Coup needed for Thailand 'to love and be at peace again' – army chief', The Guardian, 23 May 2014,

In a country that is so polarised that there is violence at elections the chances are the military is not neutral. In Thailand the royalists had been calling for military intervention because they know it is unlikely they will win an election. A coup cannot therefore be considered to be likely to end violence; Egypt is a case in point as there have been more than 3,200 deaths in the 7 months after the coup against President Morsi. 1  1 'More than 3,200 Egyptians killed since coup', Middle East Monitor, 9 April 2014,

The argument that the military is restoring democracy from a democracy makes no sense. Only once a democracy has been turned into an autocracy can it be said to be restoring democracy. So long as the system is still democratic then there should be constitutional ways to replace an increasingly authoritarian government; elections, vote of no confidence, or the judiciary.

A neutral party  Democracies can turn into an intractable conflict between two political parties with neither side ruling in their national interest but simply using power in an attempt to defeat the other side. Bangladesh is a good example of this as there are two main parties; the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Neither are willing to talk to the other, the competition has at times been violent and attempts to create neutral caretaker governments are scotched by one side or the other as occurred at the start of 2014. 1 The 2007 coup resulted in the arrests of the leaders of both parties along with a major anti corruption drive. 2 Unfortunately this did not prevent Bangladesh quickly falling into the same two party system with the same parties and leaders once civilian rule was restored.  1 Budhwar, Kailash 'Bangladesh elections: The 'battling begums'', Al Jazeera, 4 January 2014,   2 Voice of America, 'Former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Arrested', voanews.com, 27 October 2009,

Restoring democracy  A coup that is against an elected government that is however becoming increasingly anti democratic is justified. When an elected government is increasingly concentrating power in its own hands, and particularly if elections are postponed then it is necessary for the military to step in to ensure democracy continues to function. From 1991-2006 31 of 43 coups resulted in an election within five years so far from damaging democracy were often restoring it. 1  1 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013,  , p.2

Whether or not the head of the army is the right man to run the country is immaterial as he will be passing on to another administration quickly. This will either be a temporary civilian administration in which top technocrats are brought in or it will be as a result of new elections. If a military man is still in power after an election, as with Sisi in Egypt, then they have come through the same test as a politician would have done.

Elections do not always return a government that has true popular support; the system may be gerrymandered so it is much easier for one party to win seats. Additionally in many democracies there is a large number of people who don't vote so even a party that is elected may not have a true mandate. If the abstaining majority want a different government should the military not respect their democratic wish?

A coup makes it more difficult to trust in democracy  Military intervention damages trust in democracy even if the intent of the coup is to return to democratic rule as quickly as possible. There are two ways in which democracy is damaged. The first is that it undermines the point of majority rule if the military may just step in and take over if they don't like the result. Secondly if a democratic government is making a mess of ruling and the military steps in to clean things up then this may create an impression that they will do so again, so absolving politicians to clean up their own act.  This may well be what happens in Thailand. Since the end of military rule in 1973 Thailand has now had seven coups; 1976, 77, 81, 86, 91, 2007 and 2014. 1 In the 2007 and 2014 coups the government being overthrown was very popular; in 2005 Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai party won 60.7% of the vote while in 2011 his sister won 48.41% if the military simply steps in after a few years of rule by a clearly elected majority then what is the point in voting? Already the middle class supporters of a coup argue that elections do not mean democracy to justify military intervention thus undermining the concept of democracy. 2  1 Winichakul, Thongchai, 'Toppling Democracy', Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol.38, No.1, February 2008, pp.11-37,  , p.15  2 Ibid, p.27

The army is not the best institution to run a country  If the country is in trouble is the army the best placed to take over and manage the country better than it has been in the past? This may plausibly be true if the reason democracy is failing is a large scale insurgency or near civil war but in almost every other case it is not the best institution. The army is trained to fight not to govern. The generals who take over top positions are used to running a bureaucracy that has to respond to politicians, not one that has to respond to the people.  Politicians may be corrupt, venal, or unpopular but at the least they are open about what they stand for. They have a manifesto and a clear ideology which if the people don't agree with they wont be voted for. This is not the case with generals; the chances are they have a bureaucratic desire to maintain the power and funding for the military but otherwise there is likely to be little known about their politics.  Finally for those who are being overthrown the electorate has had a chance to investigate their policies, their past, to question their views and catch the candidate out when they are not consistent. The candidate came through an electoral test and media grilling. When there is a coup there is no such chance to determine if the coup leader is the right man for the job.

The response must be democratic  It is never appropriate to overthrow a democratically elected government which the people have chosen. The government is legitimised by being the choice of the people, a coup is by definition not legitimate in such a way. The response to a government that has lost the trust of the electorate, unable to prevent violence, or is corrupt, is to hold an election. In the worst case and an elected government is using its power as a government to manipulate any election then the responsibility is with the judiciary to convict a government which is responsible for such a

Military intervention is most likely to happen only when trust in democracy has already been damaged. In Thailand democracy was already distrusted due to corruption and vote buying, the military acted because of that distrust. When intervention is to clean up corruption and create greater separation of powers the coup may actually improve trust in democracy.

I am only one of thousands of voters who elect my MP so my vote is not going to help hold ‘my’ representative to account. In the UK the average number of voters in each constituency is 68,175 [1] and some have majorities of tens of thousands. In the US House of Representatives the figure is more than ten times this number at 710,767 [2] with so many other voters how will my attempt to hold them to account actually matter?  [1] ‘Parliamentary constituencies’, parliament.uk  [2] Burnett, Kristin D., ‘Congressional Apportionment’, 2010 Census Briefs, November 2011

Hold politicians to account  For the most part in countries with FPTP we don’t like our politicians. In the United States Congress has a job approval rate of 21% and it is often lower [1] while in the UK in 2009 only 1% were ‘very satisfied’ with MPs (total of 29% satisfied 44% dissatisfied). [2] Well elections are your chance to hold them to account by voting for someone else. Elected politicians are there to represent you but if you don’t vote your voice wont be heard and you wont be able to hold your representative to account for what they have done during their time in office. There are increasingly websites which will show you how your MP voted making it simple to find out if they are representing you as you would wish and so making it possible to decide how you will vote on the basis of your representative’s record rather than just their stated intentions at the time of the election.  [1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘U.S. Congress’ Approval Rating at 21% Ahead of Elections’, Gallup Politics, 24 October 2012  [2] ‘Satisfaction with Members of Parliament 1991-2009’, Ipsos MORI, 4 March 2010 , (NB satisfaction with own MP is always higher)

The idea that someone who has voted might be more entitled to complain about things is absurd. Yes they have shown how they want the government to run but the idea that their voice is heard on all these particular issues is patently silly.

Have your say  Democracy allows you to have your say and it is important you take advantage of that. It is unusual that your particular vote will make an immense difference but just occasionally it might make all the difference. Barak Obama’s 2012 campaign is running an ad called 537 the ad says this is "the difference between what was and what could have been.” As it is the number of votes that won the Presidency for George W. Bush over Al Gore in Florida in 2000. “So this year if you're thinking that your vote doesn't count, that it won't matter, well, back then there were probably 537 people who felt the same way. Make your voice heard." [1] There will always be places where there are victories by such a small margin. Most of the time it will be known where these marginal contests are but if enough people who have not voted in the past vote previous votes or the pollsters may count for nothing. You never know it might be you who makes the difference, so go vote!  [1] Rama, Padmananda, ‘Obama Campaign Invokes ‘537’ To Get Out The Vote’, NPR, 24 October 2012

Civic duty  Voting is a civic duty, just as paying taxes and jury service. As a citizen of your nation it is your duty to take thirty minutes out of your day every few years to go and vote in an election. This duty is not a very onerous one but it is an important one because the foundation of our government is that it is democratic, and how can it be democratic if the people won’t vote? If the government is to represent the people the people must vote for it. Some civic duties such as taxes are compulsory and while it is not the case that voting is compulsory in the UK and USA it is elsewhere for example Australia and Belgium. [1] That it is not compulsory is consistent with our freedoms so there is the possibility of making the active choice not to vote. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to use it.  [1] ‘ Compulsory Voting’, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, updated 21 March 2012 also see our debate on compulsory voting

Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes.  [1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012

The chances of you being the one who matters in a marginal contest are infinitesimally small. First most elections are not won on narrow margins and second you are unlikely to be in the right place at the right time. The FPTP system means that very few votes actually matter like this unlike in a proportional system where almost every vote would have a very similar worth.

The question here then essentially lies in do we appreciate our democracy? Does voting every 5 years actually count as a democracy? Does the fact that we have a first past the post system represent our views as a democracy should? The history of voting and the ability of other around the world to vote really has very little bearing on whether we should vote. Voting for the one party, or an other, or none at all is not going to result in me not being able to vote in the future. If losing the vote becomes a real possibility in the future then we can be sure that many currently apathetic voters will turn out because such a vote really would matter.

No right to complain  We all complain, whether it is about the lack of places for schools, higher university fees, trains not running on time, or about how we are being ripped off by the shops. In almost every case the things we may complain about can be influenced by the government either directly as with education policy or indirectly through taxation or regulation. Voting is your one chance to show what agenda you want to government to take; do you want more regulation or less, do you want tuition fees paid by the government or individuals? Of course not everything will be contested in every election but some will be. But next time you complain about something if it actually matters find a party that wants to do something about it and vote for them.

We don’t just vote for ourselves  You are very lucky that you have the chance to vote to choose and influence your government. Most people throughout history have not had this chance; in the UK women only received the vote in 1918 and most men only received the right in the nineteenth century. [1] In the United States the timings were similar with freed slaves not voting until 1970 (even in 1940 only 3% of African Americans in the south were registered) and women not until 1919. [2] We should remember the sacrifices of all those who have fought for the right to vote. Moreover huge numbers of people live in countries where these rights have not yet been won – just think of the 1.3 billion people in China who have no input into the change in the leadership, the Politburo Standing Committee, every ten years. [3] As voting has not been an automatic right throughout history you need to vote not just for yourself but for your children and their children in order to ensure that they have the benefit of growing up in a democracy such as the one you live in.  [1] ‘Chartists Key dates’, parliament.uk  [2] ‘ Timeline: Voting Rights Act’, American Civil Liberties Union  [3] Li, Cheng, ‘The Battle for China’s Top Nine Leadership Posts’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.1, pp.131-145, Winter 2012

Yes politicians will sometimes break their promises or for some reason not be able to fulfil them. When the Liberal Democrats made their manifesto they did not expect to be in coalition with the Conservatives, with two incompatible manifestos some things were going to have to be dropped. Equally sometimes the party in power will find they can’t get through the changes they want. The point of voting when events might overtake a manifesto is that the party’s ideology will tell you how they are likely to react – a libertarian in 10 Downing Street would have let the banks go bust or a communist would have nationalised them. Many could have anticipated that a Labour government would engage in some kind of bail out to save savers and the system. By having voted for the Labour party voters were saying they wanted a slightly left of centre response to events.

This is nearly always not actually a reason not to vote as because in almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party this means if everyone who does not vote did as you will do and all get out and vote the vote could go any way, even a fringe party could be elected if the non-voters vote together. To illustrate lets take a look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the UK, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote, [1] with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009. [2] However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat. [3]  [1] Electoral Calculus, Majority Sorted Seats  [2] Wells, Anthony, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, UKPollingReport, 2010  [3] ‘Vote 2011 Scotland elections, Kirkcaldy’, BBC News, 11 May 2011

Politicians don’t engage with issues that are important to me  Political parties are not about issues, they are either about ideologies or are purely about trying to triangulate on enough issues so that they can get into power. With relatively few parties able to get representation in the Parliament how can I be sure that my views on issues will be represented. If I want isolationism then who should I vote for in the US election? Both candidates say they want similar policies which are not at all isolationist. [1] Often there is little choice; in the US there are only two real options, the democrats and the republicans, [2] while in the UK all three main parties occupy very similar ground in the centre. [3] The problem is similar if I am interested in multiple issues but no party has a similar portfolio of views.  [1] Helling, Alex, ‘The debate for the rest of the world’, idebate.org, 23 October 2012  [2] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012  [3] Parker, George, and Pickard, Jim, ‘Centre prize: why UK political parties look more and more the same’, Financial Times, 4 March 2008

Not voting is voicing an opinion that is as important as any vote  In both the UK and the US non voters are the biggest block in the country. Governments are routinely voted in with only 30% of the eligible voters – and once it is counted compared against the total population it becomes lower still. We should therefore not assume that these people are all not trying to tell us anything rather they are pointing out that they know how little their vote counts so see no point in casting it. In the United States only 32% of voters agree that only having two parties is good. The non-voters could well therefore be telling us that there needs to be a radical change in the system before it is worth their while voting – ‘you make our vote count and we will begin voting again’. [1]  [1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012

Politicians will simply ignore how we vote  Even if I do vote who is to say that politicians will actually listen to what I say. A lot of government policy is responding to events, no one who voted for Tony Blair in 2005 voted for bail outs of banks in 2008 by what was then a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who had not even faced the electorate. Moreover political parties do not seem to feel that they are tied to their own manifestos. In the United States Obama promised to close Guantanamo yet it is still open. [1] In the UK the Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto they would not raise tuition fees for UK Universities yet this is exactly what they did when they got into government. [2]  [1] Negrin, Matt, ‘Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises’, ABC News, 3 July 2012, also follow our Securing Liberty blog for updates on Guantanamo Bay and other civil liberties issues:  [2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Senior Lib Dems apologise over tuition fees pledge’, BBC News, 20 September 2012

My vote does not count  In safe seats, indeed right across the country there will be millions of votes that will not count when everything is added up because of our first past the post system. [1] Essentially the system means that all the votes that are cast for those who are not the winning candidate do not count at all. In a safe seat there is no way a single vote is going to help overturn some of the immense majorities the party in power has, they could put a monkey for election in these seats and it would still get in.  [1] In the UK take a look at the voter power index to see how worthwhile or otherwise your vote is

We can never be sure what these apathetic voters are saying because they have not said it – some might want a change in the electoral system, or might rouse themselves to vote if one of the options becomes extreme but this may not be the case. In the UK voters rejected the option of changing the electoral system to the alternative vote [1] which would have been more representative so making their voice matter more in future elections. [2]  [1] Hawkins, Ross, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote’, BBC News, 7 May 2011  [2] Jones, Charlotte R., ‘This House would adopt the alternative vote’, Debatabase, 2011

Parties go to the centre because that is where the votes are. You are perfectly at liberty to vote for more minor parties. If you want nationalisation vote communist, clean energy vote green etc. Your vote may not elect a representative but the person who becomes your representative is likely to see which single issue parties received votes in his constituency and act accordingly. Ultimately only one party can govern at a time so it will never be the case that everyone can get their way on the issues they are interested in, but if you don’t vote no one will pay any attention at all.

Sanctions cannot be very finely targeted and will always hit other groups as well as the cyber attackers. The chances of knowing specific individuals who were responsible are next to zero so those individuals cannot be targeted directly. This is the whole problem with cyber-attacks; they are very difficult to pin down. In the best case then sanctions are applied against the right target and happen to hit others as well; for example hackers are not the only new who want advanced computer equipment. At worst the sanctions will completely miss their target; it would be a major embarrassment for a country to impose sanctions for a cyber-attack only for it to later be discovered that the sanctions are against an innocent party through whom the attack had been routed.

Sanctions can be targeted  The big advantage of sanctions is that they can be as finely targeted as needed. If the sanctioning country only knows which country the cyber attack originated from then they can be broad brush sanctions, but if there is knowledge of which group initiated the attack then the sanctions can be more specific. For example in the case of unit 61398 Of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army that Mandiant showed has been attacking US companies [1] the United States could target sanctions at the People's Liberation Army by tightening weapons bans. Alternatively if the hackers are private then banning the import of certain computer equipment into that country would be appropriate. If individuals are known then the sanctions can be even more targeted, for example by freezing any bank accounts held outside their own country as the US did against North Korea when it sanctioned Banco Delta Asia through which North Korea laundered money from criminal activities. [2]  [1] Mandiant, ‘Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units’, mandiant.com, February 2013,   [2] Noland, Marcus, ‘Why Sanctions Can Hurt North Korea’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 August 2010,

How can there ever be deterrence when the attacker believes they will not be caught, or that if they are the sanctions swill harm others not themselves? When the problem with preventing cyber-attacks is the difficulty of tracing the source [1] then deterrence becomes more and more difficult to apply. This is not like the Cold War where both superpowers could be certain that if they launched an attack there would be a devastating response. In this instance there is no certainly; the attacker believes they a, won't be caught, b, there will be no response and c, that the response won't affect them, and finally even if they are affected unless they are caught most times they will believe they will get away with it next time round.  [1] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace Back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011,

Sanctions are a proportionate response  Cyber-attacks pose a distinct problem for international diplomacy in that they are difficult to prevent and difficult to respond to. Any kind of military response as the United States has threatened would be completely disproportionate against all but the very biggest of cyber-attacks (those that actually result in deaths), [1] diplomacy on the other hand is as good as no response, if the response is simply a tongue lashing then the benefits of cyber espionage will be far higher than the cost.  The only proportionate, and therefore just, response to a cyber-attack is sanctions. The sanctions can be used to impose a similar economic cost on the offending state as that caused by the cyber-attack. This would be just like the World Trade Organisation's dispute settlement rules. They allow for the imposition of trade sanctions to a similar value to the losses being experienced as a result of protectionist action, with the sanctions sometimes on differing sectors to those where there are unfair trade practices. [2] Alternatively sanctions could mean a proportionate Internet response; users from the offending nation could be prohibited from using Internet services, for example an attack by hackers on the US could result in people from that country being blocked from Google and other US internet services.  [1] Friedman, Benjamin H., Preble, Christopher A., ‘A Military Response to Cyberattacks Is Preposterous’, CATO Institute, 2 June 2011,   [2] World Trade Organisation, ‘Understanding the WTO: Settling Disputes’, 2013,

How do we determine what is proportionate? If some valuable intellectual property, such as part of the designs for the US's latest fighter jet the F35, which were hacked in 2009. [1] Then what can be the response to this? Can it simply be the cost of developing this design? If so then what about the strategic loss the state has suffered, how can that be calculated in? So long as it is excluded state sanctioned cyber-attacks will not be deterred.  [1] Gorman, Siobhan, Cole, August, and Dreazen, Yochi, ‘Computer Spies Breach Fighter-Jen Project’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 April 2009,

An asymmetric response to cyber-attacks in the form of sanctions may prevent escalation, but they could also simply encourage a cyber-attacker to do more knowing that sanctions cannot stop cyber-attacks. Sanctions in the past have rarely changed policy; Sanctions against Cuba did not result in overthrowing Castro, sanctions have not changed North Korea or Iran’s policy towards nuclear weapons, so there is little reason that sanctions would stop cyber-attacks. [1] Instead the country being sanctioned will find a way around and quite possibly escalate themselves much as North Korea has upped the stakes whenever new sanctions are imposed, most recently by cancelling a hotline to the South. [2]  [1] Friedman, Lara, ‘Getting over the sanctions delusion’, Foreign Policy The Middle East Channel, 14 March 2010,   [2] Branigan, Tania, ‘Expanded UN sanctions on North Korea prompt rage from Pyongyang’, guardian.co.uk, 8 March 2013,

There needs to be action to deter more cyber attacks  At the moment the response to cyber-attacks has essentially been nothing. It is however clear that some response is needed as without a reaction there is no deterrence; the attacks will keep coming until something is done. The number of cyber-attacks and the sensitivity of the information stolen have been increasing over recent years and as more and more work is done online and more and more systems are connected to the Internet so cyber-attacks become more attractive. There needs to be a deterrent and the best deterrent is to make sure that such attacks are costly.  As these attacks are usually cross border (and in this debate we are only concerned with cross border attacks) then the only way to create a cost is through sanctions. These sanctions can either hit the assailant directly or else hit his government so encouraging them to crack down on hacking emanating from their country. It should be remembered that China argues that it does not launch cyber-attacks [1] meaning that any such attacks from China must duly be private. If this is the case then sanctions are the best way of prompting internal law enforcement. Sanctions therefore encourage all nations where there are cyber criminals to make sure they take such cyber-crime seriously. If they do not get their own cyber criminals under control then they may be affected by sanctions.  [1] China Daily, ‘China denies launching cyberattacks on US’, China.org.cn, 20 February 2013,

Sanctions will prevent escalation in cyber conflict  Cyber conflict favours the offence; when the defender is successful they gain nothing and impose no harm on the attacker who is free to try again elsewhere. The attackers are free to attack until they get past the defences somewhere. [1] That the attacks don’t risk lives helps to encourage an offensive mindset as makes it seem like there is no downside to attempting to dominate your opponent. [2] This means the only cyber response is to attack the attacker so that the same advantages apply.  The result is that cyber-attacks have a very real danger of long term tension or escalation. If one side is losing a conflict where both sides are attempting to steal the other's intellectual property (or the other has little to steal) the response may be something like the stuxnet attack that involves physical damage, this then would probably be considered an illegal use of force creating a thin line between a cyber-war and a real war. [3] When the cyber war involves physical damage as the US has warned there then may be a military response. Sanctions are a way to apply pressure without this risk of escalation into a military conflict.  [1] Lin, Herbert, ‘Escalation Dynamics and Conflict Termination in Cyberspace’, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Fall 2012,  p.51  [2] Rothkopf, David, ‘The Cool War’, Foreign Policy, 20 February 2013,   [3] Zetter, Kim, ‘Legal Experts: Stuxnet Attack on Iran Was Illegal ‘Act of Force’, Wired, 25 March 2013,

Cooperation is not a helpful alternative as it really means status quo when we can see that the status quo is not going to reduce cyber-attacks or bring recompense. Rather this is precisely what sanctions are needed for; to encourage states that harbour cyber criminals and hackers to use their law enforcement capabilities to crack down on such attacks.

This will clearly depend on the country engaging sanctions; sanctions from the US or EU will be much more significant than sanctions from the Philippines. Most countries however are a part of larger trade blocks; sanctions from the Philippines may not be much of a threat but sanctions from ASEAN would be much more compelling. Using such regional organisations can help nations get around the problems of agreement associated with broader UN sanctions. There have already been calls for groups such as ASEAN to work together against cyber attacks [1] and these groupings could be expanded to include other nations that agree with the policy on an ad hoc basis in much the same way as Japan is looking to join with ASEAN on such defence. [2]  [1] Minnick, Wendell, ‘Malaysia Calls for ASEAN ‘Master Plan’ to Fight Cyber Attacks’, Defense News, 3 June 2012,   [2] Westlake, Adam, ‘Japan pushes to form cyber-defense network with other ASEAN countries’, Japan Daily Press, 8 October 2012,

Sanctions are indiscriminate  The problem with sanctions is that they are almost always indiscriminate; Iran’s sanctions today are an example where the international community’s concerns are entirely with the government, over nuclear weapons, not the people yet the result has been a doubling in the price of staple foodstuffs and rapidly rising unemployment. [1]  This will equally be the case here. While sanctioners will try to target the sanctions the fact is there is nothing to target with sanctions that would not affect everyday lives. Hackers are ordinary people so clearly sanctions will affect others like themselves. The most obvious reactions involve the internet but blocking access to internet services, or penalising ISP’s, or cutting off technology transfers, harm everyone else as much as hackers. Often this harm is in the form of simply making the internet less safe for people in that country because they will have to turn to pirated versions of software. IDC and Microsoft estimate the chances of being infected with malware when using pirated software at one in three [2] so it is no surprise that the Chinese government in October 2012 launched a campaign to have government and companies purchase legal software. [3]  [1] The Economist, ‘A red line and a reeling rial’, 6 October 2012,   [2] IDC, ‘White Paper: The Dangerous World of Counterfeit and Pirated Software’, Microsoft, March 2013,  p.3  [3] Xinhua, ‘Chinese gov’t says no to pirated software’, People’s Daily Online, 26 April 2013,

Sanctions won't harm the hackers  Sanctions are typically used as a response to the actions of another state, not the actions of a private actor. Much cyber espionage is not carried out by government entities such as the army or intelligence services. It is also not encouraged by government regulation. Rather it is carried out by private actors whether this is criminal organisations or businesses seeking to undermine their rivals and learn their secrets this is usually with a financial motive (75% of data breaches) [1] , or else by individuals motivated by nationalism and patriotism to attack those they see as their nation’s enemies. It is difficult to see how sanctions against the nation as a whole affect these groups and individuals. This is certainly the case in China where many such as the ‘China Eagle Union’ admit to hacking for nationalist reasons rather than being told by the government. [2]  A response such as sanctions are simply likely to breed more resentment that the other power is attempting to bully their nation. The hackers only possible response is then more hacking. For those sponsored by companies if their company is hit by sanctions it simply becomes all the more necessary to find methods of getting ahead to offset any harm by sanctions.  [1] Verizon RISK Team, ‘2013 Data Breach Investigations Report’, Verizon, 23 April 2013,  p.6  [2] Beech, Hannah, ‘China’s Red Hackers: The Tale of One Patriotic Cyberwarrior’, Time, 21 February 2013,

Sanctions won't work  The problem with sanctions is that they almost never work so all they do is provide punishment and damage relations without ever resolving the issue. Numerous studies have shown that sanctions don’t actually change the policy of the country that is being sanctioned. [1] Robert Pape suggests that sanctions are only effective in achieving policy change about 5% of the time because states can take substantial economic punishment before they give up on anything that might be considered to be a national interest, and because states are good at shifting the burden of the sanctions onto opposition groups, [2] or else use the sanctions to rally domestic support against the outside actor. [3]  Instead there need to be renewed cooperation on cyber security. Fundamentally as with things like drug smuggling, and people trafficking this is an international problem that needs to be tackled by law enforcement authorities. To that end there needs to be more cooperation not more recriminations. [4]  [1] Lindsay, James M., ‘Trade Sanctions As Policy Instruments: A Re-Examination’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.30, Issue 2, June 1986, pp.153-170,  , p.1 provides a list of some of them  [2] Pape, Robert A., ‘Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work’, International Security, Vol. 22, Issue 2, Autumn 1997, pp.90-137,  p.106  [3] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991  [4] Dingli, Shen, ‘What Kerry Should Tell China’, Foreign Policy, 11 April 2013,

Sanctions require international agreement to be effective  When is it legitimate to use sanctions in response to an action? Any individual state (or group of states) can use sanctions against any other state. However for these sanctions to be effective they need to have broad based support. Sanctions by an individual country are unlikely to change the behaviour of an aggressor as they will be able to get around the sanctions. Moreover for any country that is a member of the WTO imposing sanctions may be considered illegal allowing the other country to counter them with similar measures.  The problem then is that there is no international response to hacking and it is unlikely there will be agreement on such a response. When countries like China deny that hacking comes from them are they likely to support the use of sanctions against such actions? Sanctions for much worse actions are often bogged down when they are attempted at the international level such as China and Russia vetoing sanctions against Syria in response to the violence there. [1]  [1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council fails to adopt draft resolution on Syria that would have threatened sanctions, due to negative votes of China, Russian Federation’, un.org, SC/10714, 19 July 2012,

Even taking it at face value that most of these hackers are independent actors not a part of a state policy there would still be solid reasoning behind sanctions. That most cyber-attacks have a financial motive implies that sanctions are the best response; as it is hitting them in an area that the attackers are clearly interested in. As for those who are attacking for ‘patriotic’ reasons if they are truly patriots they will stop when they see their efforts are really harming their country not helping it.

The aim of sanctions does not have to be to directly affect the individuals doing the hacking, though in some cases this may be possible. Rather the aim is to change the attitude towards regulation and enforcement by the central government and possibly by the people as a whole. If the people of a country believe they are suffering as a result of the hackers in their midst they will be much more likely to demand their government make cracking down on such activities a priority.

The current leadership of the party have strong conservative credentials and stand in stark contrast to the increasingly unpopular Obama who has been deserted by his own party and certainly the enthusiastic youthful idealists who elected him.  It’;s perhaps a sign of the lack of both political and intellectual leadership within the Democratic Party that the Iowa Caucus saw many of those same young enthusiasts who supported Obama switch dramatically to Ron Paul in pursuit of a consistent ideology.  The consistency of the Republican Party in making the argument for lower taxes and smaller government stands in stark contrast to the ever shifting sands of the Democrats.

Just as with other parties around the world, once the dominant argument of a political party proves to be a busted flush it takes about a decade to recover  Both the Labour and Conservative parties in the UK, the Conservatives in Canada, the Socialists in France and many others all over the world have gone through periods of regrouping following extended periods in office.  Political movements simply run out of fresh ideas after prolonged periods of government and the Republican Party is going through such a period. The Bush Mantra of a presumption in favour of financial deregulation and in favour of tax cuts to create a trickle-down effect have both been proven to be wrong – or at least were taken to too great an extreme. The country needs to rebalance just as the Republicans need to find new ideas and new standard bearers. Future leaders of the party like Marco Rubio and Tim Pawlenty may have interesting ideas by 2016 but the current leadership is a busted flush [i] .  [i] 2016 Election.com

The Tea Party represents not only a community that has been largely ignored in recent elections but one that is also the mainstay of both the Republican Party and of the American Heartland. Namely, white, working class Americans, whose views and interests have been swept away by a party and national establishment that thought their votes could be taken for granted.  While both parties sort out the votes and support of big companies, organised labour, and minority voting blocs the average American was taken for granted. The current approach of the Republican leadership has corrected that directly as a result of the Tea Partiers, returning the party to its traditional values and core voters.

The leadership of the Republican Party simply has nothing to do with its membership as a result no candidate has, or can, capture the imagination.  It’s difficult for a predominantly working class party to get all that excited about the choice between a range of millionaires. The Bush presidency made it all too clear that the interests of the rich are the primary interest of the party and that it fails to deliver on areas such as a commitment to smaller government.  As party activists becomes ever more obsessed with issues such as gay marriage or the flag-burning amendment, it simply fails to address the concerns of most Americans to whom it has little to say. Until it has a clearer and reasonable economic message, there is little it has to say and less worth listening to

Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them.  The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign.

The Republican Party has been hijacked by the Tea Partiers who simply don’t have a coherent message or ideology  The Tea Party movement has hijacked the Republican Party, bullying elected representatives to pursue a very narrow political agenda that has more to do with their moral outlook than the traditional role of politics. The Tea Party has little in the way of a political programme and nothing in the way of understanding the nuances of local politics or the realities of electoral politics.  While the party remains in thrall to this vociferous but unrepresentative minority, it has little to offer the wider party and les to offer the wider American public.  Although they are strident in terms of what they are against, they have little to offer by way of a substantive contribution to the national debate.

The Republicans are simply left with nothing to say and nowhere to go. As is traditionally the case for politicval parties following a long period of dominance they tend to degenerate into internecine squabbling while they thrash out a new platform for government; one thing that is clear is that they haven’t found it yet.  The approach they are taking both in terms of fighting their battles in public and demanding a certain orthodoxy of their candidates that is, frankly, unelectable suggests that they need at least another four years to work through their ideas.  The media are not bringing some liberal bias to this they are even masking many of the divisions. However, the reality is the party is divided and, more astonishingly, those division take place within an incredibly narrow ideological spectrum.

It is simply untrue to present the Republicans as the party of small government. The two presidents under whom the size of government grew the fastest - both in terms of personnel and expenditure – were Reagan and Bush Jr. When Republicans says they are interested in small government they simply mean that they want it to be small enough to get under the bedroom door; making it more interventionist not less.  They have been reduced to a fringe organisation obsessed with a handful of issues, endlessly mouthed as soundbites to prove their orthodoxy to the most extreme wing of their party which does nothing to endear them to a largely uninterested electorate. In an age of economic austerity, the party simply has nothing meaningful to say on this, the most crucial, matter of the day.

All parties represent a range of opinions and coalesce around and promote their core values and the Republican debate is simply an example of that  Although there are nuances of belief and differences of approach within the Republican Party, as there are in all political parties, they continue to promote the core values that define the party and the wider movement.  As the primary process demonstrated the is diversity of belief within the party and a healthy sense of debate and that is to be welcomed.  However, the values that the party represents – God, family and patriotism – remain their values of the party’s leadership and the American people

The Republican Party is, yet again, suffering from the inability of the mainstream and liberal media to accurately cover political debate they constantly wish to portray healthy discourse as split and schism  It would be deeply unhealthy if there were not a lively discourse in any political movement but the media fails to reflect that fact. Disillusionment with Obama has been growing almost since day one of his presidency and looks set to continue through the rest of 2012, the Republicans, by contrast have a clear message with growing support at all levels. The very fact that they have been so successful in thwarting the more dangerous of Obama’s policies demonstrate that they have both the arguments and the acumen to defeat him in Congress, just as they do for the presidency.

Having won the economic argument during the Reagan years – both with Russia and the Democratic Party – the Republicans now address social concerns and do so with a consistent message.  Having won the argument over the primacy of the Free Market under Reagan, modern Republicans have turned their attention to other concerns, primarily surrounding the size and role of the federal governments and the social attitudes that are acceptable for the nation to adopt as a whole.  Although the liberal media may grow weary of the message that the majority of Americans hold certain values and expect those to be respected by the government, it remains the case.  The Republican Party has, and continues to be, the strongest and most consistent voice on these matters; defending traditional families and their values.

The Republicans have been highjacked by the extreme right of their party, making them virtually unelectable. In any other circumstance Obama should be looking like a sitting duck, with the disarray in the Republican party, it seems unlikely that they will be able to coalesce in any meaningful way around any candidate. The constant acts of regicide against the only credible candidate they have, Mitt Romney, suggests that he simply won’t have the support he needs come the general election. The very fact that he is unpopular with the party because he doesn’t confirm to an extreme of ideological purity is the very thing that makes him electable. Until Republicans recognise that electoral reality, they are doomed.

Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries.  Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1]  [1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.  In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1]  [1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009.

Referendums can lend greater validity to political outcomes  Particularly on contentious or controversial issues. Laws passed by public approval in this way will be less open to challenge, with all sides having to accept the will of the electorate. This is especially true of minority or coalition governments who may face accusations that they do not have a mandate for certain policies, [1] or situations where minority groups are exercising their right to self-determination. [2]  [1] May, Colin. “Canada’s Questionable ‘Coalition’”. C2C Canada Journal of Ideas. 22nd June 2009.   [2] Tierney, Stephen. “Referendums today: Self-determination as constituent power?”. European Journal of International Law blog, February 9th 2011.

Most people are apathetic about politics because they find it dull or do not believe that it affects them. This may be regrettable but it is hard to see how increasing the number of votes they are asked to participate in will have a positive effect on this trend. On the contrary, many of those who do not like politics will quickly become even more bored and irritated if they are constantly bombarded with campaign literature, television adverts and activists ringing on their doorbells.

Improves standards in political governance.  The trend in developed countries tends to be towards greater centralisation, and concentration of power in the hands of a small number of representatives. This, in turn, leads to the creation of a separate political class who will in some cases be more concerned with their own influence and enrichment than that of the voters, and makes it possible for wealthy individuals or companies to lobby politicians for laws favourable to their interests.  Increased use of referendums would potentially reduce the influence of lobby groups and corporate donors on the political system. [1]  [1] Knutsen, John. “Blueprint for a new European Confederation”, Basiclaw.net, January 2004.

Redresses imbalance between state and individual.  Governments exist to serve the will of the people, not the other way round; politicians take their instructions from their constituents, or should do. But in the modern state this relationship is often inverted. By obliging our democratic institutions to take genuine account of public opinion, and returning real political power back to those to whom it rightly belongs – the people – we can put the relationship between the individual and the state back on a healthier footing. In principle, people should have the right to decide for themselves on matters of importance to their lives. [1]  [1] . Beedham, Brian: “Power to the people: The case for Direct Democracy”, Civitas Review. Vol.3 Issue 2, June 2006.

The public already has an effective veto on legislation, and retains the ultimate power over a politician’s career through its vote at general elections. When governments break their promises, or govern contrary to the preferences of their voters, they are punished by being ejected from office at the subsequent election. This is already an effective way to ensure that public opinion is never ignored for long.

Increased use of referendums is unlikely to make much difference to the quality of governance. Governments and state commissions will retain most of their power, as only a small proportion of laws will be put before the public vote even if use of referendums is increased. It will certainly make no difference to the level of corruption.  As for corporate lobbyists, it can be argued that increased use of referendums will actually increase the influence of such groups. (See Opposition argument five, below.)

Major constitutional changes such as the secession of South Sudan may well be appropriate for referendums, but using them to improve the democratic legitimacy of a government is misguided. Many policies touch on issues of human rights and the simple fact that a majority votes in favour of a particular policy will not be enough to convince opponents that the resulting law is fair or just.

If none of the parties support a policy it is probably because it has no significant support among the people! Much of modern politics is reactive; policies are tested by focus groups and carefully crafted to appeal to as many potential voters as possible. People may tell pollsters that they favour a particular policy (such as the reinstatement of the death penalty in the example from the Proposition side), but that does not necessarily mean that there is a grounds well of support for changing the law.

Reduces public apathy about, and disengagement from, politics.  People are apathetic about politics because they only get to vote once every few years. Even then it is not directly for policies but for competing political parties who promise to implement them (but often reverse position when in office). They feel that politicians do not listen to them between elections, and disengagement with the political process grows and grows. More frequent referendums would stimulate interest in politics because people would actually get a say in decisions. For example, evidence from the US shows that states with frequent use of ballot initiatives tend to have higher voter participation in elections. [1]  [1] Tolbert, Caroline; Grummel, John; Smith, Daniel. “The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States”. American Politics Research Vol. 29 No. 6, November 2001.

Ensures that all views are represented in political debate.  Many countries have two or three party systems in which there is no spread of opinion between these parties. The parties reflect sterile mainstream consensus and do not offer voters what they really want.  Consequently, large sectors of the public find their views unrepresented. Referendums will remedy this and increase engagement with the political system, because people will know that their views simply cannot be ignored.  For example, a majority in the UK favour the return of the death penalty, but no party among the main three offers this. [1] Whatever your views on this issues, it seems unfair that there is simply no way for voters’ views to be represented.  [1] Cafe, Rebecca. “Does the public want the death penalty brought back?”. BBC News, 4th August 2011.

People are bored with politics because they think that it is irrelevant to them and that politicians are not interested in their opinions. Increasing the use of referendums is an excellent way of increasing engagement with the general public; it forces the political establishment to listen to popular opinion, and gives ordinary people a much greater say in how their country is run. See Proposition argument 3, above.

It is true that a responsible government should draft legislation with a view to its long term benefits. However, many governments do not do this; programmes are often set up, laws changed or taxes cut with a view to short term electoral benefit and narrow party political gain, not the good of the country. Arguably, the electorate are more likely to vote on issues for the “right” reasons than are their elected representatives.  Saying that government should lead public opinion, rather than follow it, is simply another way of saying that the state should ignore the will of the public. It is hard to see how it can be justified for governments to pass laws which they know do not command public support. Clearly there may be exceptions in extreme situations - such as the abolition of slavery in the 19th century – but, broadly speaking, the citizens of a country should have the right to order their society in the way they think is best.

Public opinion is changeable  Unless there is a minimum threshold for valid votes, freak results will occur. If the threshold is too high, on the other hand, then public aspirations may be thwarted, as for example with the Scottish Home Rule referendum of 1979, where a majority of those who voted supported devolution but not enough to get the proposal passed into law. [1]  Furthermore, public opinion changes over time. Once you have introduced the principle that issues of national concern are to be settled by referendums, there will be nothing to stop the same question being put to the public vote time after time.  [1] “The path to devolution”, Scottish Parliament history pages.

Referendums are very artificial.  The results are often strongly influenced by factors unrelated to the proposal on the ballot, such as; the timing of the referendum (controlled by the government); the point in the electoral cycle; media coverage of the issues, which may be biased or irresponsible; and the amount of money spent on advertising by each side. For example, in the 2005 referendum held by France on the European Union Constitution, the Yes lobby was supported by the majority of the political establishment and almost all the media, and outspent the No campaign by a significant margin. Opponents argued that the referendum was not conducted on a level playing field. [1]  [1] Wyatt, Caroline. “French media in referendum ‘bias’ row”. BBC News, 21st May 2005.

People are currently bored with politics.  The last thing they want is more votes. This will only lead to greater overall apathy and even lower turnout in general elections. California is a classic example of frequent referendums failing to ignite any noticeable interest among its people. The 2011 referendum on electoral reform in the UK was similarly ignored by the public. [1]  [1] Davies, Caroline. “Apathy and anger dominate as AV decision looms”. The Guardian, 15th April 2011.

The job of a government is necessarily long term.  It is right that once the people have given it a mandate it should be able to carry out legislation with long term aims. Often good legislation is unpopular at first, but effective and popular in the long run. Such legislation would never survive a referendum. It is only fair that the government is given a chance to see if its legislation does indeed work. The people can then vote the government out of office if it fails.  Similarly, it is government’s job to lead and not to follow, especially on social legislation. For example, the US civil rights movement in the 1960s, and the equal marriage movement currently, might not command majority support from the public as a whole; [1] in order to advance equal rights, responsible government has to get out in front of public opinion, and make the argument for policies which are not yet popular enough to be passed in a referendum.  This approach is justified because parliamentarians are representatives not delegates (as famously pointed out by Burke to the electors of Bristol in 1776) [2] and can do what they think is best for the people even if that does not meet the people’s wishes.  [1] Bobo, Lawrence. “Attitudes toward the Black Political Movement”. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 51 No.4, 1988.   [2] Burke, Edmund. “Speech to the electors of Bristol”. 3rd November 1774.

It is perfectly possible to construct a model for increased use of referendums which reduces to a minimum the distorting factors cited by the Opposition. For example, the timing, wording and conduct of the polls could be overseen by an independent commission. Rules could also be implemented to restrict spending by both sides to fair levels. Media, too, are bound by law in many countries to provide equal coverage to both sides. [1]  [1] “A comparative look at referendum laws”, Institute for International Law and Human Rights, February 2009.

It is possible to avoid freakish results by only allowing a referendum to be valid if a certain percentage of the population votes, say 30%. Or indeed by implementing a threshold for setting up a referendum in the first place. There is no reason to think it would be hard to find a formula that avoids these sorts of problems.  It may be formally true that the same referendum question could be put to the public again and again, but the same can be said of any political question in the status quo. Once a referendum has been held on an issue, politicians are unlikely to risk the wrath of the electorate by making them vote on the same question repeatedly.

A directly elected upper house obfuscates the political process. An upper house has a different role in the political process than the lower house: the lower house has to channel public opinion whereas the upper house has to provide critical scrutiny and sober second thought. Its legitimacy therefore doesn't stem from backing in public opinion but from careful reflection and well thought-out arguments.

A directly elected upper house is more effective  When an upper house is directly elected, it will be perceived to be more legitimate by the public, because the public sees their political views directly translated into a legislative branch, albeit in a different way than the lower house. This enhanced legitimacy will help the upper house in performing their constitutional duties: whenever the upper house disagrees with either the lower house or the executive, the upper house can now strengthen their position by pointing to the public support it has.

Appointers and electors have to think about their reputation more. Unethically and unprofessionally behaved members of the upper house can still be sent away, either by the politicians who appointed or elected them or by independent inquiry. An example of this is of a Senator in the Netherlands, Sam Pormes. After an opinion magazine revealed he once aided freedom fighters in an assault on the Dutch government, he was sent away after careful inquiry. [1]  [1] Expatica, ‘Senator told to resign over 'guerrilla training''. 22 November 2005.  last consulted August 15, 2011.

A directly elected upper house is more democratic  Democracy means self-governance by the people, wherein citizens have the fundamental right to decide how they are to be governed and by whom. An appointed or indirectly elected upper house violates this principle, because allows a group of individuals to exercise power without having to explain or justify themselves to the public

Democracy isn't just 'direct elections'. Democracy is a means to ensure good governance. Stating that an appointed or indirectly elected upper house is 'undemocratic' is not enough. Instead, the proposition should show why an appointed or indirectly elected upper house hinders good governance. Moreover, given the fact that the upper house is either appointed by the directly elected executive, as in Canada, or elected by directly elected provincial legislatures, as in the Netherlands, the people still have the right to decide how they are governed, only indirectly.

A directly elected upper house discourages patronage  Politicians who elect or appoint the members of the upper house have an incentive to put their friends an allies there, because this will make their decision making easier. This is patronage pure and simple: the public will have a hard time sending them away when, if ever, a scandal breaks because the members of the upper house don't depend on public opinion to remain in their seats. An example is the case of a senator in the Netherlands, Sam Pormes. After an opinion magazine revealed he once had partaken in terrorist activities, it took almost a year and several mediation attempts to get him removed from parliament. [1]  [1] Expatica, ‘Senator told to resign over 'guerrilla training''. 22 November 2005.  last consulted August 15, 2011.

Feedback in the legislative process reeks of cronyism. Ensuring policy is feasible by checking it with target groups and implementing partners is important. Governments often do this by calling for position papers and organizing focus groups. Using an upper house for this only reeks of cronyism: for example, why would the government award a seat to one big oil company but not to the other?

Sober second thought is undemocratic. A directly elected upper house can also provide an extra cycle in the legislative process if this is deemed desirable. When it comes to 'halting hypes', we need to realize that what constitutes a political hype is also a political choice. Democracy is defined as 'rule by the people'. If public pressure for a certain law is mounting, this means that apparently a large part of the public is urgently in favor of it. If democracy truly means 'rule by the people', then the legislative should respond to this kind of public pressure and not effectively hinder the rule of the people out of some misguided notion of 'political hype'.

An appointed or indirectly elected upper house provides more room to involve experts  Appointment or indirect election provides space to involve eminent or expert people into politics. Often, expert and eminent people don't have the time or resources to work on building a career in politics. An example is veteran professional hockey coach Jacques Demers, who was appointed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to become a Senator. Demers has been nearly illiterate for all his life but has been a very successful coach. As a Senator, Demers helped raise awareness and generate policy to enhance literacy across Canada. [1]  [1] TSN, ‘FORMER NHL COACH DEMERS TO BE NAMED TO SENATE’. 27 August 2009.  last consulted August 15, 2011.

An appointed or indirectly elected upper house helps policy implementation  Appointment or indirect election provides space to involve leaders of business and civil society in politics. Just like above-mentioned experts, they often don't have time to build a career in politics. But they do have first-hand knowledge of the effects of policy on their businesses and associations. By co-opting them in the legislative process, policy makers don't have to wait until policy is fully implemented to receive feedback on the feasibility of their ideas.

An appointed or indirectly elected upper house provides 'sober second thought'  An extra cycle in the legislative process creates more time to reflect on the pros and cons of each piece of legislation. Moreover, the lower house is pressured by public opinion to react fast to any kind of political hype that comes up. The upper house is more free from public pressure and can thus afford to halt pieces of 'hype-legislation'.

Expert opinion shouldn't play a role at the legislative stage of political decision making. Expertise is relevant for policy making, but doesn't have a place in the legislative. The legislative is a place for deliberation and negotiation amongst public interests. Expert opinion should inform policy making either via expert policy makers who work for ministries and departments and help draft legislation before it is launched, or via the public, whom they inform and persuade via articles, talk shows and publicizing research.

Labour can be bold without turning to the left. It could endorse bolder action on climate change, much greater local democracy, and increasing the use of new technologies. The concern should not be about a policy being left or right wing but about its beneficial (or otherwise) consequences. When labour has won in the past it has been by taking centerist trends and making them their own – for example Wilson’s ‘white fires of industry’. [1]  [1] Skelton, David, ‘What does the Labour party do now?’, Demos Quarterly, 31 July 2015,

Presents a bold new path  Since the start of the 1990s Labour has moved to the right to contest the ‘centre ground’ of politics. This worked in 1997 when the Conservatives were a spent force after 17 Years in power. Tony Blair successfully stole the conservatives moderate policies. However this has resulted in the centre ground moving to the right with policies such as austerity and welfare cuts becoming a consensus. Labour needs to move left to fight on their own ground forcing other parties to match their more populist policies such as renationalising the railways.

It is false that there is a lack of choice now. There are plenty of other parties that voters could vote for if they believe the main two parties do not provide them with the choice they want. On the right there is UKIP and on the left the Greens and also other much smaller more extreme parties standing pain a few constituencies. If there were sufficient numbers who want to vote for a more left wing agenda then the Greens would be doing much better than they are – they currently only have one seat.

Brings labour back to its core values  The original values of the Labour party were “the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange” and even today the Labour party aims to “serve the public interest” as well as to create “a just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong”, “an open democracy, in which government is held to account by the people”, and “a healthy environment”. [1] In the last parliament Labour supported there being a cap on welfare spending. [2] More recently Labour abstained on a Conservative welfare bill that many felt was too harsh in its cuts. [3] Corbyn, and a move to the left, will bring Labour back to its core values rather than supporting Conservative policies and austerity that harms individuals.  [1] Clause IV, Labourcounts,  , accessed 15 September 2015  [2] Wintour, Patrick, ‘Miliband: Labour not abandoning its values with cap on welfare spending’, The Guardian, 6 June 2013,   [3] Eaton, George, ‘Welfare bill passed as 48 Labour MPs defy leadership and vote against’, The Spectator, 20 July 2015,

Old values are just out of date values. There is little point in Labour appealing to the working class as the party they are supposed to represent when those same people have been abandoning it for decades; in 1966 69% of manual workers voted labour, this was only 45% by 1987 [1] – long before Labour dropped its left wing ideology. Going back to core values if those core values are the values that the electorate wants.  [1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘Labour lost the working-class vote a long time ago’, The Spectator, 12 May 2015,

“I'm fed up with the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster, the name calling, backbiting, point scoring, finger pointing.” Not Jeremy Corbyn, David Cameron in 2005 when he became opposition leader. [1] Every new opposition party leader starts out saying they want to change Westminster’s style of politics; Miliband was the same. Yet they get sucked in all the same. The robust Punch and Judy style is part and parcel of British politics having happened during periods where the parties were ideologically far apart in the past; there were comnplaints about jeering and interuptions in the 1970s. [2]  [1] Cameron, David, ‘Leadership acceptance speech, BritishPoliticalSpeech.org, 2005,   [2] Parkinson, Justin, ‘Is Prime Minister’s Questions really getting worse?’, BBC News, 18 February 2014,

Provides greater choice  Corbyn in his last campaign rally argued “fundamentally many people are turned off by a political process when the major parties are not saying anything different enough about how we run the economy”. [1] This lack of choice has been a complaint by voters for years – ever since Tony Blair made New Labour electable by moving to the centre. Jeremy Corbyn now gives the electorate a real choice compared to the Conservative party; tackling the deficit through tax rises (rather than cutting spending, nationalising the railways, peoples Quantitaive Easing, don’t replace trident, and rent controls. [2]  [1] Wintor, Patrick, ‘Corbyn: it’s time for a new kind of politics’, The Guardian, 12 September 2015  [2] Magazine, ’24 things that Jeremy Corbyn believes’, BBC News, 13 September 2015,

Lack of difference encourages Punch and Judy politics  The public “are totally turned off by a style of politics which seems to rely on the levels of club house theatrical abuse that you can throw across at each other in parliament and across the airwaves.” [1] This style is necessary to extentuate the small areas where there are differences between the parties. Introduce real differences on the big issues of government, particularly the economy and society, then such minor point scoring fades into insignificance.  [1] Wintor, Patrick, ‘Corbyn: it’s time for a new kind of politics’, The Guardian, 12 September 2015

Corbyn is not tied to the past and his agenda is not going to simply be a rehash of Michael Foot’s manifesto in 1983. The policies Corbyn is advocating now would not have been considered particularly left wing in 1983 and most are not particularly radical even now. Policies like rent controls, peoples’ QE, and renationalising the railways may be statist but are potentially popular solutions to issues that concern voters; the cost of housing, that QE benefited the banks and no one else, and that commuting is cramped and costly.

The biggest news of the last few years in politics has been the fragmentation of the electorate; the increase in voting for the Scottish National Party, Greens, and UK Independence Party. It can no longer be certain that Labour will pick up most votes by staying close to the centre ground. In all but the very safest seats there are more non-voters than there are people who vote for the winning party. It was notable that many of the safest seats in the country, held by Labour in 2010, were toppled by the SNP in 2015 including Glasgow North East that had an almost 16,000 majority in 2010 fell to the SNP with a majority of over 7,000. [1]  [1] Glasgow North East (UK Parliament constituency), Wikipedia, last checked 16 September 2015

The Labour party is deprived of talent on the front bench  Numerous former front benchers and government ministers under the last Labour government will not serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet. Most obviously two of the four leadership contenders; Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper. [1] This deprives the party of experienced parliamentarians who know government and what it takes to win elections.  [1] Wintour, Patrick, and Watt, Nicholas, ‘Labour frontbenchers rule out serving in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet’, The Guardian, 12 September 2015,

Going left is step back not a step forward  Labour has tried left wing politics in the past – in the 1980s – in what was described by Gerald Kaufman, himself in the shadow cabinet at the time, as “the longest suicide note in history”. [1] Going leftwards means moving back to these policies rather than carving out new progressive policies that can energise and excite. Why should Labour be backing coal rather than renewables? Should Labour not be looking to give more power to the people rather than brining it back to the state through nationalisation?  [1] Clarck, Neil, ‘Not so suicidal after all’, The Guardian, 10 June 2008,

A shift to the left means labour is no longer a party of government  A shift to the left means that Labour is no longer a real contender for government. This is not only bad for Labour but bad for the country as a whole. Voters need to have a choice between parties that stand a realistic chance of getting into power to have a real choice. By moving away from the centre where most of the votes are labour is no longer a serious contender. In the UK it is already the case that the average voter for a party holds more centrist, or moderate, policy positions than the party they vote for. [1]  [1] Voters’ Policy Preferences Much More Centrist than those of Political Parties, Compass, June 2015,

Far from depriving the Labour Party of talent he has been drawing new talent into the party. Labour gained 15,000 members in the three days since Jeremy Corbyn’s victory on top of those who signed up during the leadership campaign. [1] Ultimately it is the membership and its size and diversity that provides the talent of the future, not an elite clique of individuals at the top.  [1] Withnall, Adam, ‘More than 15,000 join Labour party as full members in wake of Jeremy Corbyn victory’, The Independent, 13 September 2015,

It is difficult to envision how this ban could be effectively implemented without compromising the principles of free speech and unfettered political discussion that lie at the core of western democratic liberalism. If side proposition pursue a broadly construed ban on negative tactics by candidates, campaign groups and the media, free and open debate is likely to be endangered.  Democratic political parties are diverse and plural entities. Even the most authoritarian or charismatic candidate cannot hope to have complete control and oversight over every member of his campaign team. Under the widest interpretation of the resolution, a careless comment by an over-enthusiastic party activist could breach a negative campaigning ban as surely as an ad hominem attack advert. Indeed, such comments are much more likely to be made on the door step than they are in the press.  This being the case, how would the activities of a candidate’s staff be policed? Would they be subject to constant surveillance? If so, by whom? How would the impartiality of regulators be guaranteed? Moreover, if a supervising body were given the wide ranging powers necessary to implement the resolution, how would the proposition prevent the leaking- accidental or otherwise- of confidential government and opposition information? The functions of the state are closely bound up with the activities of party politics, especially in federal nations such as America, which operate partisan civil administrations.  Similarly, who should decide when an independent campaigning group is “too closely aligned” to the ideals and objectives of a particular political party? Within the American republican party there are a wide range of views on issues considered controversial by political conservatives. Former Republican VP Dick Cheney voiced support for same-sex marriage while in office. By contrast, 2012 republican presidential nomination candidates Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman have stated their opposition to reforms that would make same-sex marriage more accessible in the US. Does criticism levelled against Cheney by Christian “family” interest groups allow them to be defined as independent of the Republican party? Comparably, is praise for Cheney’s position by LGBTQ interest groups a reliable indicator that they support other republican policies? Clearly it does not.  It should also be noted that a ban would be almost impossible to enforce on the internet. The multi-jurisdictional nature of much web content (videos or articles authored in one country may be hosted by services operating under the law of another) renders any attempt to control on-line political commentary meaningless. Short of adopting wide-scale, Chinese-style internet censorship systems, the growth of online attack campaigning [i] renders the proposition meaningless.  Side proposition assume that the news media operate without directing any critical attention to the subject matter of their stories. They portray the press as vulnerable to subversion by campaign managers able to leak or cleverly position attack stories. Even if side proposition can provide examples of this type of misdirection, it would be damaging to tackle flawed editorial policies by using the law to limit journalists’ right to comment and speak freely on political events.  Where there has been a failure of safeguards that ensure that objective coverage of significant events remains objective, regulatory bodies should review the standards of journalists work – as they currently do under the status quo. This would provide the press with the flexibility to continue reporting on important issues, while refining the way in which they do so.  Even if the legal mandate is enforced by an impartial, neutral observer, appointments to this body are likely to become politically fraught, precisely because it would be the ultimate arbiter of the limits and rules that would be applied to an election.  [i] “Dose of Venom for Candidates Turns Ads Viral”. New York Times, 20 March 2010.

Existing methods of disciplining and controlling candidates are ineffective.  Many political parties- even those in operating in the US- claim that regulation of the content of political campaigns is unnecessary. Parties assert that they supervise and monitor the content of their candidates’ statements. Self-regulation is claimed to be in parties’ own interests. However, ensuring that individual candidates maintain good standards of conduct and are disciplined for infractions goes only half way to ensuring that campaigning remains honest and equitable. Articles written and speeches made by candidates can easily be surveiled and monitored for misleading or litigious content. However, the most damning and intractable forms of negative campaigning often occur indirectly, without being explicitly associated with a particular political figure.  Due to the frequency with which candidates’ activists and survey staff make contact with voters, there is the danger that they could be used to propagate negative messages via word of mouth campaigns. Tactics of this type were successfully employed by the radical socialist George Galloway to oust a Labour incumbent in the UK constituency of Bethnal Green and Bough. Allegations later emerged that Galloway’s door-step campaigners had made ad hominem and racist comments against his opponent. It is unacceptable that a candidate should be able to maintain a “clean” image by using his electoral staff to make negative attacks by proxy.  Independent lobbying and campaigning groups that claim no party affiliation make important contributions to debate and policy making throughout the liberal world. However, despite their “independent” status, many of these organisations are guided by issues and ideological and philosophical principles that are closely linked to party politics. Particular think-tanks or single issue groups may be ideologically aligned to certain parties, even if they are not part of that party’s internal structure. The pro-life lobby in the US, for example, is politically aligned with the republican party, due to a shared support base among American Christians. Similarly, although the British think-tank ResPublica describes itself as non-party-political, it propagates social research based on identifiably right wing ideas, and is guided by an advisory board containing four Conservative party MPs.  Under these circumstances, it is unrealistic to assume that pronouncements made by these organisations are free from the influence of those directly involved in political campaigns. In America, where independent “527” [i] groups are banned from contacting and coordinating with political parties, it is not unusual for such organisations to fund ad hominem attacks against a candidate perceived as being unsympathetic to a particular cause. Indeed, this is exactly why a broad interpretation of this motion is necessary. Organisations such as Swift Boat Veterans for truth are able to mount attack campaigns that directly benefit a particular participant in an election, while not being bound by the restrictions on conduct, spending or donor relationships that candidates themselves must abide by.  Finally, limiting negative campaigning in the press will address the incentives on politicians to pursue campaign strategies oriented solely around garnering publicity. One of the first examples of negative campaigning, a 1964 television advert produced by Harry Truman, which implied that presidential candidate Barry Goldwater would initiate a nuclear war, proved so controversial that it was replayed in news broadcasts, effectively granting additional, free campaign coverage. The press is already confronted with too many engineered leaks and scandals. As noted above, these obscure more cogent analysis by neutral experts and commentators.  [i] Section 527, United Stated Internal Revenue Code.

Politics is a tough game, and those that decide to play it should expect to come away bruised. Politicians, almost by definition, seek publicity and the attention of the media. They should, therefore, be prepared to accept that positive press coverage will inevitably turn negative.  Much as debaters are trained to continue delivering clear and structured speeches in the face of badgering POIs, indifferent judges and poorly behaved opponents, we should expect our politicians to be tough enough to give a robust defence of their policies and actions, no matter how pernicious the attacks launched against them. This is the only way in which we can be certain of their skills as a political operator and their commitment to the ideological cause they claim to support.  Politicians with families are consistently perceived as more trustworthy and competent than those who lack familial ties. A family is a useful general indicator of a politician’s willingness to set aside personal ambition and self-interest, and invest himself wholly in ensuring the well-being of others. Likewise, a politician who welcomes attacks on his character and policies and fights vigorously to defend them is also more likely to have a clean past.  Moreover, due to the organic and emergent nature of interactions that occur between states on the international stage, politicians will not have access to the types of legal protection proposed by the resolution when doing business with the representatives of other nations. Coddled politicians will lack the pragmatism and guile necessary to effectively represent western nations’ interests in the international community.

Negative campaigning creates voter apathy and prevents accurate reporting of candidates’ policies and ideologies.  The contemporary political environment throughout much of the democratic world- and especially the USA- is mired in negative and aggressive campaigning. Tactics of this type breed apathy and anomie among groups within society who have previously been politically engaged. Politicians are increasingly portrayed as uniformly corrupt, incompetent or both.  Research published by Stamford University in the late nineties has linked an overall decline in voter turnout (approximately 10% between 1960 and 1992) [i] and a further decline in voter roll-off (the likelihood that an individual will vote for a high office, but neglect to vote for state or federal legislative positions) to increased reliance on attack ads and negative campaigning among American politicians. The authors of the Stamford report identify several causative factors underlying this connection.  Firstly, the study acknowledges that adverts attacking an individual’s credentials, policies or background are likely to reduce the number of voters who back a particular candidate. However, campaigns of this type do nothing to increase support for alternative candidates. The supporters of a politician undermined by negative campaigning are unlikely to switch to his or her opponent, preferring instead to abstain from the vote. Although party- or candidate- loyalty can be quickly disrupted, it takes a considerable amount of time for a party or politician to gain a voter’s trust [ii] .  As proposition will show, negative campaigning tends to engender further negative campaigning, leading to the main contenders in an election forgoing the use of positive campaign media. In short, aggressive campaigning is effective in reducing the popularity of opponents of a particular candidate, but this advantage comes at the expense of preventing that candidate from broadening his support-base or contributing meaningfully to democratic discourse.  Secondly, building on the previous point, voters have become increasingly aware negative campaigns’ ability to sterilise political debate. Voter apathy rises in response to aggressive campaigning that highlights flaws in the policies of political opponents, but does nothing to explain the contributions that another candidate may make.  Declining turnout figures are also a response to the knock-on effect that negative campaigning has on independent media [iii] . The press tends to use more airtime and page-space covering attack campaigns, due to their sensationalist and lurid nature. Especially in the US, newspapers and television stations function as commercial entities, and controversy and fear mongering will always draw in more readers or viewers than cool, balanced argumentation [iv] . This tendency, in turn, closes off an important forum for public debate on the merits of candidate’s policies and on issues that voters may want to see addressed.  Reporting on the shock tactics and partisan comments of politicians sells newspapers, but reporting on the statistics, proposals, claims and counter-claims of formal political debate does more to convince voters that their political system is representative and responsive to their needs.  Banning overtly negative campaigning will remove the perverse incentives that distort press coverage of the meaningful, practical details of election campaigns. Consequently, voters will be able to draw on a wider range of information when making their choice at the ballot box. A ban will prevent politicians from engaging in attrition based campaigns designed purely to breed apathy among their opponent’s supporters. Participants in the political process should be encouraged to test and investigate each other’s policies, premises and ideals. The evolutionary, dialectical pressures that debate of this type exerts will ultimately lead to more refined policy making. In attempting to do more and offer more to voters, politicians will be forced to survey and interact with a wider range of potential supporters than they normally would.  [i] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [ii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [iii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [iv] Political attack ads can be effective but risky. Rotman Business School, 10 May 2004.

It is fashionable to exaggerate the pervasiveness of the “negative campaign environment”, but democracy still functions perfectly well in almost all liberal states. People still vote when their vote will matter the most. Voter turnout in the 2008 [i] American presidential election and in the 2010 UK general election [ii] was significantly higher than in previous years. Both of these elections took place against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving financial crisis. Both elections focussed on candidates promoting a wide range of new and radical ideas. Both elections produced a preponderance of attack adverts that focussed on the content of policies, ideologies and the reliability of evidence showing the candidates’ previous policy success. With one or two over-reported exceptions, the politics of the personal was largely absent in both the US and the UK.  Moreover, liberal-democratic ideals promote openness and transparency within both the government and the political class. Voters are entitled to information on a candidate’s “down-side”; the opponents of a candidate are obviously well placed to voice such concerns. Journalists risk accusations of bias if they attempt to publish details of an individual politician’s failings in office. However, when these issues are raised by an opponent of that politician, the press is placed in a position that allows it to act as a disinterested assessor of that claim. Far from simply reproducing negative messages, as side proposition claim that they do, the mass media frequently conduct detailed investigations into the content of attack adverts. “Ad watch” reports of this type are now a common feature of US election coverage [iii] . The interrelationship of politicians and the press enhances the transparency of the campaigning process.  Proposition have unrealistic expectations when it comes to assessing the efficacy of campaign adverts. It is true that an attack advert will not be able to convert a supporter of its target into a supporter of the attacking politician. However, this is equally true of positive campaign adverts. The transfer of political loyalties will always be a long, drawn out process that on-spec campaigning cannot hope to influence [iv] .  The resolution would compromise the efficiency of political campaigning by obliging candidates to over emphasise the role of ideology and policy in campaign literature, rather than their qualities as a decision maker.  Moreover, the resolution would encourage politicians to “over-promise” in manifestos and campaign literature. If the only means by which contenders in an election can distinguish themselves is by pledging to initiate more new policies, taxes, tax cuts, projects or consultations than their opponents, the workloads of successful candidates will become artificially inflated and unmanageable.  In short, politicians running for office will be incentivised to create ever more outlandish manifesto pledges and policy initiatives. Due to term-limits, organisational inefficiencies and unpredictable, emergent problems, very few of these promises will be realised. The consequence of this situation is obvious. When politicians fail to keep their promises, citizens will lose confidence in the effectiveness of the state.  There is greater utility in encouraging politicians to be cautious and conservative when campaigning. If an election is dominated by fantastical and elaborate schemes that are left unfulfilled, the likely result will be chronic apathy and disengagement among the electorate – precisely the outcome that proposition wish to avoid.  [i] Voter turnout in presidential elections: 1828-2008, The American Presidency Project,   [ii] The Electoral Commission,   [iii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [iv] Effectiveness of negative political advertising. Won Ho Chang and others. 1998. Ohio University, Scripps School of Journalism.

It is not possible for a politician to win on a no-policy platform. As proposition points out, negative campaigning does little to convince its target’s supporters of the wisdom of the attacker’s policies. A politician who decides to use attack adverts in his campaign will not be able to transfer support from his opponents’ tickets to his. Thus, a politician who wants to employ negative campaigning tactics must already be confident that he has an existing support base and policies that other voters will be attracted to.  Policy making and analysis remains the meat and drink of politics. The politics of the personal is reserved for campaigning season. Moreover, negative campaigning tactics are reserved for closely fought constituencies, states or districts. Side proposition does not give politicians credit for recognising that voters are rational individuals motivated by reasoned arguments.  Where negative campaigning is used in public polls, it is usually deployed at the end of a protracted a very closely fought campaign. The number of negative adverts broadcast by a politician is usually tied to the closeness of a campaign itself.  Moreover, negative campaigning can assist candidates who may be seeking to implement new policies, but lack the necessary name recognition and financial backing to succeed against a more experienced competitor. Negative campaigning, even if it is unable to instantly generate loyalty, may at least help to compel voters to seek out alternative perspectives on the issues over which an election is fought. Indeed, recommendations by the political consultancy business Complete Campaigns indicate that similar strategies have been successfully employed by their previous clients [i] .  [i] Negative Campaigning. Complete Campaigns.

Negative campaigning reduces the diversity and representativeness of government.  Many able, idealistic and talented individuals are discouraged or excluded from participating in the political process by aggressive negative campaigning [i] . Bright potential candidates may be concerned about intrusion by political opponents into their private lives or backgrounds [ii] . They may be opposed in principle to participating in a political culture that obliges aspirant office holders to engage in smear- and fear-lead campaigning.  Under the status quo, only those able to stomach the confrontational and bullying tactics that have grown up around contemporary electioneering will dare enter the political arena. Moreover, such trends in political culture favour candidates with close links to the media. Individuals able to command the ear of newspaper owners, or who possess a professional background in journalism or publicity will be better able to manipulate or evade attacks launched via television and mass communications.  A democratic system is best served when it encourages the participation of candidates from a range of backgrounds and professional fields. The ability of a government to arrive at novel solutions to problems confronting a state, to understand that state’s economy and to effectively represent different sectors of the population will be compromised without a diverse skillset within the state’s legislative and executive branches.  By transforming politics into a game based on the production of political “brands” and unassailable, manufactured “personalities,” the jousting and muckraking of negative campaigning gives a disproportionate advantage to former editors and PR men [iii] . This dilutes the pool of professionals from which future leaders are drawn, leading to poor policy making (due to a lack of professional skills) and a conservative, sclerotic, defensive approach to political problem solving. Western liberal politics is increasingly discussed only in terms of communication, image, rhetoric and appearance [iv] , rather than the technical language of law, economics and diplomacy. Negative campaigning artificially limits the types of people and professions who can engage in political discourse, infantilising and disabling politics itself.  [i] “Meg’s mistake”, The Economist, 28 September 2009,   [ii] “Tory woman attacks ‘misogyny’ of grassroots members”, The Guardian, 01 November 2009.   [iii] “Analysis: PR people fall prey to the lure of parliament.”, PR Week, 04 April 1996.   [iv] “I’m fake, vote for me”, The Guardian, 22 September 2006.

Negative campaigning leads to negative governance.  Information on demographics, on taxation rates, on the state’s finances are made publically available precisely so that voters can arrive at reasoned, rational and nuanced decisions as to whom they should vote for. Governments are judged by evidence of the efficacy of their policies.  Analysis conducted by political scientists William Riker, Michael Davis and Michael Ferrantino [i] show that where negative campaigning is permitted, even politicians with no history of running attack campaigns will adopt aggressive electoral tactics. If a politician wins on a positive platform- by promising to implement new policies and reform existing ones- then his chances of re-election will be affected by his success or failure in bringing about those changes. The electorate are able to test and assess a politician’s positive claims. However, if a politician campaigns on a negative platform, portraying his opponent as incompetent or his policies as damaging, an electoral victory will make such claims unassailable. The attacking politician will be free to state that his election has prevented the dire consequences he warned from coming about. Non one will be able to prove otherwise, notwithstanding the spluttering of his defeated opponent.  By portraying opponents as reckless or dangerously radical, an attacking politician immediately sets himself up as the lesser of two evils. This may do little to convert undecided voters, but it still allows the successful candidate to take credit for “protecting” the electorate. Although this strategy may be the easiest to implement, it does not fit with the ideal of critical and ideological transparency that characterises contemporary liberal states.  The increasing amount of information produced by governments, think tanks, universities and political parties is intended to make the state- and the electorate- more responsive to the success and failure of particular policies. By closing the gap between the proposal of a policy, its implementation and the indicators of its success, information-led democracy supposedly makes governance and democratic choice more efficient. Negative campaigning circumvents this feedback system. It distorts ideas, by misrepresenting them and rendering them unacceptable, before any objective assessment of their merits has taken place.  Moreover, negative portrayals of candidates and policies, as noted above, are more likely to dominate media coverage, than the sober, balanced information produced by academics and analysts. This line of argument also leads to equally damaging distortion of the attacking candidate’s platform and proposals. By diverting resources to negative campaigning and attack adverts, candidates have less time and money to expend on the creation of positive policies. Indeed, the fewer testable claims that a candidate makes about his own policies, the less likely he is to be subject to effective criticism by opponents or the electorate if he takes up office.  Negative campaigning incentivises a distant, evasive, conservative approach to government. It creates an adversarial relationship between politicians and those wishing to gather and disseminate information about the effects of policies – academics, political analysts and engaged citizens.  [i] The Rational Attacker in Russia? Negative Campaigning in Russian Presidential Elections. Sigelman, L and Shiraev, E. New York University, April 2001.

It is almost impossible to guarantee that groups are truly independent, in the sense in which side opposition uses the word. In America, so called “527” organisations [i] , which profess no direct affiliation with a candidate, are permitted to launch campaigns to attack or support particular politicians, without being subjected to the same funding limitations and fair conduct rules as political parties. [ii]  Right-to-life groups and religiously motivated organisations may operate as 527s, along with groups controlled by business organisations. Coordination between 527 groups, candidates and political parties is banned in the US. In practice, however, the close alignment of the groups’ ideological objectives and the characteristic policies of Republican and Democrat candidates leads to 527s taking their cues (and their targets) from the pronouncements of politicians and their campaigns.  Groups such as Citizen’s Solidarity and the Indian anti-corruption movement mobilised around Anna Hazare [iii] are comparatively rare. Where flaws in a nation’s democratic institutions are pervasive, affecting coalitions, government and opposition parties, the role of the press as a neutral observer is usually more effective than political attacks in bringing problems to light – consider the role of the Daily Telegraph in disclosing British MP’s misuse of their publicly funded expense allowances [iv] .  [i] “FEC collects $630000 in civil penalties from three 527 organisations”. Federal Election Commission, 13 December 2006.   [ii] Section 527, United Stated Internal Revenue Code.  [iii] “No modern-day Mahatma”. The Economist, 27 April 2011.   [iv] MPs’ Expenses. The Daily Telegraph.

Use of negative campaigning in primaries may help to build support among voters who already identify with a particular party, but it can also lower a politician in the view of undecided or swing voters.  Primaries, now more than ever, are public contests, given as much attention by the media as elections themselves.  Mudslinging tactics deployed by candidates during a primary are likely to give ammunition to opponents in any ensuing election. The fact that all participants in an election are likely to have engaged in negative campaigning at one time or another is beside the point – the activity is harmful in and of itself, because of its ability to engender apathy.  Negative campaigning in political primaries fuels further negative campaigning during general elections. Even if, as opposition suggest, an aggressive primary campaign is useful for winnowing out weak and compromised candidates, negative campaigning in the election that follows will prevent those “strong” candidates from disseminating useful, political positive information.  As noted in proposition’s second substantive argument, the strongest candidate many not always be the individual best able to respond to slanderous and fear-mongering attack adverts. Intelligence, compassion, charisma and technical expertise do not always go hand in hand with a thick skin and the ability to dig dirt.

The difficulty of identifying attack adverts and negative messages.  The content and meaning of a particular broadcast or print advert will not always be clear. A piece of campaign media may not be uniformly and objectively positive or negative in tone. Words are ambiguous, their definition based partly on the experiences and opinions of observers.  Context can also play an important role in determining how a political communication may be perceived. When a scandal breaks involving an opponent, is it legitimate for one of the others candidates in an election to run positive adverts about their own background on a particular topic. If an incumbent is found to be a cuckold, for example, could a challenger run an advert asserting that he was a “good family man”?  Side proposition may choose to respond by creating some variety of independent campaign commission, or by expanding the role of the judiciary. However, this does nothing to address the basic issue of subjectivity highlighted above.

Independent campaign groups.  The resolution ignores the possibility that negative campaigns may occur outside of a partisan context. In India [i] and Korea [ii] , grass roots campaigns without specific party or ideological ties have been used to highlight corruption among electoral candidates and legislative incumbents. These campaigns are arguably an expression of democratic political freedom, with individual citizens banding together to enforce core democratic norms. However, as the example of the Citizen’s Solidarity movement in South Korea shows, because such actions inevitably involve questioning the character and conduct of politicians running for election, they frequently fall foul of laws designed to restrict negative campaigning.  Similar problems are encountered by the professional press. Even in countries with liberal electoral and libel law regimes, the press frequently find themselves accused of political bias if they attempt to highlight mendacity or wrongdoing by a particular candidate. Unless the wrongdoing in question is particularly severe, western journalists may find themselves in the position of their Singaporean counterparts – held accountable for “electoral crimes”, libel or contempt of court by a body of law that treat political institutions as sacrosanct and denies that scrutiny of those institutions’ officer holders is necessary.  [i] “No modern-day Mahatma”. The Economist, 27 April 2011.   [ii] “Korea’s art of negative campaigning.” The Economist, 6 April 2000.

Identifying strong, honest candidates.  As noted above, the rougher, ruder, character-oriented tone of a negative campaigning environment acts as a useful test of a politician’s reputation and integrity. Further, opposition wish to restate their early counter-argument on the evolving and dynamic nature of election campaigns. No campaign is uniformly negative of positive.  A candidate who is able to stand firm in the face of attacks against his character and his policies is much more likely to be able to act as a strong advocate in a legislative forum, or when accounting for the actions of the executive. Determination and strong argumentation skills in one area imply a similar degree of dedication in other areas. By contrast, how much confidence should we have in a politician who would be prepared to appeal to the enforcement mechanism created by the proposition to forcibly exclude a particular statement or allegation from a political debate, rather than respond to it? The problems that confront national governments cannot be dismissed simply by invoking a law designed to eliminate fuzzily defined forms of unfair conduct.  Attack adverts are used much more frequently in US-style primary selection contests, which poll members of a particular political party in order determine the candidate who will represent it in national or lower-level elections [i] . The use of negative campaigning in the context of party or semi-open primaries may help to distinguish between politicians running on very similar ideological platforms.  If an aspiring president’s ideological allies can be dissuaded from voting for him, based on his past actions or associations, it will be extremely easy to convince undecided voters to do the same.  By identifying politicians who are difficult to assail on an ad hominem basis, and by identifying politicians who can remain composed and professional when subjected to such attacks, political parties are able to field significantly stronger candidates in open elections. Voters then carry out similar assessments of character and integrity in the polling booth.  [i] “Clinton Questions Role of Obama in a Crisis”. The New York Times, 01 March 2008.

It is perfectly easy to rule on what is positive and negative. It is true that some positive broadcasts might be meant to play up the strengths of one candidate, precisely because that’s where his opponent is weakest – but that approach still represents an improvement on the current situation, where the majority of campaign media focuses on the flaw of a candidate’s rivals.  Subjectivity has no role to play in the verification of objective facts. Currently, many campaign adverts are based around misrepresenting the content of an opposition candidate’s policies, or making far-fetched connections between negative social or economic trends and bills that a particular candidate voted in favour of.  Questioning the objective distance of the body that would enforce the rules created by the resolution is also ineffective. Judges are appointed based on their ability to analyse and sift complicated arguments based on disputed or compromised sets of facts. There is no reason to assume that similar principles of neutrality and respect for the separation of powers within a democratic state would not also apply to reformed election laws

No doubt Daesh does have long term territorial plans, but in practice Daesh is currently stuck in Iraq and Syria unable to conquer either. Yes Daesh being territorial makes it very unusual for a terrorist organisation. However this also provides a fixed target to defeat, and that defeat can be on foreign soil.  Daesh has a long shot chance of tearing up the borders of the Middle East. However as these borders have long been criticised as illogical and contrived this would not necessarily undermine the state system in the Middle East, it may even benefit from more cohesive populations with national boundaries. [1]  [1] Trofimov, Yaroslav, ‘Would new borders mean less conflict in the Middle East?’, WSJ, 10 April 2015,

The territory claimed by Daesh extends to Europe  Daesh territory currently spreads across parts of Syria and Iraq. It is this transnationalism that makes it a dangerous opponent. It is not just a threat to one state but to every state in the Middle East and North Africa. Daesh claims to be a Caliphate which means it claims leadership over the entire Muslim community. Such a claim would inevitably include European countries such as Bosnia and Albania where there are Muslim majorities. The Caliphate’s legitimacy is tied to its territorial expansion. [1]  A threat to the territorial states system within the Middle East, let alone Europe, is a significant threat to the west who created that system. The deconstruction of the states of the Middle East would destroy western allies, give an extreme organisation immense oil wealth from the Gulf, and likely make Israel an untenable outpost.  [1] Vick, Karl, ‘As ISIS Grows Its Territory, It Becomes Increasingly Dangerous’, Time, 15 June 2015,

Daesh ideology and the possibility of terrorist attacks resulting from it is undeniably a problem. However the flow of fighters is mostly the other way; from Europe to Syria and Iraq, five to six thousand have made this journey. [1] It might therefore be said that Daesh is importing terrorism from the west rather than exporting it. We have no way of knowing how many terrorist attacks these fighters may have committed had they stayed in their home countries.  [1] Reuters, ‘Islamic State smuggling terrorists among the migrants? Unlikely, say experts’, EurActive.com, 28 August 2015,

Deash has a compelling ideology  Daesh has an ideology that is a threat to western states, particularly those with Muslim minorities. Although Daesh’s ideology might seem incompatible with west the west an ICM poll found in 2014 that 16% of French citizens have a positive opinion of Daesh. [1] This means that western countries face an ideological clash within their own populations. A majority dislikes and fears Daesh and its ideology while a minority supports them despite their violence. Such a split reduces community cohesion and will likely breed distrust of Muslim populations (even of those who don’t have positive views of Daesh). [2]  [1] Grant, Madeline, ‘16% of French Citizens Support ISIS, Poll finds’, newsweek, 26 August 2014,   [2] Hundal, Sunny, ‘The real threat from the Islamic State is to Muslims, not the west’, AlJazeera, 26 August 2014,

Daesh may have an ideology that is compelling to some people, but that number is comparatively tiny, nothing like the millions that were attracted to western ideology during the cold war. Daesh needs a population to consider itself a success and yet the population of Syria have voted with their feet [1] – they have fled to neighbouring countries not IS controlled areas. The United Nations has almost 4.3million registered refugees, [2] when the 7.6million internally displaced are included the numbers are far higher yet these people are not flooding into IS controlled areas. [3]  [1] Sky, Emma, ‘Standing idly by while the Middle East unravels is not an option’, The Guardian, 26 November 2015,   [2] ‘Registered Syrian Refugees’ Syria Regional Refugee Response, updated 17th November 2015,   [3] ‘Syria IDP Figures Analysis’, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, July 2015,

Daesh and the Syrian civil war is nurture terrorism for export  Daesh is a terrorist organisation. [1] There are large numbers of people within Europe who support Islamic State and Europeans travelling to fight for Daesh is an ongoing problem; more than 700 from the UK alone. [2] There is therefore concern about these people coming back and mounting terrorist attacks, as appears to have been the case with three of those involved in the 2015 Paris attacks; Omar Ismail Mostefai, Bilal Hadfi, and Samy Amimour. [3]  [1] Bureau of Counterterrorism, ‘Foreign Terrorist Organizations’, U.S. Department of State, accessed 1 September 2015,   [2] BBC News, ‘Who are Britain’s jihadists?’, 25 June 2015,   [3] Farmer, Ben, ‘Who were the terrorists? Everything we know about the Isil attackers so far’, The Telegraph, 20th November 2015,

Distance does not matter in today’s world. Refugees from Syria are pouring in to Greece but also enter the EU much further afield through Hungary or Italy. Ideology has its influence regardless of distance meaning resulting terrorist attacks are as likely to happen in Paris as Nicosia and are as likely to be by those who have grown up in western Europe as those arriving from Syria itself. Thinking that distance insulates us from the threat posed by Daesh is as wrong as the belief that what a state does matters only inside its borders.

There may be threats that can cause much greater damage than Daesh but these are neither immediate nor very likely. Nuclear war is undoubtedly a massive threat, but we succeeded in getting through 45 years of cold war without these weapons being used so the probability of the threat happening is low. Climate Change on the other hand is less a security issue than an environmental, economic, and societal one. Daesh on the other hand has already struck at western states with the Paris attacks, and has sucked large numbers of western citizens into a war against their own countries in Syria and Iraq. The threat from Daesh is therefore immediate, almost certain, and large.

Daesh has little impact outside the Middle East  The main threat from Daesh is to Muslims, and to those who live in and around the areas it controls. The main goal of Islamic state is to set up an Islamic caliphate and that means the primary enemy is the existing states of the Middle East. Those who support those states, and other ‘apostates’ such as Shia Muslims are also threatened by IS but this very focus means that western states have less to worry about when considering their own national security. [1] Daesh’s priority quite simply lies within Syria and Iraq not in launching attacks against western states. It is undeniable that the threat of IS attacks exists, and Daesh has struck back against states, France and Russia, that have been fighting it but unlike with 9/11 western intervention caused the terrorist response rather than the other way around.  [1] Hundal, Sunny, ‘The real threat from the Islamic State is to Muslims, not the west’, AlJazeera, 26 August 2014,

The west is insulated by distance from Daesh  All western countries are insulated by distance from Islamic State. The closest western countries are Greece and Cyprus which is as close as the EU comes to Syria. But both are separated from Syria by the Mediterranean Sea. If Daesh were truly considered a threat of the kind that requires harsh national security responses then Europe could close its borders to the South and East – its borders with Turkey in particular. This has however not happened because the risk of terrorists (re-)entering Europe is not considered great enough to warrant such a response.

There are other larger threats.  Terrorism by Daesh is undoubtedly a threat to the West. It is however a minor one. The largest security concern should still be the small chance of complete destruction by nuclear weapons. Tensions with Russia make this more likely than at any time since the gold war. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ doomsday clock is set at 3 minutes to midnight in 1015 – it was last 3 minutes to midnight in 1984 at the height of the cold war before Gorbachev gained power in the USSR. [1]  Disasters are increasingly seen as an issue of national security and Climate Change is quite possibly an even greater threat as a result of the certainly of considerable warming and the resulting disasters it is likely to bring; by 2045 the Union of Concerned Scientists say that cities such as Atlantic City could face tidal flooding more than 180 times a year resulting in costly damage. [2]  [1] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, ‘Timeline’,   [2] Union of Concerned Scientists, ‘Encroaching Tides (2014)’,

While Daesh may be focused on its war at home it is trying to attack those it is fighting where they are vulnerable. This is illustrated by the bombing of a Russian Metrojet Airliner leaving Sharm el-Sheikh which killed 224 by a Daesh affiliate [1] not long after Russia began bombing the Syrian rebels, and Daesh, in Syria. Such an incident may take place in the Middle East but undoubtedly affects those outside of the region. Daesh’s reach has however extended to the west with the 13th November attacks in Paris which resulted in 130 deaths across the city.  [1] AlJazeera, ‘Russia says plane in Egypt's Sinai brought down by bomb’, 17th November 2015,

A national primary would disenfranchise large portions of the country, as candidates would be forced to court the support of only the most populous states as they currently do in the general election. At least with the primary system as it stands, candidates have to pay attention to all of the states and all sections within the party.  Staggered primaries create a relationship of interdependence between the nomination campaigns that are run in various states. A poor showing in one state can undermine a candidate’s attempts to make gains in the following state. American political culture is much more fragmentary and heterogonous than European conceptions of the Union might lead us to believe. Each state is sufficiently large that what may seem to be a parochial “local” issue within the context of the entire Union may be of vital importance to a particular state’s voters. The protection and promotion of the politically and cultural plural nature of the states of the Union is a key aspect of the American democratic ideal. It is appropriate, therefore, that blunders in one state’s primary campaign should be open to analysis by the citizens of other states. If a president does not have a commanding understanding of the issues affecting one state, he may be unable to make effective decisions on the rights and affairs of other states.  It is also worth noting that a single national primary would also be likely to disenfranchise those who do not closely and continuously involve themselves in the political process. Staggered primaries lead major national news services to focus on the local-level issues that may affect turnout and voting in individual states. Staggered primaries allows for reflection on these regional issues. Coverage of this type brings local controversies onto the national stage and fosters cohesion and understanding between the constituent states of one of the largest federal republics in the world. However, a one off election would just deliver national totals and even where this is broken down on a state-by-state basis, there will be much less of an understanding of why certain states supported certain candidates. Only political obsessives will are likely to expend time and effort contextualising and understanding this data; the majority of the population will be less informed than under the status quo.

The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations  The minority populations of both of the early states are relatively low, and this can impact on the outcome of their primaries. Minority populations- such as African and Latino Americans- and migrants who have been granted citizenship will approach the issues at the heart of a presidential campaign from a different perspective. Due to high levels of social and financial deprivation among minority populations throughout the US, African Americans are likely to vote in a way that reflects concern about laws and policies that regulate access to educational subsidies and state supported health care. Latino voters may have strong familial ties with south American nation states. Correspondingly, candidates’ positions on cross border trade and the enforcement of immigration laws are likely to influence the voting decisions of Latino Americans [i] .  There have been a number of solutions proposed to this, including the rotation of first primaries around the country. However, all this does is replicate the problem in new and imaginative ways; every state will have its own demographic abnormalities. Questions of educational aspiration and social mobility among black voters in South Carolina cannot be compared to the debates surrounding community integration and immigration in Arizona.  The only way to take a vote that is representative of the nation as a whole is to ballot the nation as a whole. Internationally the model followed is for selection of a candidate by postal ballot, demonstrating that mature democracies are entirely capable of selecting national candidates without such a protracted process.  The whole purpose of the resolution is to eliminate or control for statistical and demographic inequalities that may give certain candidates an advantage unrelated to the popularity of their policies. A national primary would apply this principle but within the context of the American model of party affiliation.  [i] Kopicki, Allison, 'Iowa and New Hampshire Stand Apart', The Caucus, The New York Times, 7 December 2011

A lengthy primary campaign gives candidates time to test each other on a whole range of issues. Voters, in turn, make their decisions based on a balance of candidates’ strengths and weaknesses. Voters can do this because they have had the time to get to know the candidates well, to become familiar with their policies and positions on various issues and to analyse their professional or political backgrounds.  Admittedly the experience of getting to know- and be known by- the country is an expensive one. However, Barack Obama’s reliance on small, personal donations demonstrates that this situation need not benefit any particular sectional interest.  Side opposition contend that Obama’s grass roots funding model provides a viable alternative to reliance on large donation from powerful donors. Moreover, it also serves to expand and foster public engagement in the political process.  There is also little reason to suspect that the resolution would do much to reduce expenditure on campaigns. Indeed, eliminating state-level campaigning may simply mean that candidates are forced to become more reliant on communications delivered via national media, which is both more expensive and provides fewer opportunities to address state-level issues.  Finally, it should also be noted that spending in primary campaigns is already subject to a significant external control. The need to fund a full presidential election campaign will always serve to limit and moderate candidate’s ambitions, and to impose a degree of equality between wealthier candidates and those who are more reliant on grass-roots support.

The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states  As most primaries only serve to decide the number of delegates who will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at a party’s national convention, a presidential hopeful will be able to ignore contests later in the election cycle if he has already secured a majority of delegates. The staggered nature of primaries under the status quo allows candidates to determine when their lead has become unassailable. As a consequence, candidates will refrain from mounting campaigns in states that poll later in the election cycle. The later a state votes, the less chance it has of influencing the size of a candidate’s majority.  In 2000 and 2004, by the time New York – the third most populous state in the union – voted, both main parties had, in effect, selected their candidate. If that isn’t the perfect example of an undemocratic system, then it would be difficult to think of what might be.  The current system discriminates against lesser known candidates who are already at a disadvantage. The advantage of running all primaries during a single day in February is that it would allow lesser known candidates the time to introduce themselves to the nation. A promising but little known candidate can easily be taken out of contention during the Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina primaries. Running a single primary in February or March would give unknown candidates a full three months to mount their own media campaigns and to build up the press contacts and public profile that established candidates already enjoy. A single primary election would also do a great deal to help with a more even distribution of donations between the candidates.  The primaries effectively function as part of the general election campaign; they are certainly central to selecting the two people from whom the eventual winner will emerge. It is therefore damaging and deceptive to continue to treat them as a purely party-political issue that has no relevance for voters who are not closely involved with the republican and democrat campaign machines.  A final argument concerns the role of political capital and states’ influence over candidates’ activities. Campaigning compels candidates to offer party members and voters in states incentives in return for their endorsement. These may take the form of pledges to address local issues, to provide funding to public projects or to pursue policies at a national level that are beneficial to certain states. However, states that are excluded from the primary process when a candidate secures a majority of delegates will be unable to win promises or concessions from a presidential hopeful. This creates inequalities in the ability of individual states to influence federal policy and governance, reducing the cohesiveness of the union as a whole.

The primaries are simply the device by which parties select their candidates. They are part of the internal affairs of America’s independent political organisations and do not require the legitimacy of the election itself.  Moving everything to one day could end up exacerbating the problems of inclusiveness and democratic deficit identified by side proposition, as the campaigns and messages of smaller candidates would be drowned out by larger, wealthier rivals and those with pre-existing contacts in the news media. Further, under the system that the resolution would bring about, donors are more likely to provide funding to ‘safe’ candidates.  However, with a protracted campaign it is possible for a surprise result to emerge, as has happened on several occasions – for example when incumbents have failed to win key states. Relatively unknown candidates can take advantage of the extended duration of the current primary system to build a public profile and to court the attention of the media. This allows “outsiders” and individuals with a significant political reputation, but no public profile, to establish themselves within popular discourse and to begin building a relationship with swing voters.  Staggered primaries also minimize the power of the central parties. A national primary would turn campaigns into entirely national events, run by the national party conventions, marginalising the role of the states and focussing on the large cities, rather than the diffuse populations of rural states.

The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns  Immense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible.  A single national primary would both reduce costs and provide for a clearer result. Moreover, a single national primary would compel candidates to mount campaigns based around positive policy statements and direct involvement in issues local to states. The role of attack campaigning- aimed at undermining opponents with an early lead- would be de-emphasised. To give these practical benefits some context we should consider the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination. By the end of primary season, Obama and Clinton between them had raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Obama won on paper, but the campaign had been dominated by the differing perspectives of two figures who would go on to be President and Secretary of State. It can hardly be in the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State thinks the President lacks the experience to receive a late night phone call concerning an international crisis.

The current arrangement means that a handful of small states have a massively disproportionate impact on the primary campaigns. A genuinely national primary would even that out. Grassroots campaigns would also have a reasonable basis for operating on the national stage right up to the event.  Stretching the process out ultimately play to the biggest pockets. Unless grassroots candidates get an extraordinary result early, they’re knocked out. Trying to fight their way through several, effectively national campaigns, means that they only really have one chance at the moment.  It’s only sensible to make that fact reality with a structure that means all candidates are in an all or nothing race rather than a financial endurance test.

Respecting the interests of the majority in making a decision about a candidate to represent them in a national election is not the worst idea in the world. Equally, the state parties would need to be involved as they play a central role in the general election and it is in the interest of candidates to work with them from the start.  As things stand at the moment many of the larger states are actually disenfranchised by the same process that allows state parties to portray their role in the primary as valuable and significant. There can be no approach to the current primary election “narrative” that allows the individual states to exert a proportionately fair amount of influence over the other states’ choice of nominee.  Candidates with deep pockets – either their own or somebody else’s - can survive early setbacks. but it means that many candidates who do not win support in the first few states can be ruled out by the end of January. By the time Nebraska comes to make their decision in the middle of May, the issue may long since have been decided.

Primaries encourage organisation and activity at a local level  The primaries as they stand make an important statement not only about party structure, but also about national identity – a federation of states each with a full right to their time in the sun.  This is not misty-eyed nostalgia, but a simple reflection of the realities of the constitution. The balance of the rights of states, as well as a respect for the views of the majority, is reflected in the process of an extended primary campaign that assumes all states to be equal. A final decision made at a national convention acknowledges that the views of the different and distinct populations of the states of the union have been weighed against each other.  The current structure of presidential primaries ensures that the separate states of the Union are fully engaged in the selection process, irrespective of the balance of political power or the nature of that state’s political culture. The status quo gives an invaluable opportunity to, say, Texan Democrats or Republicans in Vermont to have a meaningful say in the overall outcome [d1] of the election. Even though Texas consistently supports republican candidates and Vermont Democrat, members of the minority party in both states are able to pass judgment on the candidates they consider would best serve their interests if elected. The results encourage activism and engagement at a local level and are, ultimately, good for democracy.

Iowa and New Hampshire are ideally placed to start the primary process, specifically because they are relatively small  Iowa and New Hampshire are the perfect states to kick off the primary season. It ensures that the opening focus of the campaigns is outside the usual media centers of New York, D.C. and California. This serves to remind political commentators and others that there is an entire country out there.  Equally, because they are relatively small states, campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire allow candidates to set out their positions with greater clarity, in contests that popular consensus regard as highly significant, but which are also small enough not to threaten a nomination bid if lost. Put another way, the wealthy and homogenous nature of New Hampshire and Iowa allows candidate’s campaigning there to focus on making broader statements about the policies and normative projects that they will implement on a national level. Candidates can position themselves, ideologically and politically, without becoming mired in local-level issues or demographic controversies.  Iowa and New Hampshire function as political laboratories – isolated, controlled and equipped to allow close examination of candidates’ fundamental values and proficiencies.  It also gives grassroots candidates a chance to raise their profile and some funds before the costs of contesting the larger states become prohibitive.  Attempts by larger states, notably Florida [i] , to move their primaries forward have been opposed by both parties and many activists.  [i] Patrick O’Connor. Early Florida Primary Would Scramble 2012 Calendar. Wall Street Journal. September 29 2011.

States’ rights  Quite apart from the politically controversial contents of the phrase, states’ rights describes a vital and highly relevant aspect of the relationship between the individual states of the Union and the central government.  The powers held by the federal government to control and trammel the conduct of the states of the union, and to act on their behalf on issues of foreign policy is to be contrasted with states’ freedom to produce their own laws and legislation on certain issues. The debate on the areas of civil life in which a state retains authority to formulate its own laws, without interference by the federal government, remains controversial, but it can be useful in clarifying the nature of the federal bond that holds the states of the Union together.  Political culture in the United States is characterised, not only by a patriotic attachment to the idea of the federal republic, but also to the states that individual citizens inhabit. As noted above, the cultural, religious and economic tropes of each state are highly distinctive. This attachment extends to party politics as well. Political parties within the US are based much more on a consensual, community driven interpretation of political dialog than European parties. Although fund raising and promotion activities of both the Republican and Democratic parties is organised by a central committee, these committees have little influence over the policy goals and ideological position of individual candidates.  Political parties in each state view the process of electing a president from a deeply local perspective. The legitimacy and popularity of state primaries is largely a function of each primary’s position within the wider narrative of American politics.

Ultimately the primary campaigns, at least for the main parties, are national campaigns. As a result of more frequent and more intensive media coverage- even during early primaries- candidates have to speak to national issues. Furthermore, Super Tuesday is basically a national primary already, it just happens to exclude some of the states.  The early primaries simply work to filter out candidates attempting to use the presidential election to promote a single, poorly developed set of maverick views in front of a much larger audience than they would otherwise have access to.  Only in the event of very close races are the later states left with any meaningful decisions. It would be far more useful to admit that reality and simply hold all national primaries in early February. Contests would still be organised by the state parties (in conjunction with the state authorities where required) and states would still record their vote separately.

Women can carry out many of these tasks without serving in combat roles in the army.  For example, female medical staff or female military police can be sent to give medical assistance or conduct bodily searches. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, female U.S. military police officers have searched local women for explosives. [1]  If female soldiers are perceived as less threatening than male soldiers, there could potentially be worrying side effects such as a reduction in the deterrent effect of the military presence in an L.I.C.  [1] Schult, Marie, ‘Female Soldiers Assist with Cultural Sensitivities’, Defend America, March 2003.

Some combat roles are better suited to women than men  Modern warfare involves many L.I.C.s, where the battleground is as much “hearts and minds” as it is physical combat. In a conflict where hearts and minds are important delicate handling of local people is required in order gain their support. In L.I.C.s, women are often better suited to intelligence gathering, medical assistance, policing and mediation than men. They are often perceived as less threatening and more understanding. [1] In addition, they would be better placed to deal with women in the local population.  For example, the job of many of the female U.S. marines killed and injured in June 2005 in Iraq was to search women for explosives at checkpoints to avoid the near-universal sense of humiliation engendered by a member of the opposite sex conducting an intimate bodily search. [2]  [1] DeGroot, Gerard J., ‘Women as Peacekeepers’, Toronto Star, 25 July 1999.  [2] Reuters, ‘The Female Fallen’, PTSD Support, Accessed June 2nd, 2011.

There is no immediate pressing need for an increased pool of recruits for the army in developed countries. The late-2000s recession has led to an increase in military recruitment; particularly in the U.S. [1] This is as a result of there being many more people searching for work which makes the military a relatively more attractive career.  The number of recruits and their talent pool can also be increased in other ways. For example military service can be better promoted and greater incentives to enlist can be offered.  For example, educational funding provided to U.S. army veterans under the post-9/11 G.I. bill is a major incentive which has increased recruit numbers in recent decades. [2]  [1] Bender, Bryan, ‘Down economy boosts military’, The Boston Globe, 1 March 2009.  [2] ‘G.I. Bill’, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Accessed June 2nd, 2011

There should be equality between men and women.  There is a fundamental principle that men and women should be considered equal in all walks of life; and as such should both have an equal role in the military, including being in combat.  Not allowing combat roles for women has an unfortunate side effect of increasing inequality in terms of ranks. Combat duty is necessary or highly beneficial for promotion to senior officer positions in many armies. [1] If women cannot serve in combat, very few will ever reach the highest ranks of the military; this creates a glass ceiling that will be very hard to break without this change to allowing women to serve in combat. Women have to be given the same opportunities as men, in the army in order to have the same opportunities they have to be exposed to the same risks.  [1] Jones, Melissa, ‘Combat Women’, iVillage.co.uk.  Powers, Rod, ‘What the Recruiter Never Told You’, About.com guide, Accessed June 2nd, 2011

Differences in physical strength can be overcome  Militaries can use ‘gender-blind’ recruitment and training processes, treating all candidates the same regardless of gender. This is 100% fair and some women will certainly succeed in entering combatant roles and will prove themselves the equal or better than the men. For example, several Soviet women have distinguished themselves as snipers and combat aviators. [1]  Alternatively, militaries can calibrate recruitment and training to suit female candidates. There is a precedent for this in the U.S. military’s A.P.F.T. (army physical fitness test), which has variations for age. [2] If the test standards can be lowered for older men, they can also be lowered for women.  In the modern high technology battlefield, technical expertise and decision-making skills are often more valuable than physical strength.  For example, in the American army, performance targets are regularly calibrated for age and position. [3] A forty year-old senior N.C.O. (non-commissioned officer), faces a much easier set of targets than his 20 year-old subordinate, yet both are deployed in an active combat role.  [1] ‘Women in the Russian and Soviet Military’, Wikipedia, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011  [2] Casey L., ‘Women in Combat’, 1997, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011  [3] Powers, Rod, ‘Physical Fitness Test’, about.com guide, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011

If we use ‘gender-blind’ recruitment and training, some women will be able to meet the required standards, but most will not. The small number of suitable female candidates set against the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integrating them, mean that integration is not worthwhile.  For example, one test of American army officer candidates showed that "only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard achieved by 60 out of 100 men” [1]  Some roles such as those of sniper and combat aviator clearly require less physical strength than most active combat roles. Many tasks that combat soldiers must accomplish require high muscle density, which women do not naturally possess. [2] Examples would include carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain.  Older and more senior soldiers make up for their reduced physical strength with an increased amount of experience. The same cannot be said for new female recruits.  [1] Gerber, Bradley, ‘Women in the Military and Combat’, Family Problems and Social Change, 1998, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011  [2] ‘Israeli women won’t see combat’, WND, 20 October 2003.

This does not mean that women should have to serve in combat. The alternative is that it is possible to change the promotion policies in armies to give women a fair chance at career advancement. Men and women are both given opportunities to join the army, but with the understanding that different roles require different physical, emotional attributes. This should mean in turn that there are multiple routes to promotion so that women have equal opportunities without having to fight take part in combat operations.

There are many conflicts which are not L.I.C.s.  Recent combat operations have had historically very low casualty rates, the wars that the United States has been fighting have been operations where the United States had vast technological superiority. There is no guarantee that this will always be the case, a conflict between nations with comparatively equal militaries would still have much more bloody combat operations.

Allowing women to serve in combat increases the pool for recruits  Volunteer military forces face low recruitment and retention rates as a result of it being a tough and stressful job where workers cannot work for as long as they do in many civilian jobs. [1] Injuries and trauma caused by fighting also add to the turnover rate of soldiers. As a result it is necessary to widen the applicant pool in order to be able to ensure there are more candidates for the army.  Allowing women to serve in combat effectively doubles the possible talent pool available for the military to recruit for delicate and sensitive jobs which require interpersonal skills that not every soldier possesses. The result will be better and more diplomatic soldiers who will be particularly useful in L.I.C.s. [2]  [1] Cogan, James, ‘US military recruitment crisis deepens’, World Socialist Web Site, 1 June 2005.  [2] DeGroot, Gerard J., ‘Women as Peacekeepers’, Toronto Star, 25 July 1999.

All modern military roles are combatant anyway  Many modern conflicts are L.I.C.s which involve terrorist groups using guerilla tactics. In these situations, there are no clear ‘front-lines’, and no clear difference between combatant and non-combatant roles. All women serving in the military are exposed to “front-line risks”. [1] Attacks on soldiers are as likely to occur on the military’s bases themselves as they are when the soldiers are out on patrol.  For example, in late June of 2005 in Iraq, two women marines were killed and about a dozen injured in a pair of suicide attacks. [2] That frontline combat operations are not always much more dangerous than other roles can be shown by the casualties in Iraq comparing the initial invasion and reconstruction phases. The United States lost very few casualties in the invasion phase of the war up to President Bush’s declaration of victory on 1 May 2003 with only 138 dead, [3] compared to an overall death toll of 4422. [4] If men and women are already in practice facing the same risks and as women and men are equal, there should be equality when it comes to being considered being in frontline combat service.  [1] Clark-Flory, Tracy, ‘Should women fight on the front lines?’, Salon, 5 November 2010.  [2] Glanz, James, et al., ‘Iraq Bombing Kills 4 U.S. Women, a Record Toll’, The New York Times, 25 June 2005.  [3] ‘U.S. Casualties in Iraq’, GlobalSecurity.org.  [4] ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) U.S. Casualty Status Fatalities As Of: July 24 2012’, Department of Defense.

Male soldiers generally take just as much time off as female soldiers, in large part due to their greater alcohol and drug use. [1]  Of course this problem can be easily anticipated. Statistics on the number or female soldiers not available for call-up due to pregnancy can be used to factor in the phenomenon so that the military has enough personnel to deploy at any one time. This is already done for male soldiers not available for call-up due to injury. [2] Moreover this should not even be considered as not all women can or want to have children. In western states, it is more common for women to become career women and leave having children to later on in life; this would just as likely be the case with women in the military.  Women, who choose to become active combat soldiers, are unlikely to shirk their duty by becoming pregnant after a call-up as these women have willingly joined the army.  [1] ‘Sexes: The Military Is Pregnant’, Time, 8 October 1979.  [2] ibid

Clearly, training will be required to facilitate the integration of women into combat units. Cultures change over time and the masculine subculture can evolve too. Many previously masculine professions have been successfully opened to women over the past century – some of them, such as working in factories and many other roles as a result of war.  People involved in combat will attempt to protect each other, this is natural, and sometimes this kind of act is foolish. But this is something that already happens, involving women in the combat role will not make much difference. In addition, men can be informed that acting foolishly to protect women is unacceptable and reprimanded just as any soldier acting foolishly for any other reason would be. Soldiers can be taught what constitutes sexual harassment and abuse and how to react if they witness it or are victimized. Armies already take such incidents seriously and disciplinary procedures can be put in place to deal with any increases in such incidents in the short term as a result of the change.  There would be no difference in uniform or in how males and females would be treated, other than the different physical practice tasks, in order to encourage integration. The change to incorporating women in combat unites would mean that men and women would be given the same treatment so that they would come see each other as equal members of the military.

There is a relatively higher female Injury rate  If militaries use gender-blind recruitment and training, women will suffer a high rate of injury as a result of physical differences. The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, and women attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves. For example, when the U.K. military began using gender-blind training in the 1990s, the rate of medical discharge of female recruits jumped from 4.6% to 11.1%. [1]  In addition, regardless of recruitment and training standards, combat units engage in activities designed to suit men’s capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer higher injury rates as a result of this. For example, armies march according to the male stride length of 45 cm, rather than the shorter female stride length of 38 cm. Women marching at the male pace are therefore at increased risk of stress fractures in pubic bones. [2]  [1] Gemmell, Ian M. M., ‘Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation’, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, Vol.95, No.1, January 2002, pp.23-27.  [2] ibid

Battlefield Rape is a concern  A prevalent theme in many nationalist conflicts is both sides attempting to extinguish the bloodlines of the enemy culture. This ethnic cleansing often leads to systematic rape of women and mass murder of men. For example, in the Bosnian Wars of the early 1990s, systematic rape was carried out against all ethnic groups, but particular by ethnic Serbs against Bosnian Muslims. [1]  This could present a problem in the modern interventionist or peace-keeping activities of many military forces, third party combatants are often sent to the battlefields of conflicts that involve just this kind of ethnic cleansing. While it is unlikely that anything will happen to peacekeeping units if one side does turn on the peacekeepers it is likely that female soldiers will be treated the same as women from the enemy side if the rape mentality has been set in the minds of the soldiers.  [1] Osborn, Andrew, ‘Mass rape ruled a war crime’, The Guardian, 23 February 2001.

Female P.O.W.s (prisoners of war) are a liability  In wars, soldiers are often captured and become P.O.W.s. Male P.O.W.s are sometimes tortured or raped. Many societies around the world value women less than men. This misogyny may make female soldiers more likely to be tortured or in particular raped than male soldiers if they are captured. [1] At the same time this threat or reality may lead male soldiers, captured alongside female soldiers, to crack more easily under interrogation. [2]  Female P.O.W.s are also more likely than male P.O.W.s to be used in propaganda campaigns at home. This may have an effect on the nation’s commitment to the war effort. For example, the story of Jessica Lynch, an American marine captured in Iraq, was widely reported in the American media, affecting national morale. The media paid little attention to the male soldiers captured at the same time. [3]  [1] Cook, Gretchen, ‘POWs likely to endure sexual assault’, Women’s Enews, 2002.  ‘Women in Combat Frequently Asked Questions’, Center for Military Readiness, 22 November 2004.  [2] Brown, Steve, ‘Female POWs Spark Calls to Reassess Military Role for Women’, CNSNews, 4 April 2003, Accessed June 3rd, 2011  [3] Lynne, Diana, ‘Spin behind Jessica Lynch story?’, WND, 6 May 2003.

Pregnancy affects military readiness  Women who become pregnant are not available to be deployed into warzones. This reduces military readiness. Additionally, pregnancy means that women need to take time off work, which can have worse effects in military units than any other workplace. [1] This effect has been observed in army and navy forces in the past. An increased number of women in the military would make the problem worse. [2] In 1985 up to 10% of active duty women personnel in the US armed forces were unavailable for call-up and duty due to pregnancy. [3]  Pregnancy could potentially be a means of avoiding call-up. This is likely with national guard soldiers, who are usually permanently stationed at home and often build lives and families there, not expecting to be deployed abroad. This tactic was used during the Vietnam war by some men. In 1965, the decision to expand the military draft to include married men without children was made. [4]  [1] ‘Sexes: The Military Is Pregnant’, Time, 8 October 1979.  [2] Harrell, Margaret C., and Miller, Laura L., ‘New Opportunities for Military Women’, RAND, 1997.  [3] UPI, ‘10% of Army Women Pregnant at Any Time’, The New York Times, 7 July 1985.  [4] Seelye, Katharine Q., ‘Cheney’s Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign Issue’, The New York Times, 1 May 2004.

No woman will be working by herself. Military units work together, and if a woman were, for example, on patrol by herself, she is armed and can legitimately defend herself against an attacker.  In fact, women are a better presence in situations where rape is being used as a weapon of war. Local women are not going to trust male soldiers so easily as women, because one man in a camouflage uniform looks much like another. If a woman has been raped, or seen/heard about someone from their neighborhood being raped by an armed militia, or by the army, that woman is in a state of fear already. She will not be able to distinguish between soldiers in her panic. However, a female soldier is not going to rape the local women. This means there is a greater bond of trust between the two parties and they can work together in things like delivering aid, rebuilding infrastructure post-conflict. Local women will also feel more comfortable to come forward to report a crime of rape to another woman, than she would to a man. [1]  [1] Carvajal, Doreen, ‘A Female Approach to Peacekeeping’, The New York Times, 5 March 2010.

Integrating women into male combat units can cause men to behave badly  Many men who join the army maintain traditional gender roles. This may lead them to act foolishly to protect women in their combat units, endangering themselves and everyone else in the unit. In a recent review on the possible introduction of mixed-gender combat units, the British Ministry of Defense cited this as an issue. [1]  At the same time, the sudden presence of women in a masculine subculture, can lead to resentment and incidents of abuse. Sexual harassment and assault may become more prevalent. Any bad male behavior will create tensions, affect morale and weaken the military.  For example, at the three US service academies, one in seven women report being sexually assaulted, and half have been sexually harassed. [2] Integrating into combat unites is not likely to help these statistics.  [1] Norton-Taylor, Richard, ‘Women still banned from combat roles after Ministry of Defence review’, guardian.co.uk, 29 November 2010.  [2] ‘One in Seven Attending Military Academies Report Being Sexually Assaulted’, Feminist Majority Foundation, 21 March 2005.

The treatment of P.O.W.s is influenced by many factors, including their captor nation’s adherence to the Geneva Convention, discipline within the ranks of their captor army, whether the P.O.W. is expected to possess useful information and whether the captor army is concerned with their public image. The gender of the P.O.W. is likely to have a very small influence compared to these other factors. Upon entering the army, each applicant, male or female are aware of the risks and the possibility of being captured, even if that possibility is small, and are aware of what may occur while in captivity. By deciding to join, each person therefore agrees to understanding these risks and thus making a statement of acceptance.  Stories of P.O.W.s are compelling. They are likely to be used in propaganda campaigns whether or not female soldiers are involved. Had Jessica Lynch not been captured, the male soldiers probably would have been at the center of a similar campaign.

It is possible to calibrate recruitment and training standards to women. Extra pre-training for muscle building can also be used to reduce female injury rates. [1] As for the increase of females being discharged in the 1990’s, it is obvious that with an increase of people, the amount of those injured with also proportionally rise, whether male or female.  In order to accommodate to more females in the military, rather than integrating women into male combat units, all-female combat units could be created. These would engage in activities designed to suit women’s capabilities.  [1] Gemmell, Ian M. M., ‘Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation’, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, Vol.95, No.1, January 2002, pp.23-27.

Peace talks starting just 18 months before all NATO forces have left is clearly leaving it too late to ensure success. There will be little to persuade the Taliban to compromise as they believe their situation is only going to get better when there is no fear of military defeats. The Taliban has walked away from talks before and could easily do so again. It is notable that a Taliban spokesman says “There is no ceasefire now. They are attacking us and we are attacking them” which makes the chances of breakdown in the talks high. [1] To make matters worse the Afghan government has only been lukewarm about the talks complaining that allowing the Taliban an office in Doha “gave the Taliban an official identity, something we didn't want” and responded by suspending negotiations with the United States on a security agreement that would determine how many US soldiers stay in the country after the NATO mission has ended. [2]  [1] ‘US to hold direct peace talks with Taliban’, Al Jazeera, 19 June 2013  [2] Shalizi, Hamid, ‘Afghan government irked over U.S. talks with Taliban’, Reuters, 19 June 2013

Negotiations to ensure lasting peace  NATO is also ensuring that peace and security remain in Afghanistan as they draw down by opening up negotiations with the Taliban. Peace can only be assured by bringing together the sides so that almost everyone accepts the status quo and does not want to destroy that status quo through force. United States officials say “We have long said this conflict won't be won on the battlefield” with the deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, adding “The United States will be supporting a process that is fundamentally Afghan-led” meaning that NATO is no longer key to the process. [1] NATO handing over control to the Afghans and eventually withdrawing entirely will make peace more likely to succeed as the Taliban “considerers it its religious and national duty to gain independence from the occupation” with this goal it wants “to support a political and peaceful solution”. [2] Lasting peace is then only possible when NATO leaves.  [1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013  [2] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013

Some elections may be better than no elections but where the west has control there really should have been exemplary elections. The 2009 Presidential elections in particular have been accused of having been riddled with fraud. The election observers from the National Democratic Institute said “polling was marred by widespread fraud” and the opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah pulled out of the run off pointing to there being no measures taken to prevent the fraud recurring. [1] If Afghan elections are so marred by fraud when the US and NATO still have a lot of control over the country how bad will it be when there is no outside check? And if democracy may not survive the transition from NATO control what hope is there for human rights and particularly women’s rights? [2]  [1] National Democratic Institute, ‘The 2009 Presidential and Provincial Council Elections in Afghanistan’, 2010  [2] UN News Centre, ‘Georgette Gagnon: Raising the bar on respect for human rights in Afghanistan’, un.org, 28 May 2013

NATO has brought peace and security  “NATO’s primary objective in Afghanistan is to enable the Afghan authorities to provide effective security across the country and ensure that the country can never again be a safe haven for terrorists.” [1] The invasion of Afghanistan was initially about destroying al-Qaeda and with the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 in Pakistan this objective has been met. There are still efforts to destroy al Qaeda but these have mostly moved out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan and other countries such as Yemen.  NATO has also brought Afghanistan to the point where the Afghani’s can look after themselves and exercise their own security. On 18th June Afghanistan took over the lead from NATO on security nationwide having previously been taking control district by district. Handing over security also itself improves security with Afghanis in Kandahar saying “Now that the foreigners are gone, the security situation in the city and in the districts is much better”. [2]  [1] ‘NATO and Afghanistan’, nato.int  [2] Loyn, David, ‘Afghans take nationwide security lead from NATO’, BBC News, 18 June 2013

The conflict clearly is ongoing in Afghanistan; in 2012 there were 245 drone strikes in Afghanistan compared to only 44 in Pakistan and 28 in Yemen. [1] Even if those drones are not being used to attack al Qaeda but instead the Taliban in Afghanistan it is impossible to say that peace and security has been brought to the country.  It is also impossible to say that the handover to Afghan forces shows that the NATO mission has been a success; a handover could occur no matter how peaceful or otherwise the country is. In Vietnam the United States declared victory by signing the Paris Peace Accords and handing over to South Vietnam only for the country to be overrun two years later in the spring of 1975. [2]  [1] Woods, Chris, and Ross, Alice, K., ‘Revealed: US and Britain launched 1,200 drone strikes in recent wars’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 4 December 2012  [2] The Learning Network, ‘April 30, 1975 | Saigon Falls’, The New York Times, 30 April 2012

There are still immense problems with infrastructure in Afghanistan, more roads and railways are needed if large scale investment by China and others is to be made a success. There is little point in huge investment in mines if the product of those mines then can’t be transported out of the country to the markets as a result of either poor infrastructure or security concerns. There are also cases where infrastructure built by the US military has been allowed to deteriorate when handed over to Afghan control; there have been problems maintaining almost half the infrastructure projects built by the US in Laghman province. [1]  [1] Boak, Josh, ‘U.S.-funded infrastructure deteriorates once under Afghan control, report says’, Washington Post, 4 January 2011

Democracy has been brought to Afghanistan  Some of the biggest benefits of the NATO occupation have been through the increase in democracy and human rights. While these were not specific aims of the NATO mission they were among the goals set out by the United Nations. [1] There have been two Presidential elections, one in 2004 the other in 2009, and two parliamentary elections, 2005 and 2010 none have been perfect but it is a clear advance from no elections at all. The most notable human rights increase has been in women’s rights. Under the Taliban Afghanistan strictly limited the activities of women but today 27.3% of the representatives in the Parliament are women (better than in the UK or US) and the first female governor is in office. The literacy rate is still low but they now make up 36.6% of those in primary school up from almost nothing. [2] There have been similar gains in other human rights such as a reduction in the use of corporal punishments such as amputating hands for theft.  [1] Annex III Request to the United Nations by the participants at the UN talks on Afghanistan, S/2001/1154, UNDemocracy.com  [2] Haidari, M. Ashraf, ‘Afghan women as a measure of progress’, The AfPak Channel Foreign Policy, 18 March 2013

Investment in Afghanistan; rebuilding the economy  The ‘rehabilitation’ of Afghanistan’s infrastructure has not been an immense success due to the continuing bombing campaign which inevitably damages infrastructure but there have been big economic benefits from the NATO presence. There have been more than 4,000 schools built and 175,000 teachers trained, although more is needed this is an immense boost to education in Afghanistan. [1] Another benefit of increased stability is a renewal of outside investment, from China in particular. China has been investing billions, Several mining firms have made a $4.4 billion investment in one project; an immense undeveloped copper reserve in Aynak. [2] In total there is more than $20 billion being invested in infrastructure by Afghanistan’s Asian neighbours, as these investments are looking for profit they are clearly believed to be sustainable, by comparison the United States has only funded $1.6billion since 2006. [3]  [1] ‘Afghanistan’, USAID, February 2013  [2] Downs, Erica S., ‘China Buys into Afghanistan’, Brookings, 21 February 2013  [3] Barfield, Thomas, ‘Two Diverging Roads in Afghanistan’, YaleGlobal, 11 January 2013

There will still be aid after NATO leaves and Afghanistan is not simply going to be abandoned as the troops go home. Economic growth since the fall of the Taliban has been spectacular with average growth of 9.1% of GDP since 2009 while it is true that this has been in part fueled by aid there are more sustainable sources of growth in the form of the mineral wealth of Afghanistan which can go to the giant and growing economies of India and China. [1]  [1] Al Jazeera and agencies, ‘Afghanistan’s economy at a glance’, Al Jazeera, 19 February 2012

In a country where the insurgents are more opposed to the foreign occupiers than their nominal opponents in the Afghan government the complete withdrawal of troops will actually be good for peace and security. Yes Afghanistan is still dangerous but the aim is not necessarily to provide security through NATO forces but to train Afghan forces to do it.

The Taliban will likely take over when the NATO forces leave  Even if they are willing to negotiate a peaceful US exit this does not mean the Taliban will not wish to use force when the United States has left. In their statement on peace talks they highlighted “the establishment of an independent Islamic system and true security which is the want and aspiration of the nation.” [1] They also style themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan clearly showing their political goal is regaining power in Afghanistan which would mean overthrowing the democratically elected government. Some Afghan experts such as Gilles Dorronsoro believe that this is what will happen “After 2014, the level of US support for the Afghan regime will be limited and, after a new phase in the civil war, a Taliban victory will likely follow” though this would have the advantage of bringing stability as the Taliban did before the US invasion it would represent a complete failure for the US. [2]  [1] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013  [2] AFP, ‘Afghan govt will collapse and Taliban will rule again, Afghan expert says’, news.com.au, 27 September 2012

An Afghanistan dominated by warlords.  Under the Taliban up to the US invasion Afghanistan was at least united. Today however there is little central control beyond the NATO forces; the Taliban clearly controls some areas but there are also powerful warlords. Appointments are based on nepotism and tribal affiliations not on merit or education and those who were part of the northern alliance that fought on the US side (Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras) are taking advantage of the opportunity of the overthrow of Pashtun dominance in the country to grab power and resources. [1] Already the conflict has an ethnic dimension as almost all of the Taliban is made up of Pashtuns. The Taliban meanwhile believes that the other ethnicities want a partition of the country through a very decentralised federal state. In almost any peace scenario with NATO gone there is a large chance that one faction will walk out setting off a civil war and fragmentation of the country. [2]  [1] Noor, Ahmad, ‘Power Politics of ethnic groups and the future of Afghanistan’, World Security Network, 8 July 2011  [2] Rafiq Arif, ‘The Coming Civil War in Afghanistan’, Foreign Policy, 3 February 2012

NATO has failed to solve Afghanistan’s economic problems  While some progress has been made on the economic and development front in Afghanistan it is difficult to consider it a success. There are still 20% of households who are chronically food insecure and another 18% in need of assistance in some of the year with the result that nearly 40% of children under three are malnourished. [1] Afghanistan is immensely dependent on aid for its economic progress with foreign aid to the country representing 100% of GDP in 2011 which makes the country vulnerable to a change in priorities. Clearly the withdrawal will represent such a change; when NATO goes aid, and spending as a result of the military occupation, will drop at the very least constraining growth and likely taking the Afghan economy with it. [2] Already the International Labour Organisation has been warning that this will mean increasing child labour in the country as lower profit margins force families to use their children to boost incomes. [3]  [1] UNDP Afghanistan, ‘Eradicated Extreme Poverty and Hunger’, United Nations Development Programme, 21 July 2011  [2] ‘The hand that feeds’, The Economist, 14 July 2012  [3] Ferris-Rotman, Amie, ‘Afghan child labor fears grow as aid dries up’, Reuters, 7 February 2012

Afghanistan is still a dangerous place  Peace talks or no peace talks, NATO military leadership of Afghan would all appear to make no difference. Only hours after the Taliban said it would hold peace talks and the United States handed over control of military operations to the Afghan National Army four US soldiers were killed in a mortar attack at Bagram Airbase one of the centres of NATO operations. [1] Clearly then NATO has not brought peace and security to Afghanistan. The effect of handovers to the Afghans have already been seen; August to October of last year saw a 28% spike in killings from the same period the year before at a time when NATO was handing over control implying that the Afghan army is not yet ready to protect civilians. [2]  [1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013  [2] Borger, Julian, ‘Can Afghan troops hold off the Taliban after Nato withdraws?’, The Guardian, 1 January 2013

In a country as rugged as Afghanistan there is always going to have to be a lot of decentralisation and at the moment this means warlords having a lot of power in individual areas. However this is better than the alternative of a centralising Taliban which would still have many factions and elements but these would be much more extreme than today’s warlords. It is also difficult to see how this impacts on the success of NATO in Afghanistan. They can be bad but can also bring benefits as they have an incentive to deliver stability and reconstruction to their local areas. [1]  [1] Milhopadhyay, Dipali, ‘Warlords as Bureaucrats: The Afghan Experience’, Carnegie Papers, Number 101, August 2009

There is little reason to believe that the Taliban will succeed in rapidly forcing the Karzai government out of power. The Taliban has been failing to retake the ground they have lost after offensives by NATO forces so even if the Afghan National Army fails to take more ground it seems unlikely the Taliban will quickly succeed in driving on Kabul. [1] In the unlikely event that the Taliban does begin winning the US and other NATO states are not going to sit back and let the Afghan government fall. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister has said “The clear message is to the Taliban that you can't just wait this out until foreign forces leave in 2014. We will be firm friends and supporters to Afghanistan long beyond that.” [2]  [1] American Enterprise Institute, ‘Why we must win in Afghanistan’, 17 October 2012  Biddle, Stephen, ‘Salvaging Governance Reform in Afghanistan’, Council on Foreign Relations, April 2012  [2] Mason, Rowena, ‘David Cameron: Taliban could be waiting for British troops to leave before trying to take Afghanistan’, The Telegraph, 19 July 2012

There is no age at which you start to be taxed. Rich children with investment funds and child stars all earn money at a young age and are taxed on it. This does not mean that the voting age should be lowered so that these individuals are represented. Similarly every visitor to the UK pays VAT on any goods they buy, this does not entitle them to a say in government.

No taxation without representation  It is unfair to have taxation without representation. Many 16 year olds work and pay tax on their earnings just as any other worker would. Yet unlike other workers at present they are not allowed to have a say in how the government spends their money, nor in how much should be collected from them in taxes. This was famously the grievance of the thirteen colonies that sparked the American revolution. In 2011 in the UK 7.2% of 16-18 year olds were in employment but not being given fair representation. [1] Policies such as the minimum wage and working hours and conditions are also set by governments, and if young people are old enough to have jobs they should be able to have their say in these issues.  [1] ‘Participation of 16 to 18 year olds in education and training, England’, Department of Education, 21 February 2013, Table 1

Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined [1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012 [2] , and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users, [3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box.  [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004  [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012  [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010

16 year olds are mature enough to vote  16 year olds are mature enough to make important decisions such as voting. If the government agrees that 16 year olds can have sex, join the army, and apply for a passport, then surely they are mature and responsible enough to decide who runs their country and makes important decisions that affect them. Their bodies are fully adult, they have been educated for at least 10 years, and most of them have some experience of work as well as school. By this time, it is likely a teenager will have developed “Advanced reasoning skills...the ability to think about multiple options and possibilities. It includes a more logical thought process and the ability to think about things hypothetically”. [1] This means they are able to form political views and they should be allowed to put these across at election time. Indeed by 16 children are as tolerant as adults and their political skill (the perceived ability to participate effectively in civil life by writing to political leaders and by speaking publically at meetings) is as high at 16 as for those in their late twenties. [2] There is no magic difference between 16 and 18 - indeed, many 16 year olds are more sensible than some 20 year olds.  [1] Morgan, Erin, and Huebner, Angela, ‘Adolescent Growth and Development’, VirginiaTech, 1 Mary 2009  [2] Atkins, Robert, and Hart, Daniel, ‘American Sixteen and Seventeen Year Olds are Ready to Vote’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 633:201, 2011, p.210

The UK electoral commission agrees that “there is no single definition of maturity” [1] . However it is not the case that most 16 year olds are mature enough to vote. Rather, teenagers are emotionally immature and tend to behave as though “they are “on stage” with the attention of others constantly centred upon their appearance or actions. This preoccupation stems from the fact that adolescents spend so much time thinking about and looking at themselves”. [2] The large majority still live at home and go to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18 young people have become much more independent and are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents’ opinions or else will pull away from their parents and as a result “the peer group takes on a special significance... Members of the peer group often attempt to behave alike, dress alike... and participate in the same activities” [3] .  [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004  [2] University of Maryland Medical Center, ‘Adolescent Development-Overview’, University of Maryland, 17 January, 2011  [3] ibid

Since 18-24 year olds already ignore their ability to vote there is no reason to expect that 16-18 year olds will be any more interested. At the moment over 50% of 18-24 year olds don’t vote even though they are eligible. [1] So this kind of change is hardly going to offset aging. It is also wrong to suggest that voters vote according to their age; the elderly are likely to have grandchildren whose interests they may well respect when voting.  [1] Dunleavy, Patrick, and Gilson, Chris, ‘Is the UK Electorate Disengaged?’, British Politics and Policy at LSE, 12 March 2010

Voting at a lower age would increase participation  There is a problem of apathy in many western countries, with low turnouts at elections. Young people are taught citizenship or civics at school with the aim of building “Knowledge and understanding about being informed citizens...Developing skills of enquiry and communication...Developing skills of participation and responsible action” [1] however they don’t get a chance to put this knowledge into practice for several years. Is it surprising that they lose interest in public affairs during this time? Because national elections are usually only held every four years or so, many people have to wait until they are 20 or 21, years after that civic education, before their first chance to cast an important vote. It is noticeable that political interest is much higher among those in education than those who are not. In Austria it was found that 68% of 16 to 18 year olds in education were interested in politics against only 45% of those who are working. [2] By demonstrating trust and promoting inclusion, young people would feel more confident in their views, become less disillusioned and eventually teach their children the same values. Introducing a lower voting age can only have long term benefits for the expansion of democracy.  [1] House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, ‘Citizenship Education’, House of Commons, 21 February 2007  [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.9

Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages  There is a notable difference between how young people and the elderly are treated. Giving the vote to teenagers would force politicians to take them seriously. Policies on education (e.g. student loans) would have to take their views and interests into account for the first time. 16 year olds today are well-educated and media-savvy, so they can express informed opinions. But at the moment young people’s views are easily ignored by those in power because they don’t have the vote. The vote for 16-18 year olds would help redress the growing age imbalance which is occurring as a result of aging. In the rich world by 2050 one in three will be a pensioner and one in ten over 80. [1] These voters will clearly be looking after their benefits at the expense of the young.  [1] The Economist, ‘A slow-burning fuse’, 25 June 2009

Young people are not the only ones who vote for extremists, the elderly are also more likely to vote for far right parties. [1] It is important in a democracy to include as wide a range of opinion as possible; a tendency to vote for more radical ideas should not be a reason for disenfranchising someone, or even more so disenfranchising a whole group. There are however also reasons to believe that 16 to 18 year olds could potentially use their votes more wisely than their elders. When looking at Austria it was found that those in education paid more attention to political news than those in work. 30% of people working followed political news less than once a week compared to only 15% of those in education. [2] As students are therefore better informed it would seem to be likely they would use their votes more wisely.  [1] Arzheimer, Kai, and Carter, Elizabeth, ‘Political Opportunity Structures and Right-Wing Extremist Party Success’, European Journal of Political Research, 2006, p.4  [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.10

This is an odd idea; should parents not be voting for themselves not their children? If they are voting for their children rather than themselves are they not themselves disenfranchised? The fact is that children and their parents have different interests on account of the age gap that is likely to be at least 20 years. Someone who is 16 is much more interested in university fees than someone who is 40 who will be more interested in how much they will have at retirement. Furthermore with turnouts that are often less than 50% a great many children are not being represented by their parents at all. Adults have the choice to not vote, when their parents are choosing not to vote children don’t get this opportunity.

Rights should be gained progressively  Just because 16 year olds have the right to do some things, it doesn’t mean that they should use them. If all 16 year olds left home at 16 and started families it would be considered a disaster. And not all rights are given at 16 - most countries have a higher age for important things such as drinking alcohol, serving on a jury, joining the military, etc. It makes sense for different rights to be gained at different times as young people mature and get used to more responsibility. The more difficult and complex the choices involved in that right and the greater the impact the later a right should be given. Because voting is so important, involves complex decision making, and can potentially have a large impact, it should be one of the last rights to be gained. It then makes sense that it voting should be granted at the time we consider adulthood to be beginning, which was agreed in the declaration of the rights of the child is 18. [1]  [1] Archard, David William, ‘Children's Rights’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

There needs to be a cut off  Everyone would agree that there has to be a minimum voting age. Most people believe that the line should be drawn at 18 rather than 16. Although some 16 year olds may be mature enough to vote, most have not yet formed political views of their own yet. On average, young people are much more likely to be ready for the responsibility of voting at 18. There is then no reason why 16 would make a better cut off point than 18. At both ages some rights are given, at both there will be some who pay tax who are not given representation, at both some will be immature. There is no clear dividing line so there can be no clear reasoning for lowering the voting age to 16.

Young people would be more likely to misuse their vote  It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they will be more likely to make their decision on which party had the best image; so will vote for parties that put up celebrities. They are also more likely to vote for extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!). It is notable that in late 1990’s Russia 80% of the Communist party’s members were under 30, and a far right nationalist party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, has called to lower the voting age to 16. [1] A study from the University of Nijmegen found that younger people are over represented in voters for extreme right wing parties, [2] and the same goes the other way with younger people more likely to support left wing populist measures at the expense of democracy, rights, and freedoms. [3]  [1] ‘Extremists push for young voters’, Times Higher Education, 7 December 1998  [2] Lubbers, Marcel et al., ‘Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 41, 2002, pp345-378, p.364  [3] Seligson, Mitchell, A., ‘The Rise of Populism and the Left in Latin America’, Journal of Democracy, Vol.18 No.3, July 2007, pp.81-95, p.91

Parents are guardians and should be trusted to vote in their children’s interests  Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, join youth parliaments, etc. It is notable that sixteen year olds themselves are divided on whether they should have the vote, [1] if many of them trust their parents to vote for them should not the government?  [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004

This applies equally to having the cut off at 16 rather than 18. If it is questionable at both ages then since this is an issue of human rights we should err on the side of caution and give the vote to as many as possible. This would mean lowering the voting age.

16 year olds already have other rights. For example, in many countries they have the right to leave school and leave home, and the rights to have sex, marry and have children, they can rent accommodation and consent to surgery [1] . It is not reasonable to have different ages for different rights. It makes sense for the right to vote to be at a younger age precisely because the individual has fewer changes to deal with at a younger age, they will therefore find it easier to learn to vote. [2] If young people are considered old enough to make important choices about their own future, why can’t they have a say in deciding the future of their country?  [1] Thesite.org, ‘What age can I?’, 5 May 2013  [2] Franklin, Mark N., at al., ‘The Generational Basis of Turnout Decline in Established Democracies’, Acta Politica, March 2004, pp.8-9

The general claim here is that opinion polls can be subject to error and lead to questionable information and decision-making by voters. Also, it has been claimed that opinion polls can be manipulated consciously or inadvertently which then should justifies their damnation. The opposition claims that any tool which gathers information could be manipulated or inadvertently misused. Audience polling is simply a method to gather group opinion and audience analysis is as old as Aristotle as a method for speakers to better understand audiences. Audience response is often sought in regard to attitudes and to isolate opinion polls as not useful or necessary because of possible error or corruption. This denies the need for those advocating to understand the position of those these seek to persuade. To say that opinion polls should not be used because of these reasons would suggest that audience feedback never be used because of possible errors in conclusions. It is far better to understand the nature of polling and its risk factors than to simply abandon the use of this important link between the voter and the politician. The nature of audience polling is critical to communication and should not be dismissed because of its potential for misuse.

Opinion polls are subject to bias and often produce faulty information on which decision are made.  Since opinion polls are the products of research, they can also be heavily manipulated by the organization performing or commissioning the poll in question. A bias can easily be created by selecting a certain target group, such as a 2011 AP opinion poll which asked more democrats than republicans, [1] or more usually through asking certain questions or phrasing them in a particular way. For example it has been found that Americans are more likely to support spending for the ‘poor’ than for ‘welfare’. [2] This information can generate false information and untrue or exaggerated claims. Even if the research is done with an objective mindset, the research technique or reporting method can skew the results. For example, the opinion polls seldom report the measure of uncertainty of the conclusions, by for example reporting standards deviations from means, sample size, etc. These measures are usually not published. Reporting the results of opinion polls without further statistical information leads to more misinformation. One such example comes from the exit polls of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. Many of the election polls predicted a win for Kerry, but didn’t consider the fact that Republicans were less likely to respond to an exit poll leading to inaccurate conclusions about what would occur. [3] Thus, opinion polls are not necessarily trustworthy sources of information on which voters can make good decisions.  [1] Geraghty, Jim, ‘Latest AP Poll Sample Skews to Democrats by 17 Points’, National Review Online, 11 May 2011,   [2] Abroff, Sarah, ‘Question Wording and Issue Salience of Public Opinion Polls: The Energy Crisis Prior to the 2008 Presidential Election’, 6 January 2010,   [3] Benen, Steve, ‘Exit Poll Update…’, Washington Monthly, 17 November 2004,

The proposition claims that tactical voting is bad because unintended consequences could occur. However, tactical voting is a legitimate tool of the democratic process. Voting is used as a voice to sway majorities and the methods to accomplish a long range goal are part of the political process. The very nature of tactical voting includes an element of chance and is a strategic method to influence the outcome. Any activity involving chance and risk could have unintended outcomes. Opinion polls have often existed in the past when the outcome was different than expected whether tactical voting was a strategy in play or not. Tactical voting could occur whether opinion polls existed or not. Therefore, the publication of opinion polls still remains a legitimate tool of the democratic process in which voters have a right to participate.

Politicians will be less likely to engaged in political marketing and speak more directly to substantive issues.  When opinion polls become the constant focus of the media, politicians are forced to pander to an ever-changing public marketplace instead of developing a consistent party or personal philosophy. Candidates become overly involved in defending and explaining poll data. Voters become the consumers of political marketing. The democratic process is diminished when changing opinion polls interrupts substantive dialogue. Without the excessive use of poll data, a candidate’s message can be more than an advertisement. Rather than the marketing of a person, important political ideas and public policy discussion occur. Even though poll data would be available during the earlier election season, a plan to control opinion polls would begin to diminish such a focus. The advantage would be less political marketing and room for better democratic discussion.

: Opinion polls are harmful to the democratic process because they stifle debate  In democratic nations public opinion matters as it is the public who ultimately decides who wins office and opinion polls measure that opinion. As a result politicians have become obsessed with the shifting whims of public opinion upon which the media focuses forcing politicians also focus on popular opinion even between elections. Since the media carries the news, the active use of opinion polls by the media drives the policy agenda. Lack of information on critical issues is likely to result as politicians focus only on areas where the opinion polls highlight.  Democracy is also harmed by the publication of opinion polls as subsequent citizen voter behaviour can be influenced. When , for example, an opinion poll portrays a huge majority for a certain subject, or for a particular party, its opponents might be less vocal since they feel “outnumbered” or that decisions have already been made thus diminishing democratic dialogue. Undecided voters may be apathetic toward the election process since they appear to be a foregone conclusion. The potential influence on voters choices is the reason the France forbids opinion polls shortly before an election. [1]  [1] Blocman, ‘Ban on Publishing Public Opinion Polls’, 1999,

Even though polls may alter public dialogue, an explanation of what stifles debate is not sufficiently provided by the proposition. They seem to infer that ‘stifling’ by opinion polls suggests a that debate shuts down whereas we claim that a politician’s responses to public opinion is exactly what is sought by the public to make them better informed. The stifling of debate does not occur. So even though, the prop suggests that stifling debate is hindering debate, this has not been proven since responses by politicians to opinion polls are simply part of dialogue and not necessarily hindering discussion.  The observation that voter behaviour is some- how unfairly influenced through strength of numbers doesn’t include all of the close results which are often reported between platforms or candidates. The assumption that voters feeling outnumbered will often occur and will change their vote as a result cannot be made. Most citizens are already aware of their political leanings regardless of opinion polls or popular opinion. The undecided voter is not necessarily waiting on opinion polls but more likely the continuing debate occurring through the election cycle. Apathy among voters occurs for many other reasons besides the publication of opinion polls. We cannot be certain that the exclusion of public polls to protect apathetic voters will significantly outweigh the value of a more informed public. That democracy is harmed through opinion polls has not been established.

Even though the proposition promised that political dialogue would improve when focused on substantive issues, the opposition believes that this is simply a promised hope. Political campaigning is advertising by its very nature. Citizens are informed throughout the campaign through a variety of “advertising” methods from slogans to claims about the product itself. And campaigns always do an analysis of the consumer. Opinion polling is not unique.  And, to make the assumption that substantive issues will more likely be addressed without opinion polls suggests that they alone have the power to influence the nature of the dialogue. There are far too many other factors which determine the discussion and debate from immediate events which occur during the campaign to long standing political positions which relate to the development of party consistency or personal philosophy. The outcome the proposition hopes for cannot be guaranteed nor can a position be sensibly made that a political campaign is not one of marketing. To be effective the candidate has the right to all available information which is also critical to better democratic discussion.

The propositions plan restricts the publication of polls only for 2 weeks before the election. However, such restrictions would not make a significant impact on the harms of opinion polls that have been outlined by the proposition. The 2 week window would not diminish all the prior opinion polls which existed and were published. The frequency of these polls have already flooded the media as they have been deemed newsworthy. Many voters have already come to conclusions based on the dialogue conducted up to this point. Only the uncertain and apathetic voter could be influenced and that may not be a significant number to restrict freedom of expression. We have no facts about the size of this population. The dialogue during elections should be a continuous process of free expression and never be unnecessarily limited for uncertain proof that these opinion polls pose a serious harm. If the polls were considered to present harm, then why would they not be censored completely? The two week plan of limiting opinion polls would not solve any problems outlined and could hinder the on-going pre-election dialogue.

Opinion polls can lead to tactical voting which may have unintended outcomes.  Tactical voting is the purposeful casting of votes to sway an outcome. When the outcome is predicted in an opinion poll, it can influence voters to possibly cast a ballot differently than had that poll information not existed. This means that the votes are being cast based upon inaccurate assumptions. For instance, in the 1992 U.K. elections all polls predicted a Labour victory. However, against all expectations, the Conservatives won. It is wholly possible that many people, ensured of a seeming Labour victory, then decided to vote for the Conservatives tactically to ensure that there would be a balance in the House of Commons – or even out of sympathy, the ‘underdog effect’. [1] Or decided to vote for their first preference minor party, such as the liberal democrats, because they believed the Conservatives would be voted out without their needing to cast their votes tactically for Labour. Thus, it is possible that the voters didn’t accomplish the government they actually wanted, as they cast votes based on opinion polls. The unintended outcomes are a result of these opinion polls and tactical voting.  [1] Traugott, Michael W., and Lavrakas, Paul J., The Voter’s Guide to Election Polls, Fourth Edition, Rowman &amp; Littlefield Publishers, 2008,  p.202

Opinion Polls should not be published 2 weeks in advance of an election.  This would ensure a more democratic discussion immediately prior to the decision making process of voting. This does not harm free expression because it is serving a specific purpose at a specific time. For instance, during times of national security or disaster certain citizen behaviour is restricted. Since there is information on public opinion in all of the other weeks of the year, this two week moratorium would solve some of the harms of published opinion polls. There would be less stifling of discussion, voters would not be subjected to possibly biased information or misused statistics at this critical time of thinking and making a wise choice. Tactical voting is likely to be used less, and minority voices are not as likely to be overshadowed by popularly “claimed” opinions. Therefore, we propose that opinion polls not be published 2 weeks prior to an election.

There can be no denial to the position that voters have a right to select their own criteria for making choices. We on the proposition believe in the individual choice of citizens. This position, however, does not change our position that opinion polls diminish public dialogue. Of course, people develop their own criteria; however, our responsibility here is to discuss the value of the opinion poll not the value of religion or astrological predictions as a criterion of choice. The criteria may but up to citizens, but the discussion of what criteria is appropriate is valuable to address. We believe that published opinion polls are not a worthy criteria not that citizens do not have a choice in that criteria. Since elections are a public shared event, then the criteria for voting is the legitimate discussion in which we are now engaged. The proposition believes that the focus of our debate is upon the worthiness of opinion polls.

The claim that opinion polls are public expression cannot be denied. Although freedom of expression is acknowledged within a democracy, absolute freedom of expression does not exist. There are restrictions related to the public good. The right of free expression to cover all aspects of public speech is limited. Some restrictions are considered legitimate within a democratic society.  Also, the claim that any attempt to restrict free expression is bad because of the possible consequences which follow is faulty in reasoning. Stating that one thing “could” lead to another is speculative and not sufficient reason to reject a legitimate need to restrict some expression.  Opinion polls do contain some information which may assist in transparency. However, since as has previously been noted, polls can be biased and manipulated and so could be equally untrustworthy in providing a check on fraud or corruption in the voting process. Therefore the claims provided by the opposition do not by themselves lead to a sufficient reason to reject support for restrictions to opinion polls.

Citizens should be respected for their opinions  Opinion polls may vary in their quality, but we should trust our citizens and politicians to be critical when using them as a basis for decision making. This is a compelling reason to publicize them as much as possible. The more opinion polls on a topic, the more specific questions can be asked, and the greater possibility for critical analysis.  Additionally, there are many opinion polls and there is competition between opinion poll firms. There are differences about how studies are conducted as well as their reliability. Thus opinion polls themselves possess a certain level of credibility. The media and citizens discern the least valuable polls and those with less scientific reliability. Some are likely lose legitimacy, whereas the most trustworthy polls gain more attention. For example, in the U.S., the polls that Fox News runs are seen differently than polls conducted by Pew Research which is likely to receive more widespread recognition.  A well conducted poll can be very accurate. It is reckoned that a sample of 1,000 people can accurately reflect the views of more than 200 million adults to within a few percentage points. [1] Polling is a statistical science with an established literature and the publication of ongoing research. There is no reason that citizens should be denied information on which to base their decisions. It is their right and responsibility to determine the credibility of opinion polls. The media is also likely to check and question the credibility of opinion polls, particularly as many will have been commissioned by rivals. Citizens should be respected as thinking individuals.  [1] ‘Reporting Opinion Polls’, ACE The Electoral Knowledge Network,

Opinion polls provide useful information to politicians.  They provide important information about what people think of their performance during the election process. Politicians have the right to change tactics if need be and opinion polls often provide voter feedback about how a candidate is perceived. Informed candidates can better speak to voter concerns, thus increasing dialogue prior to elections. Candidates who speak more specifically to issues develop a better public trust as well as commitment regarding their future performance to which they can be held accountable. Since candidates or platforms which win the election influence future policies, citizens benefit from informed politicians who can speak to the concerns of citizens and issues of the nation.

Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.  The proposition highlights how tactical voting can be affected by opinion polls. However there is nothing wrong with tactical voting. In fact, it is a crucial feature of a democracy that citizens are not only able to vote for the government they want, but also for the type of opposition that that government will face. Tactical voting also avoids wasted votes under the First-Past-the-Post system Britain and America both use. To enable tactical voting, opinion polls are necessary to inform voters what way they should vote if they wish to vote tactically. That this may sometimes lead to mistakes, is an unfortunate but necessary by-product. Banning opinion polls can therefore have unintended results. In the 1981 French Presidential election once the seven day ban started Chirac’s campaign suggested that their campaign was taking off and he would go through to the second round – which would make it two conservatives in the run off. This frightened communist party supporters into voting tactically to support Mitterand when there may well have been no need. [1]  [1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx

Citizens have a fundamental right to vote on whatever the basis they choose.  It is their right to select the criteria for making decisions. Even though it is assumed, certain criteria exist such as prior experience or party affiliation. However, some citizens might turn to astrology or tarot cards to decide their vote. Others may consider a candidate’s religion or appearance. Many decide based upon the opinion of respected others. However much one might personally dislike some of these criteria, every citizen has a right to determine the basis of her/his vote. Therefore opinion polls are a legitimate choice to provide.

It has been claimed by the opposition that opinion polls provide useful information to politicians and are necessary for dialogue between the candidate and the public. The proposition however would like to focus upon the term “useful”. Published opinion polls by their very nature present only a few and briefly stated attitudes of voters which is not useful. Knowing the level of support or agreement with a candidate reveals very little useful information about why a voter holds that attitude or how firmly that attitude is held. Thus polls by their nature do not provide useful information but only broad trends. Audience surveys and other methods of gathering feedback provide much different and more specific information on the nature of voter attitudes and beliefs. Yet, we are not discussing voter feedback, but rather the specific tool of published audience polls. The question remains then whether useful information is provided to the candidate through the availability of published opinion polls which would seem to be unnecessary as candidates could still engage in their own private opinion polls which will keep the politicians informed. [1]  [1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx

Opinion polls are a forum for public expression and should be protected  They publicize the opinions of large numbers of citizens and therefore can be considered an exercise in free speech. Any attempt to restrict the free exchange of opinion damages the marketplace of ideas. Citizens have a right to express themselves and for their expression to be heard.  Restricting opinion polls would be a bad precedent and could become the basis for other restrictions of free speech. For example, in India some have proposed banning the publication of horoscopes during the election period.  Democracy itself is safeguarded by opinion polls which represent public expression for they also ensure transparency in public will and choices and can thus discourage or reveal electoral fraud and vote-rigging. Such information could be observed both nationally and internationally. In fact, those regimes which ban or heavily restrict opinion polling are those which are either undemocratic or where corrupt in the election process exists. These regimes know that allowing opinion polling would embarrassingly reveal their lack of legitimacy and could lead to a domestic and international outcry against them. Therefore, opinion polls are a vital form of public expression.

Tactical voting may be legitimate within the democratic process but that does not deny the fact that unexpected outcomes could occur. These unexpected outcomes mean that the will of the people is less likely to be served which is the consequence with which we are concerned. Whether tactics is legitimate does not deny the fact that it may not be good or even dangerous. Tactics can vary in outcomes whether it comes to financial investment, competitive sport or election strategy. Therefore, the tactic of voting one way to achieve another outcome could achieve the desired result or it could not. That tactical voting is a choice available does that mean that it serves the democratic process well. Sometimes it is valuable to limit the choices of citizens so negative unexpected consequences do not occur.

Of course, citizen opinion and intelligence should be respected and we do not disagree on this issue. Our differences lie in the nature of how mediated messages are presented to citizens as well as fair questions into the motives of those responsible for polling and media outlets which provide them to the public. First, the nature of mediated messages requires that they be reduced to brief and simply forms. There is an abundance of messages in competition for listeners’ attention. Therefore the details regarding polling activity is not provided (purposely or not) and citizens are left with insufficient information on which to make critical judgements.  Second, even though the opposition hopes that the natural process of credibility will check this possibility, it cannot be denied that manipulation can occur to the unaware voter. So due to this vulnerability of inaccurate information being disseminated, it is better to acknowledge the problems which occur in mediated messages which are often the primary source of information for voters. This does not deny that polls can be accurate and are constantly being improved; however, the on-going nature of that science is different than the question at hand as to whether they can always be trusted as a form of information for those respected citizens.

Corporate entities have the right to be anonymous if they choose. American elections have to reach an extremely large and spread out audience, and this requires large amounts of funding, which is provided by corporations and individuals. There simply shouldn’t be parity with corporations and individuals because they are not the same thing- it is like comparing apples to beef, you can eat both of them but they are nothing alike.  Corporations can represent thousands of people that they employ or are their shareholders. They are speaking on behalf of their organisation, not as individuals. They are supporting candidates that they believe will help their business so they are speaking for those who wish to keep their jobs at the company.  It is however wrong to assert that citizens united is just about corporations – it is about all groups and therefore about individuals. The Supreme Court in this case recognised that limiting political spending limits speech by limiting citizens ability to deliver their view. In practice the best way for individual citizens to deliver their views is to create groups with other like-minded individuals. Quite the contrary to what democrats may believe this is also necessary for third party candidates such as Ross Perot who would get nowhere without large scale contributions because they have, at least initially, a narrow base of support. [1]  [1] Smith, Bradley A., ‘The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform’, in Boatright, Robert G. ed., Campaign Finance, pp.46-62, p.57-58

More parity is necessary between corporations and the regular individuals.  There is a need to create more parity between individuals and corporations. There is much more campaign funding where there is non-disclosure, there has been little money flowing into ‘super-PACs’ that must disclose donors instead it goes to tax exempts organizations that are not subject to the disclosure requirements. [1] As non-disclosure means higher fundraising figures, then it becomes optimal for every politician to adopt a strategy of opacity in order to fare better than his or her opponents. The culture of corporate electioneering aided by legally-sanctioned anonymity would likely demoralize voters and funnel candidates’ priorities towards courting big business at great cost to the average American citizen during and after the election.  While it may be a stretch to assert that Citizens United granted corporations “personhood,” the impacts of the ruling are far-reaching for campaign finance law. Even small corporations have disproportionate spending power compared to individuals. Oftentimes decisions in corporations are made by boards of executives and not aggregates of working-class citizens, exacerbating the influence of those who already wield greater financial and political capital. If money is indeed speech, then corporations speak much, much louder than individuals from the outset. Some contend that the voices of unions, which are similarly protected under the same ruling, lend a degree of partisan balance—implicitly acknowledging that the divide is indeed tinged with partisanship—but realistically, even the largest union contributions pale in comparison to those of Fortune 500 companies. [2] Distortion in the marketplace of ideas increases reliance on negative campaigning, which hurts voter turnout and morale while usually detracting from substantive dialogue about policy issues. It also raises the barriers of entry for third-party candidates and more moderate candidates during elections and primaries, more deeply entrenching the two-party system. [3]  [1] McIntire, Mike, and Confessore, Nicholas, ‘Tax-Exempt Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses’, The New York Times, 7 July 2012.  [2] Pilkington, Ed. ‘Obama wants to see Citizens United Supreme court ruling overturned’. Guardian.co.uk, 29 August 2012.  [3] United States Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission. October 2009.

Opponents have expressed other problems with the language of the DISCLOSE Act, including seemingly arbitrary exemptions for large and long-standing organizations—criteria which capture most labor unions. This makes the DISCLOSE act like any other campaign finance reform; essentially it is party political benefiting aimed at the Republicans by the Democrats who passed it who have exempted those in their own camp who might be affected. [1] It is designed to benefit the party that passed it rather than really increase transparency.  [1] Smith, Bradley A., ‘The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform’, in Boatright, Robert G. ed., Campaign Finance, pp.46-62, p.53

Elections should be controlled by the people not powerful interests  President Obama famously eschewed large corporate donors in favor of grassroots fundraising and social media in 2008, casting a wide net of supporters. [1] By election day his facebook page had 3.4million supporters, his website My.BarackObama.com had 2million members, the campaign had an email list of 13 million and there were 1 million text message subscribers showing how campaigns should be run by mobilizing people not powerful interests. [2] Following a similar strategy, the 2012 campaign garnered hundreds of thousands supporters in the first several months, shattering 2008 records. [3] President Obama has stated in the public record his support for increased disclosure for corporate and individual donors as well as efforts to limit the high-value contributions from corporations that are permitted under Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission [4] .  In response to the supreme court decision on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission act Obama declared in the 2010 state of the Union “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people” [5] . In a democracy where the government is supposed to be accountable to the people this should be self-evident; accountable to the people should mean that rather than accountable to corporate interests.  [1] Murray, Shailegh and Bacon, Perry Jr. ‘Obama to Reject Public Funds for Election’. The Washington Post. 20 June 2008.  [2] Corrado, Anthony J. et al., ‘Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns’, in Boatright, Robert G. ed., Campaign Finance, pp.107-128, p.112  [3] Bingham, Amy. ‘Money Wars: Obama Dominates Fundraising Battle’. ABC News. 1 February, 2012.  [4] United States Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission. October 2009.  [5] Obama, Barack, ‘2010 State of the Union’, State of the Union Address Library, 27 January 2010.

Corporations have just as much stake in the country as individuals do, they are affected just as much by decisions taken by the president; what regulations there should be, should there be subsidies, should free trade or protectionism promoted etc., and so have just as much interest in being able to make their voice heard in elections. Corporations are unable to vote so the only way for them to do this is to finance campaigns. It is also wrong to suggest that corporations funding campaigns gives them undue influence. When looking at voting patterns in congress it appears that candidates voting behavior is almost entirely based on their own beliefs and their party’s preferences and campaign contributions have next to no impact. [1] In fact it makes so little difference that Ansolabehere et al. in their conclusion say “the question is not why do corporations, unions and other interest groups give so little, but why do they give at all?” [2]  [1] Ansolabehere, Stephen, et al., ‘Why is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.17 No.1, Winter 2003, pp.105-130 p.116  [2] Ibid, p.126

Obama has already attempted to increase transparency.  Disclosure laws are intended to bring transparency to the electoral process. By scrutinizing the sources of campaign funds, voters can gain insight into how candidates intend to appoint justices and pass laws while in office. Obama’s attempt at transparency, the DISCLOSE Act, has so far failed to gather a majority of votes in Congress in 2010 [1] but it shows how Obama would like to proceed. This kind of transparency is necessary today because during the 2010 midterms the groups that don’t need to disclose contributions outspent the PACs that must disclose donors by 3 to 2 spending $100million on issue ads. [2]  Without strict disclosure rules, the legislative agendas of elected officials become more opaque, and the public has fewer ways to hold them accountable. Voters would be forced to rely on the goodwill of their elected officials to voluntarily disclose the sources of funding, a system which generates negative incentives to bury the information that is perhaps most critical and relevant to the public interest.  [1] ‘DISCLOSE Act; New Donor Transparency Law Blocked in Senate’. The Washington Post. 16 July 2012.  [2] McIntire, Mike, and Confessore, Nicholas, ‘Tax-Exempt Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses’, The New York Times, 7 July 2012.

Romney’s claim that there needs to be reform to campaign finance law are most likely empty words; his complaint over the disadvantage over the use of primary campaign funds demonstrates this because it is only an advantage that one candidate every eight years gets, essentially this then is a complaint at a very marginal advantage the incumbent Obama has over him.  Campaign finance needs much more than just the reform that Romney suggests. It needs a complete overhaul to stop allowing for large corporate spending which in turn results in elected officials being more accountable to corporations rather than their constituents. That is why Obama supports the overturning of the Citizens United case. [1]  [1] Pilkington, Ed. ‘Obama wants to see Citizens United Supreme court ruling overturned’. Guardian.co.uk, 29 August 2012.

The Supreme Court was right with its judgment on the Citizens United case.  A principled commitment to freedom of speech under the First Amendment should not distinguish, through intent or impact, protected speech on the basis of its content or source. The ability of nonprofit and for-profit corporations to directly and freely donate to candidates does not warrant a sufficient governmental interest – decrying negative effects of distortion on elections does not merit federal intervention. Furthermore, the unique harm of corporate speech has yet to be demonstrated.  The Citizens United case allows unlimited spending by non-profit corporations as well as unions so benefits both Republicans and Democrats equally. The Super PAC Priorities USA Action has spent over $20 million supporting President Obama. [1] Current campaign finance policies could be improved, but the system as a whole is fair, and repealing corporate free speech would be unconstitutional.  [1] ‘Super PACs.’ Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. 14 August 2012.

There needs to be reform to campaign finance law.  Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has supported campaign finance law reform. Most of Romney’s recent comments on reform have been in regard to laws governing spending during primaries as opposed to general elections. Primary campaign funds are earmarked as such and forbidden for use in general election campaigns until after the Republican National Convention, so the Republican nominee is at a disadvantage against the Democratic candidate if the convention nomination outcome is evident before August 27. Over the years, Romney has advocated various stances on spending limits: in 1994, he supported capping congressional spending, but in 2007, he disparaged McCain-Feingold warning “We step into dangerous territory when politicians start eviscerating our fundamental freedoms in the name of amorphous principles, like campaign finance reform. If I am elected President, a top priority will be to push for the repeal of this deeply-flawed measure, and restore the full freedom of political participation and expression to the American people.” [1] Romney expressed support for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United along with concern about the corrupting influence of corporate money in elections. [2]  [1] Romney, Mitt, ‘The Fundamental Flaws in the McCain-Feingold Law’, Townhall.com, 25 April 2007.  [2] Rivoli, Dan. ‘Romney Backs Citizens United, But ‘Not Wild’ about Corporate Campaign Spending’. International Business Times, 4 November 2011.

Campaign spending caps make constitutional arguments about whose speech ought to be protected and under what circumstances.  The fact remains that for-profits corporations can have a much larger say than non profits or individuals. The pharmaceutical company Pfizer spends over $11 million PER YEAR on lobbying irrespective of elections, and this goes up to $13 million in an election year. [1]  While President Obama may have received $20 million for Priorities USA Action pales in comparison to the $82, 491, 407 that Romney has received from the Super PAC Restore Our Future. [2]  [1] ‘Lobbying: Pfizer Inc.’ Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. 14 August 2012.  [2] ‘Super PACs.’ Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. 14 August 2012 .

If the expectation of violence or reprisal is admitted as a legitimate reason not to undertake an action which is protected under freedoms of press and speech, then that effectively stifles a great degree of discourse. This ultimately undermines the purpose of the rights, such as a freedom to publish, and the functioning of western societies like Denmark’s.  It also incentivizes groups who would resort to violence to achieve their aims; if terrorists know that Denmark and other European nations will shy away from certain seemingly controversial or offensive actions if they threaten to kill many people every time, then they can much more easily achieve their goals. We should not welcome violence, but we should not allow it to govern us either.  As the cultural editor who ran the cartoons said, “Words should be answered with words. That’s all we have in a democracy, and if we give that up, we will be locked in a tyranny of silence.” [i]  [i] AFP, ‘Danish book about Muhammad cartoon controversy to go ahead despite threats’, New York Post, 29 September 2010,

Violent reactions to the cartoons could have been predicted and should have been avoided  Printing the cartoons caused the severe exacerbation of already existing tensions between Muslims and Western communities in Europe and around the world. [i] The terrorist attack on 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Israel-Palestine conflict had already set the stage for increased cultural animosity in the prior few years, and this was added fuel to the fire that resulted in violent attacks on Danish embassies around the world. As a result of this, innocent people died in riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan when riot police stepped in.  Organized terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda network led by Bin Laden threatened violence against America and the European Union. [ii] Not only did this cause an emotional impact among Danish and European citizens as a result of increased worries of terrorist attacks, but given the number of terrorist plots that have cited the cartoons controversy as part of their inspiration, there is good reason to believe that the Denmark has become a less safe place as a result.  Regardless of the original intention of the editors, they should have been able to see the controversy that would result and the likely practical outcomes of this and so restrain themselves from publishing.  [i] Sullivan, Kevin, ‘Muslims’ Fury Rages Unabated Over Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 11 February 2006,   [ii] Whitlock, Craig, ‘Bin Laden Threatens Europe Over Muhammad Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 20 March 2008,

The publication of the cartoons also resulted in a vigorous debate in Denmark, which saw its Muslim community participate in discourse in the form of debates, opinion pieces in newspapers, protests, and other democratic methods. Ultimately, then, it may well have caused a greater deal of civic integration than discord.  Denmark and journalistic institutions within it ultimately have little sway over the politics and cultures of all the various Islamic countries all around the world. Newspapers in Denmark cannot reasonably be expected to gauge what the expected political reactions and emerging dynamics of Muslim communities in every other country might be because of the publication of an article or cartoon. This particular event was exceptional; newspapers publish potentially inflammatory articles and images quite regularly, but this does not result in an international reaction.

The cartoons constitute a religiously motivated hate crime  The cartoons effectively constituted a series of religious hate crimes, specifically designed to offend and target the Muslim community, whom the editors very well knew would be up in arms over the publication of the cartoons. This is the deliberate association of a venerated religious figure with terrorism. Not only is this in violation of Danish laws and European norms protecting minorities, but it is also simply malicious and immoral.  There was already a widespread tendency to conflate Muslims with terrorists before the cartoons; this high-profile incident risked exposing peaceful Muslims to prejudice, discrimination, and even physical danger from increased xenophobia. The cartoons controversy was soon followed by the desecration of Muslim graves at a cemetery in Denmark, for instance. [i]  Many US journalism companies had the better judgment to report on the issue without reprinting the cartoons. [ii] Similarly, the Danish newspaper could have run opinion pieces describing their qualms with and thoughts on Islamic censorship, without resorting to the vulgar methods they utilized.  [i] ‘Danish PM talks to Muslim group’, BBC News, 13 February 2006,   [ii] Folkenflik, David, ‘U.S. Media Avoid Publishing Controversial Cartoons’, npr, 7 February 2006,

The cartoons were intended as a democratic challenge to self-censorship, and the Danish courts recognized this when they rejected lawsuits that Muslim groups in Denmark filed against the newspaper on the grounds of hate speech. [i]  Furthermore, the cartoons were targeted against the extremist fringe of Islam, and were narrowly tailored to object to the use of violent means in furthering religious causes. There is nothing wrong about pointing out the high incidence rate of terrorism and violence within radical components of a worldwide Islamic community that encompasses many different types of people spread over many nationalities. Ever since 9/11, terrorism and conservative interpretations of Islam have constantly been on the public mind and constitute a legitimate topic for discourse. It is not a hate crime to publicise cartoons that highlight this; cartoons in newspapers target groups who are otherwise in the news all the time, bankers for example, this does not mean they are inciting hatred against that group.  [i] Olsen, Jan M., ‘Danish Court Rejects Suit Against Paper That Printed Prophet Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 27 October 2006,

Individuals are the best actors to determine for themselves what causes they are willing to make sacrifices for. This is why we allow individuals to volunteer for wars they believe are just, to serve as humanitarian aid workers in impoverished countries, or for any number of unpleasant and potentially dangerous things. If they wanted to, no one can tell the editors and cartoonists that they were wrong to take the actions they did on account of personal safety.  But anyway, it is clear that they did not comprehend the scale of the risk they were running by publishing the cartoons, so they cannot be blamed for bringing this upon themselves.

Radical and anti western voices in Islamic communities gained authority and legitimacy as a result of the newspapers' actions  The publication of the cartoons empowered the radical fringes of many Muslim populations, by enabling them to point to the cartoons as tangible evidence of an anti-Muslim bias and anti-Muslim agenda in the West. [i] For instance, in Pakistan, these were used against the president, General Pervez Musharraf, who was perceived as being too closely aligned with the United States. Religious leaders who wanted to make the case that Denmark was deliberately offensive and a hostile environment for Muslims were able to conflate popular knowledge about the cartoon controversy with other incidents (some of them not even in Denmark) and sway support to their anti-ecumenical causes. [ii]  This set back reasonable discourse in Muslim communities about how best to integrate with the West, and ultimately resulted in the weakening of internal forces that encourage acceptance of Western culture. Such a reversal for westernising forces is likely the opposite of what the newspaper would have wanted for the Muslim world.  [i] Witte, Griff, ‘Opportunists Make Use of Cartoon Protests’, The Washington Post, 9 February 2006,   [ii] ‘Background: Muhammad cartoons controversy’, EuropeNews,

Factors motivating publication of the cartoons  On the individual level, the cartoonists and editors would have been wiser to look to their own selfish motivations for self-preservation; they have received many death threats from religious leaders and organizations spanning the globe, in a situation reminiscent of Salman Rushdie’s publication of The Satanic Verses. That Rushdie’s book had met with a similar reaction means that it should have served as a precedent showing what the reaction would be. As the editors should have been able to anticipate the threats they would receive if they were interested in their safety they should not have published.

In as volatile an atmosphere as 2000s Europe, where rates of immigration from Muslim countries into an aging Europe are high, it is clearly not wise to openly antagonize a component of your population that is already having a great deal of difficulty integrating. Unlike America, Europe generally cracks down on a variety of xenophobic and hateful actions much more stringently, and should have in this case as well. Europe is a sufficiently enlightened place to restrict individuals from burning crosses or marching in salute to the Nazi party; one would hope these practices would extend to Islam as well. There therefore in some instances is to a certain extent a right not to be offended – or at least not to have certain offensive things publicized.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

Chilling effects of excessive cultural sensitivity  Art should be given a great deal of license. Many European and American media and art outlets create art or journalistic pieces that are offensive to or poorly received by Christians and Jews, or other minorities. By limiting discourse in the form of art, we risk not only unjustly suppressing the artists’ vision, but also cheapening and the artistic community and rendering it more homogenous. Satire has been used with extreme effectiveness in making political statements before, and this was no exception. The cartoons express the cartoonists’ own views and beliefs, and the newspaper was simply providing a medium, not dictating what they should draw.

Controversy, integration and civic participation  The controversy has actually resulted in a much higher degree of civic participation by Danish Muslims than had previously been achieved, including town hall-style meetings, opinion columns, and radio and TV debates. This may have been better than anything else at integrating the Muslim community in Denmark into Western liberal democratic norms of how to resolve conflicts. Just because violence happened elsewhere in the world, where democracy does not currently hold sway, does not mean this was not a victory for Denmark. [i]  [i] Rose, Flemming, ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 19 February 2006

Citizens of western liberal democracies should never be required to adhere to religious norms that they do not hold  There is no right not to be offended. It is one thing to show a religion respect. One respects Islam by removing shoes when visiting a mosque. However, following the taboos of a particular religion in public society does not constitute respect, but submission, and adherence to the principles of that religion, which is never required. The nature of a democratic society is that there will sometimes be disagreements about how individuals should act; insofar as Denmark has not democratically come to the conclusion that it would be better for it to be illegal to depict the prophet Mohammed in publications, it is permitted and that right must hold. [i]  [i] Rose, Flemming, ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 19 February 2006,

Free expression and journalistic integrity  Publishing the cartoons was not only an important expression of press freedom, but fulfils the fundamental journalistic mission of exposing the public to important information, by forcing the examination of topics that would otherwise go unexamined. Self-censorship in Islam is an important issue that deserves consideration by a democratic public. There is a clear norm that causes Islam and Muhammad to be treated differently in the Western press than the Christian or Jewish faiths or their leading figures, and the editors felt it was important to violate that norm as a demonstration of a social phenomenon. [i] They were well within their rights to do so, and this furthered legitimate discourse about religion within Denmark and the West. It should also be remembered that demonization of Israel and the West using Christian and Jewish figures is not uncommon in the Islamic press – this is therefore a pernicious double standard. [ii]  Ultimately, the reaction by Muslims was unfortunate, but itself indicated the ways in which Islamic religious depictions in the press differ from their Christian and Jewish counterparts. Christian and Jewish groups have not responded with violence (though they have also sometimes staged protests), and where incidents have taken place, they were isolated and nowhere near the scale of the cartoons controversy.  [i] ‘Q&amp;A: The Muhammad cartoons row’, BBC News, 7 February 2006,   [ii] ‘Q&amp;A: The Muhammad cartoons row’, BBC News, 7 February 2006,

This has not benefitted integration, but rather made Muslims in Denmark feel as though they are under assault and unwelcome in their country. Particularly for new or newer immigrants, this creates a tendency to form enclave communities around a shared religion or culture and resist the mainstream society as a bloc. All the Muslim organizations in Denmark banded together against their oppressors. The few Muslims that spoke out in defence of free speech were severely ostracized by their fellows.

There is a difference between a government banning art, and having the good sense not to do certain things in art. Further, the “artistic skill” in drawing a provocative cartoon is rather minimal; it is not as though cartoonists are held to particularly high technical standards of drawing. Rather, cartoons are usually a vehicle by which a cartoonist conveys a joke (usually at someone or some group’s expense) for a cheap laugh. Cartoons no more constitute art than graffiti with an offensive statement on a factory wall constitutes art – that is to say, not at all.

There are three counter-points that can be used to challenge the proposition. Firstly, the opposition maintain that the Monarchy is highly cost-effective when compared to the expense of maintaining a Presidency with a large staff and equally stringent security requirements. Secondly, Royal residences are held in trust for the nation, and would require the same upkeep costs whether they were inhabited by a monarch or not. Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, the Monarchy more than pays its way through its generation of tourist revenue as millions visit sites associated with royalty, and through its role in promoting trade and industry abroad on royal visits. There is also evidence to suggest that the nation actually benefits financially from the Crown Estate. Figures suggested by Professor David Flint [1] are that in 2009/10 all payments to the Crown came to about £30 million. But the British government received £211 million from the Crown Estate. So the government made a very substantial profit from The Queen – about £181 million.  [1] Professor David Flint, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)

Supervising and protecting a monarchy is an unjustifiable public expense  The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically monarchs and their immediate family receive substantial amounts of money from the state to maintain luxurious lifestyles, complete with servants, expensive holidays and hobbies. The state also spends a great deal to maintain and run palaces and other royal residences, which are seldom accessible to the general public who support them through their taxes. In the UK what is officially termed as 'Head of State Expenditure' amounted to £40 million in the 2007-8 financial year. However, this excludes the cost of security for the numerous family members and residences. Although the security costs have not been confirmed, it is estimated that it exceeds £50 million a year [1] .  [1] The Monarchy in Britain, How much do they take from our pockets, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011).

On the other hand, the Monarchy could instead be seen as an institution that retains an important symbolic role as a focus for national unity. The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service. [1] Since they are unelected figures which are above political conflict and can therefore help countries to avoid the political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies, for example within the U.S.A. between the Republicans and the Democrats. Not only does the Monarch provide a symbol of National unity but also a symbol of world-wide unity. Queen Elizabeth II is the Monarch of 16 independent countries and the Head of the Commonwealth of 54 nations across the globe.  [1] The official website of the British Monarchy, The Role of the Monarchy, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)

Monarchies, no matter how vestigal, are undemocratic  The concept of Monarchy is undemocratic. If the monarch retains any significant political powers, as they do in Belgium and the U.K. for example, these are unjustifiable. Why should the opinion of just one person, in office purely by accident of birth, be able to influence the outcome of elections or call a government. Legally, in the UK the Monarch has the power to; choose the Prime Minister, dismiss ministers and governments, dissolve parliament, refuse to agree to legislation passed by parliament, pardon convicted criminals, declare a state of emergency and raise a personal militia. [1] And in some countries like Saudi Arabia they have much more absolute power. A recent example where the Monarch had a role in the United Kingdom was within the 2010 elections where no party achieved an overall majority, the Queen therefore had to sign her approval for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition.  [1] The Monarchy in Britain, What power do they have? Available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)

While the Monarchy has legal rights, the real powers of European Monarchs are negligible. For example, while the Monarch legally has the power to dissolve parliament, no Monarch has done this since William IV in 1834. Technically the Monarchy also has the power to veto any legislation that comes through Parliament, however, this power has not been exercised since Queen Anne in 1708 [1] . To the point of the concept of the Monarchy, Canadian historian Jacques Monet has suggested that ''in choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common denominator in the world -- the accident of birth -- Canadians implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person." [2]  [1] Republic Organisation UK available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)  [2] Canadian Monarchist Online  (accessed 31/05/2011)

The head of government will already be elected. There is no need to create a competing centre of power that has the same popular legitimacy. Just as there are worries that an elected house of lords would want more powers due to its new found legitimacy an elected head of state could demand the same. Such a change would be disruptive and is not necessary.

There is no divine right to leadership or privilege  Monarchs no longer have divine right to rule. For centuries the main justification of royal authority was a religious one. Catholic rulers had their legitimacy supported by the Papacy, Protestants rulers often headed their own state churches; in both the monarch’s rightful authority was preached in church every Sunday, while the ruler in turn protected a single national church. Currently, the Monarch is termed 'the defender of the Protestant faith'. She or he is required to be a member of the Church of England and is not allowed to marry a Catholic. Today societies are increasingly multi-faith, indeed, fewer than 5% of adults in the United Kingdom are practising Anglicans, and many people have no religion at all; hardly anyone believes the monarch has a spiritual right to exercise authority. Indeed, those whose religion differs from that of the monarch (often ethnic minorities) may be actively alienated by the way in which a particular faith seems to be privileged. [1]  [1] Centre for citizenship, The Monarchy in Britain, Religion and Race, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)

A presidential position enable the democratic selection of a head-of-state  The alternative to the monarch is obvious. Many states around the world have Presidential systems, either like the United States where the President fulfils both the role of the Head of State and the Head of Government combining the two roles. Or as in Italy or Germany where there is both a head of state (usually president) and a head of government (usually Prime Minister, although Germany’s is Chancellor) where the head of state is respected but is mostly a ceremonial role. Finally there may be both a head of state and head of government where both are powerful as in France. Therefore the head of state can still be in whatever role the state requires. Most importantly in all these cases the head of state is elected rather than simply gaining the position on account of birth.

Conversely, it could be argued that instead of protecting the Nation's heritage, the Monarchy has largely become an embarrassment. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man. Instead kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures. As their wardrobes, squabbles and failing marriages have become constant sources of media scrutiny, so any remaining respect for monarchy as an institution has waned. One key example from the U.K. member of the Monarchy Prince Harry, was his decision to attend a fancy-dress party dressed as a Nazi. Not only was this a horrific lack of judgement but it also under-minded the fact that opposing the Nazis was arguably one of the finest moments of British National Heritage.

Monarchs are not always above politics either and often become national embarrassments who also cannot act as a unifier for the nation. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man. Instead kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures. As their wardrobes, squabbles and failing marriages have become constant sources of media scrutiny, so any remaining respect for monarchy as an institution has waned.

Separating the positions of the head-of-state and prime minister of the government makes great practical sense  The Monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad that would be necessary whether there was a monarch or not, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing. Since The Queen's first official overseas visit to South Africa in 1947, overseas visits have become one of her most important duties. The Queen pays two outward State visits each year, accompanied by The Duke of Edinburgh. She also regularly tours her other realms and member countries of the Commonwealth, so far the Queen has paid over 60 State visits to foreign governments. As well as overseas state visits, each year the Queen and other members of the Royal Family pay nearly 3,000 visits throughout the United Kingdom. Official functions often feature prominently in such visits, including opening new buildings, meeting local dignitaries and visiting businesses, schools, hospitals and other public buildings as well as community schemes, military units and charities. [1]  [1] The Official website of the British Monarchy, Queen and Royal Visits, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)

The monarchy can serve as public role models.  Although above party politics, modern monarchs have proved able to raise important and sometimes unpopular issues that would otherwise have been ignored. For example, in the U.K. Prince Charles has legitimised discussion of environmental issues and stimulated a lively debate about the purpose of architecture, while Princess Diana’s work with Aids sufferers helped shift public opinion. Charities are an important part of the Royal family's work, About 3,000 organisations list a member of the Royal Family as patron or president. The Queen has over 600 patronages and The Duke of Edinburgh over 700. [1]  [1] The official website of the British Monarchy, Charities and patronages, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)

The monarchy is an important preserver of a nation's cultural heritage  The Monarchy acts as a guardian of a nation’s heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shaped it. The Monarchy is the oldest institution of government. Queen Elizabeth II is directly descended from King Egbert, who united England under his rule in 829. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty, the Queen's title in Britain is 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'. [1] The Monarchy provides a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Royal traditions such as the changing of the guard are still carried out today.  [1] The official magazine for Britain, The Monarchy, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011).

The head of state should be a position that is separate and distinct from politics  Monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. For example in the United States there has been a campaign against President Barak Obama with the most extreme views in the ‘birther’ movement who deny he was even born in the United States. It would be impossible for him to unite the nation while one in four Americans think their President was not born in the USA. [1] In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. Constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies (e.g. in the USA or France).  [1] Condon, Stephanie, ‘Poll: One in four Americans think Obama was not born in the U.S.’, CBS News, 21 April 2011,  (accessed 9/9/11)

This could be contested due to the fact that these issues and many more like them were being campaigned for long before the Royal family was involved. While they did provide a focal point for the eye of the media, the media prefer to focus on celebrities fighting for causes. Prime examples are campaigns such as Comic Relief with involves a great deal of celebrity involvement to promote a cause. For example, in the 2011 Comic Relief which raised £102 million, a series of high profile challenges took place including Chris Moyles and Comedy Dave’s 52 hour non-stop radio marathon which raised over £2.6 million and won a Guinness World Record. While nine celebrities took part in the BT Red Nose Desert Trek across the Kasuit Desert in Kenya and raised over £1.3 million in the process. The official Comic Relief mentions that the government contributed £16 million and that the public raised £86 million, however, nowhere does it mention any contribution made by the Royal family. [1] Supporters of the Republic UK also make the point that the Royals could continue to do charity work in a republic. They do not need the official 'royal' statute to raise money for charity. The Republic UK also points out that there is a big difference between simply turning up at engagements and being an engaged patron.  [1] Comic Relief, News: Record breaking £102 million total, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011).

There are others who could carry out these duties apart from the Prime Minister, for example, Deputy Prime-ministers for this exact purpose. Some of the key responsibilities of a Deputy Prime Minister involve both home and foreign affairs. The Deputy Prime Minister has significant responsibilities in other key Cabinet Sub-Committees, notably chairing the Home Affairs Committee which coordinates domestic policy issues including those relating to constitutional and political reform, migration, health, schools and welfare. The Deputy Prime Minister has an important foreign policy role, with responsibility for building a range of strategic relationships in Europe and across the world and for championing the Government’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. He is also Deputy Chair of the National Security Council which oversees all aspects of the nation’s security. [1] Those in favour of a Republic also argue that Britain has a professional diplomatic corps to represent the interests of the country both at home and abroad.  [1] Deputy Prime Minister, Role and Responsibilities, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)

There is nothing wrong with judging people primarily on their physical prowess - we do this all the time in competitive sport, where fitness and strength are major determinants of success. Moreover doing so is little different from judging people on non-physical qualities such as intellect. Every competition, of every kind, values certain qualities over others - we recognise that being able to lift heavy weights isn’t the prime definition of human worth, but we can still give prizes for weightlifting; similarly, we can give a prize to a beautiful woman for her beauty without implying that beauty is all that matters about anyone.

Beauty contests objectify women  Women in beauty contests are judged on their physical appearance rather than on any other qualities they may possess (the existence of a ‘talent’ element in many such contests is all very well, but ugly women simply aren’t going to win). Judging women, but not men, primarily on their looks contributes to the subjugation of women because other qualities, such as intelligence, are not seen as part of ideal femininity and therefore not as things to which women should aspire. Ideal masculinity, while in itself potentially damaging to men, tends to be construed in much wider and less restrictive terms - it is notable that male beauty contests, judging men on their physical appearance, are much less popular than female ones.

Riots often have many causes and it is only the spark that is picked up upon. The example of the riots in Kaduna is misleading; there were serious underlying tensions that were the root cause. [1]  Beauty contests, like sport, can be an important focus of national or regional pride. Despite the declining popularity of competitions such as Miss World in the UK, they hold an important cultural place in many parts of the world. The victories in recent years of Miss India, Miss Turkey and Miss Nigeria in Miss World competitions made many Indians, Turks and Nigerians proud, and were seen as symbolic of those countries’ progress in competing with more powerful countries on their own terms.  [1] Astill, James, ‘The truth behind the Miss World riots’, The Guardian, 30 November 2002

Beauty contests are patriarchal  Beauty contests promote an ideal of female beauty to which only a minority of women can realistically aspire, but which adds to the pressure on all women to conform to it. This can be harmful to women by encouraging dieting, eating disorders and cosmetic surgery, or simply by making them feel inadequate and ugly by comparison to this ‘ideal’ that is promoted. Moreover, these contests force the models and contestants to look even slimmer and perfect all the time, thus encouraging anorexia and bulimia.  Naomi Wolf argues that "in terms of how we feel about ourselves physically, we may actually be worse off than our un-liberated grandmothers." Why? Because of how "cruelly images of female beauty have come to weigh upon us." [1] This pressure has therefore forced a backwards step that reduces freedom of women when in almost every other area of life there have been great advances.  [1] Naomi Wolf, ‘The Beauty Myth’.

Beauty contests are culturally insensitive  The image of female beauty promoted by beauty contests is culturally specific and western - it doesn’t matter how many Asian women win Miss World, they can still only do so if they take part in the swimsuit competition, which may well not be considered appropriate dress in their culture. This clash of cultures has led to numerous protests, demonstrations and even violence when beauty contests are going on. There were demonstrations against Miss World by feminists and Hindu nationalists when it was held in Bangalore in 1996. Riots in Kaduna in northern Nigeria over Miss World 2002 left more than 200 dead and led to the contest being moved to London. [1]  [1] CNN, ‘Obasanjo blames media for Miss World riots’

Beauty Pageants do limit the choice of others due to putting pressure on women to conform to this ideal of beauty which is promoted. This is limiting the lifestyle choices of many more women than choose to take part in the pageants.

Beauty contests are part of the system that values women solely on their appearance. It is better to break down that system than seek to work within it.  Beauty contests fail to challenge harmful political attitudes to women. Despite paying lip-service to feminist keywords such as empowerment and self-confidence, they do nothing concrete to aid the liberation of women; indeed, by reinforcing looks as the most important feminine quality, they harm women’s liberation in general. The fact that the organisers of Miss World 2002 had no problem with holding the contest in Nigeria at the same time as a high-profile case in which a woman was due to be stoned for adultery exposes the competition’s hypocrisy. [1]  Assigning scholarship funds based on physical appearance rather than academic merit is unfair because it neuters the aspirations of many regardless of how hard they might work.  [1] Bloom, Alexis and Cassandra Herrman, Frontline World, ‘Nigeria – The Road North’, PBS, January 2003.

Beauty pagents are about moral than physical aesthetics  Modern Beauty pageants have mandatory talent portions and are more about establishing and striving for an ‘ideal’ than rating physical beauty. This was specifically made mandatory by Lenora Slaughter in the 1938 Miss America Pageant in order to attract “ladies” to participate in the competitions. The modern form of the beauty pageant was designed by women in order to attract women. [1]  [1] Hilary Levey Friedman, ‘There She Goes: A Trailblazing Feminist Beauty Queen’, Huffington Post, 15 March 2011

Self defined feminists do not have the right to dictate how other women relate to their femininity  A ban is a very blunt instrument with which to attack a practice. Banning beauty contests would do little to destroy the ideal of beauty as it is prevalent in many other areas of society which are unrelated to Beauty Pageants such as advertising, fashion and the entertainment industry. The only result of a ban will simply be to reduce the choice of women – who of course do choose to participate. Choice is fundamentally a good thing and everyone should have as much choice as possible so long as they are not limiting the choice of others.

Beauty contests are an avenue of opportunity that women are entitled to pursue  In an environment where women are valued on solely on their appearance, and in which there are more opportunities for men, beauty contests give women an opportunity to improve their situations. Winning a beauty contest can be a first step toward a successful life in the future; the most attractive earn 12% more. [1] Many Hollywood actresses are former beauty queens, and they would not have reached their success without the beauty contests they won. In addition, the winners of high-profile beauty contests are able to publicize charities and causes they feel strongly about - they have a public platform they could not otherwise have gained.  Beauty pageants can also empower in other ways: The Miss America competition is the largest provider of scholarship assistance for women in the world [2] , indeed it pioneered assistance for women in higher education in the 40’s and 50’s. [3]  [1] Day, Elizabeth, ‘Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital by Catherine Hakim – review’, The Observer, 28 August 2011.  [2] Miss America, 'Purpose'  [3] Hilary Levey Friedman, ‘There She Goes: A Trailblazing Feminist Beauty Queen’, Huffington Post, 15 March 2011

This is a red herring – beauty pageants are primarily about physical attractiveness. Broadcasting data shows that viewers turn off Miss America for the talent and interview portions of the show while continuing to watch the swimsuit portion. [1]  [1] Peterson, Ivan, ‘A Challenge for Miss America in Reality TV Era’, The New York Times, 9 April 2005

Each of the three approaches to proving a correlation between violent video games and criminal behaviour has its flaws. Studies that look for correlations between exposure to violent video games and real-world aggression can never prove that the games cause physical aggression1. Randomized tests, which assign subjects to play violent or nonviolent games and then compare levels of aggression, depend on lab-based measures of aggression that are difficult to compare with real-life aggression. Finally, longitudinal tests, which assess behaviour over time within a group, are a middle ground between the other two but similarly cannot prove it was the video games specifically that leads to increased aggression. In contrast to the claim that the effects of violent video games are worse than those of TV, a Potter study in 1999 found that 'children are more likely to be affected and more likely to imitate aggressive acts if the violence is depicted more realistically.'2  1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:  2 Gentile, D. A., &amp; Anderson, C. A. (2003, October 16). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from

Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour  Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a 'scary world', especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer. An Australian Senate Committee established to look at this issue in 1993 concluded 'there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a linkage…that the community cannot fail to act to control a situation which has the very real potential…to affect young people’1.  1 Senate Committee, 1993.

Violent video games, far from causing psychological disturbances, are beneficial to the mental health of children. Experiments show visual, tracking benefits from video games, particularly shoot-em-ups: US scientists Shawn Green and Daphne Bavelier, were commissioned to perform a study in 2003 by the National Institute of Health. According to the BBC, "they found that regular players of shoot-em-ups, such as Half-Life and Medal of Honour, have much better visual skills than most of the population1. The researchers have shown that gamers were particularly good at spotting details in busy, confusing scenes1. Experimental tests show positive focus effects of video games: US scientists Green and Bavelier found focus benefits from shoot-em-up games, even to the extent that they could be used as a beneficial tool to treat Attention Deficit Disorder2.  1 BBC News. (2003, May 28). Video games 'good for you'. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from BBC News:  2 Olsen, S. (2005, November 8). Attention deficit disorder? Try video games. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from CNet:

Violent video games desensitise users  Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. The sole purpose of a player in these games is to be an aggressor. The heartlessness in these games and joy of killing innocent people create a desensitization and disinhibition to violence that can ultimately lead to a more violent society. A Bruce Bartholow study in 2011 proved for the first time the causal association between desensitisation to violence and increased human aggression1. They are also a very selfish, lonely form of entertainment which undermines the structure of an ordered, interdependent society. A study conducted by psychologists in 2007 found that of 430 primary school children, 'the kids who played more violent video games changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive, more physically aggressive and less helpful to others.'2  1 University of Missouri-Columbia. (2011, May 26). Violent video games reduce brain response to violence and increase aggressive behaviour. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from ScienceDaily:  2 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:

Desensitisation is not altogether a bad development. 'For patients suffering from arachnophobia, fear of flying, or post-traumatic stress disorder, therapists are beginning to use virtual realities as a desensitization tool.'1Furthermore, society has decided to embrace violent video games, which as a result are very profitable. These games are written for adults, rather than children, and the ratings system warns of any violent content. In a modern world, the role of protecting young people should lie with responsible parents who know their kids best and take an active interest in their leisure time, discouraging or barring them from unsuitable activities. In this case, there is not enough justification for governments to intervene in people's leisure time.  1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:

The government has no such right to restrict the right of free speech inherent in all video games. In a 2011 judgement, the American Supreme Court ruled "while states have legitimate power to protect children from harm, 'that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.'"1 This is in part due to the fear that to restrict violent video games would be a step towards the banning or restriction of books considered antithetical to the views of the government. A state could ban all books or films that paint a negative image of society or encourage revolution, however that is clearly the action of a dictatorial or authoritarian state. Stan Lee, the creator of comic book characters like The Hulk and Spiderman, sees a comparison to the attempt in the 1950s to restrict the sales of comic books. "Comic books, it was said, contributed to 'juvenile delinquency'. A Senate subcommittee investigated and decided the U.S. could not 'afford the calculated risk involved in feeding its children, through comic books, a concentrated diet of crime, horror and violence.'"2 As Lee notes, in hindsight this appears comical2. The same mistake cannot be made with violent video games.  1 Holland, J. J. (2011, June 27). Can't ban violent video sales to kids, court says. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from the Associated Press  2 Lee, S. (2010, September). Defend video games with Stan Lee. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from Video Game Voters Network:

Violent video games can cause psychological disturbances  Multiple groups contend that the interactive nature of computer games considerably blurs the line that separates fantasy from reality1. As a result, game players are likely to become psychologically disturbed by the violence contained within these products. It is conceivable that many young gamers will view the new age of video games as fair depictions or representations of reality, real-world themes, real-world personalities, real-world violence. Because violent video games frequently develop and an exaggerated level of violence and destructiveness, they may arouse a belief that in a "scary world". If this is true, a greater level of fear and paranoia can be expected from such gamers in the real world than is justified. This may have the potential to lead to many adverse social effects from these gamers, such as social disengagement.  1 Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., &amp; Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Jounral of Adolescence

The government has a right to restrict the sale of violent video games, in order to protect law and order.  The government has the right, and indeed the obligation, to impose restrictions that increase the security of citizens and encourage peaceful relations between them. The foundation of the social contract is the state providing security for all participating citizens. If the state believes that violent video games increase the propensity of users to commit violent acts, it is obligated to impose restrictions that will prevent such effects. The rights of individual citizens to do as they wish, and play the video games they like most, however violent, is subordinate to the government's right to increase security through the enforcement of restrictions. For example, one accepts the government's right to restrict what we carry onto aircrafts in order to prevent violent attacks. That is not to say there aren't limits to what we can carry on, just as violent video games are still available to adults we can still carry laptops and mobile phones onto aircrafts. Ultimately however, it must be accepted that the government's right to protect society includes a right to restrict the sale of violent games.

If restrictions on the sale of alcohol can be effective, there is no reason to believe restrictions on violent video games cannot also be similarly effective. The primary role of a government is, ultimately, to protect its citizens from damaging themselves and society as a whole. It is considered acceptable and beneficial for governments to restrict the sale of dangerous things such as alcohol and tobacco to minors or even to enforce movie ratings or the use of seatbelts. Though illegal downloading programmes would permit the download of old, violent action games, video game creators would nevertheless be forced to turn their creative capacities and technology towards better, less violent games that would, over a short space of time, saturate the market.

The fact there are many other contributing factors to aggressive behaviour should not lead to a blind eye being turned to the effects of violent video games. As Dill &amp; Dill found in 1998, 'if violent video game play indeed depicts victims as deserving attacks, and if these video games tend to portray other humans as targets, then reduced empathy is likely to be the consequence…thus putting the player at risk for becoming a more violent individual’1. An Anderson and Dill study in 2000 also found that ‘students who had previously played the violent video game delivered longer noise blasts to their opponents’2. Whilst it is a truism to say that the banning of violent video games will not prevent youth aggression, it will no longer be able to act as the catalyst for it in certain cases.  1 Goldstein , 2001.  2 Walsh , 2001.

Video games are an outlet for childhood aggression  Video games are a useful outlet for childhood aggression. As psychologist Cheryl Olson writes, kids 'use games to vent anger or distract themselves from problems.'1 Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially for boys. In the past it was considered normal for young people to act out violent fantasies in harmless way, for example with toy guns in games of cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, war, pirates, etc. These games were often inspired by films, television or comic books and magazines, just as computer games commonly are today. Now that these traditional activities are frowned upon and "enlightened" parents prevent children from having toy guns, aggressive play has simply moved indoors, on to the computer screen instead. Suppressing these natural instincts is not only pointless, it is probably more dangerous to remove yet another harmless outlet for aggression from the young.  1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:

Restrictions would be ineffective  Not only is it wrong for the government to take censorship-like steps against violent video games but it is also impossible to do so effectively. Violent video games will still be available on the internet and, in fact, by restricting the sale of violent video games the government will push would-be users to illegal downloading programmes (through file-sharing systems such as Limewire) and therefore to an increasingly prevalent black market. Furthermore, most games are bought by parents or with their consent. According to industry statistics, 9 out of every 10 video games are sold to adults. Moreover, there is little evidence to say that parents don't know what they are buying because a very descriptive labelling system exists for violent video games since the establishment of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) in 1994.

There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour  Many researchers 1/2/3 conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who already are habitually violent.  1 Scott, D. (1995). The Effect of Video Games on Feelings of Aggression. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from The Journal of Psychology:  2 Funk, J. B. (1993). Reevaluation of the impact of violent video games. Clinical Pediatrics, 86-90.  3 Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video kids: Making sense of Nintendo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Video games are not useful outlets for childhood aggression. Modern video games cannot be fairly compared to traditional childhood play. Computer gaming is a largely solo experience, with none of the team play involved in games of war, cowboys, etc. Playing alone also makes it easier for the boundaries between fantasy and reality to become blurred, especially with the highly realistic graphics possible with modern technology. In any case, civilisation is about taming our base instincts, not celebrating the worst parts of human nature. Furthermore, and unique to video games, aggressive behaviour or its imitation at least is rewarded and repeated during gameplay1. Video games thereafter are not merely an outlet for aggression, but the fostering and feeding of that aggressive urge.  1 Gentile, D. A., &amp; Anderson, C. A. (2003, October 16). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from

Violence towards women is a common and world-wide phenomenon, occurring on every continent and throughout history. Therefore it seems crazy to suggest that levels of domestic violence are related to this small sub-culture of music that depicts violence towards women. If we are arguing that it exposes people to situations where they hear (in lyrics) or see (in music videos) then it could be countered that if anything this music is just highlighting these incidences of violence that are still occurring and we might as well ban the news or television drama as they expose people just as much without an age reference.

Music depicting violence to women causes and sustains the cycle of violence.  Music depicting violence to women causes and sustains the cycle of violence. The Scottish Home Affairs correspondent Lucy Adams reported in 2005 the levels of domestic abuse committed by 16-18 year olds grew by around 70%. One of the reasons suggested for this dramatic raise is the culture of music that depicts and glorifies violence towards women [1] (heraldscotland.com). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology reports that a study conducted in a variety of US states illustrated that music that depicted acts of violence 'led to more aggressive interpretations of ambiguously aggressive words, increased the relative speed with which people read aggressive vs. nonaggressive words, [...]The violent songs increased feelings of hostility without provocation or threat'. Although they are quick to assure that it is NOT the music type that has this affect, it is simply the lyrics, as even humorous aggressive songs have this effect. They conclude with the idea that 'Repeated exposure to violent lyrics may contribute to the development of an aggressive personality' and thus lead to more aggressive behaviour. While currently there is little to no research specifically on the link between domestic violence and lyrics that depict abuse to women, the current information that we have on violence and music lyrics suggests we can expect a similar effect. Thus if we were to ban music depicting violence towards women, people could not be influenced by it and levels of violence would drop.  [1] Adams, L. Why rap drives teenagers to domestic abuse; Songs blamed for 70-per cent increase in young victims. Herald Scotland 7 October 2005

The difficulty with this is that games, DVD's and films are all very visual medium, whereas music is audible and arguably a more imaginative medium. Other non-visual mediums, such as literature, are not restricted by age ratings and therefore it seems unfair to restrict music on these grounds.

This type of music is degrading to everyone, not just women.  While music depicting violence towards women appears on the surface to only demean women, it can be offensive and degrading to a range of people. One popular culture reference to a situation like this comes from the British television show called The Office, in the episode 'Merger'1. In this episode the character David Brent tells a racist joke and while this did not offend the black character present, many other characters were still offended by this joke.  People may be offended by the ideas behind the music, as it seems that people who glorify violence towards women in song appear to think that this violence is acceptable. Men could be offended by these ideas just as much as women might. As songs like this become 'mainstream' in some cultures, everybody in that culture becomes affected by it, and some men and women may feel degraded by this association. Finally some people may argue that the person who writes and/or sings lyric that depict violence towards women degrade themselves in this act.  1 DailyMotion. The Office (U.K.) - Explaining a Joke. Retrieved August 23, 2011.

The issue of whether music is degrading to women or any other demography in society is irrelevant to the question of whether it encourages violence or aggression towards women. In fact, the proposition undermines itself through this claim by suggesting that this music should encourage violence to all segments of society; should we therefore ban all music?

The music is not the reason for the lack of respect for women; rather it is a much broader problem that cannot be prevented simply by targeting music. Within the part of that culture that is music the problem is not that music depicting violence toward women provides negative role models but rather that there are no positive role models to balance this. Banning music depicting violence towards women would not solve the problem as it still would not provide positive role models in order to replace the previous depiction. Therefore rather than putting energy into banning music depicting violence towards women, we should create a counter culture of strong, independent women who will not stand by domestic abuse or violence.

It would be easy to apply restrictions on music.  We already give films, DVD's and games an age appropriate rating. In the United States, the Motion Picture Association of America is charged with the responsibility of providing ratings to consumers [1] .  It would seem that it would be simple to stretch these criteria to a similar music body. Therefore people would only be subjected to violent lyrics when it is deemed they are old enough to hear or buy this material, and it would stop younger people from being exposed to this kind of music. This also means that no new state-run institution needs to be created; it would operate, like the MPAA, independently of government control. As such, claims that any form of music censorship would suffer from practical problems are short-sighted, we simply need to extend the medium that already exists.  [1] Motion Picture Association of America

Music depicting violence against women encourages men (and women) not to respect women.  Asha Jennings began a boycott of misogynistic music in hip-hop, resulting in the 'take back the music' campaign supported by essence magazine. Jennings claims that this type of rap/ hip hop music is 'telling people [black women] are bitches and hos and sluts and not worthy of respect [...] And that's exactly how society is treating us'1. She continues that images of women 'tends to be objectified, degrading, very stripper-like' or as nagging vicious and manipulative money grabbers1. Jennings' worry is that in these videos women are depicted as menial, subservient and purely as the object of men's entertainment. The lyrics that go with these music videos compound these ideas of women as undeserving of male respect e.g. 'wouldn't piss on fire to put you out' (Eminem), 'Then I straight smoked the ho [...] and she thanked me' (NWE) (All lyrics in full are in the scrapbook). These images in themselves are violence towards women, as they dehumanise them. As this becomes a dominant image in society, young people who look up to these rappers mimic their behaviour and believe it is ok to disrespect women,2 as that is what they have been exposed to. This works in the same way for young girls, who cannot relate to the male rappers and so instead mimic the women they talk about, while also following their views on women. This idea that women are not deserving of respect must affect the levels of violence towards women as if you abuse someone you cannot fully respect them. Therefore if music depicting violence (and for this argument, disrespect) towards women was banned, then violence towards women in the real world would be reduced and this must be seen as a good thing.  1 CNN, Hip-Hop Portrayal of Women Protested, 2005  2 Burnham, L. Nightmares of Depravity. Durland 21 June 1995.

However, while freedom of expression is definitely an important concept to consider, such freedoms can only go so far. When it comes to language that promotes violence then freedom of expression is no longer sufficient reason not to ban something as a physical harm outweighs the right to freedom of expression. Many countries such as Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India ban hate speech because it has severely damaging effects injuring people's dignity, feelings and self-respect and potentially promoting violence.1 Similarly, if we accept the arguments in the proposition arguments above, and we believe that this type of music can be harmful, then it seems that perhaps freedom of speech can be over ridden in order to protect those that this music injures (i.e. some women). Furthermore the banning of music which glorifies violence towards women may perhaps overtime lead to people's attitude toward this style of lyrics changing, and therefore any harmful attitude that arise from it may begin to be unacceptable by the majority.  1 Liptak, Adam, ‘Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.’, The New York Times, 11 June 2008

None of these arguments pose a significant problem. While setting criteria may be difficult and there will always be cases where it is a matter of interpretation this is not a reason not to create a strict and detailed set of criteria. There could be an appeals process to make sure that a song is not banned based purely on one individual's opinion.  That a ban on recording and selling the music could be avoided through pirating or songs being passed down orally does not matter as if this was happening the ban would already have enough of an impact. The ban does not have to be totally comprehensive in order to have the desired effect of reducing violence towards women simply that it prevents many people listening to the music. The audience would be reduced to a tiny minority and those who remain would be aware of the lyrics as they would have to specifically seek out the music rather than simply being exposed to it with little thought of what it may contain.  Finally there is unlikely to be a large forbidden fruit effect, some people may want to try it in order to find out what it is like. But unlike for example drugs there are direct substitutes that would be almost exactly the same but without the violent lyrics so there is little point in going to the extra effort to get illegal versions.

To ban this type of music encourages the viewing of women as helpless, victim figures.  Many feminists criticise the idea of banning music that glorifies violence against women, as they perpetuate the idea of women as helpless victims who cannot cope with male criticism or violent language. One such group of people are 'power feminists'1 These power feminists believe that by complaining that men are depicting violent language towards women, and attempting to get this banned, the gender stereotype of women as a victim is reinforced; thus undoing any feminist progress that tries to assert men and women are equals. Power feminists believe that instead women should take this language in hand, assert/ defend themselves and retaliate in order to state that women are equals to those who produce this violent music.  1 Campbell , R. L. Part I: Power Feminist or Victim Feminist? 24 March 2004.

The 'Slippery-Slope' Argument  Banning music that glorifies violence is at risk of the 'slippery-slope' of censorship, which occurs on two levels. Firstly that while music depicting violence towards women may be banned for the best intentions, this censorship may end up extending to other unpopular pieces of art, literature, film or news stories. It may follow that once music depicting violence is banned, that definition of violence may be expanded, afterwards that it is easier to ban songs that contain a political message as there is already precedent. While it is unlikely that it would ever be carried to such an extreme this could continue, until simply anything that is disliked by those in control of the banning is prohibited. It may also discourage people to say or publish expressions of their own for fear of them being considered pornography and being prosecuted1. Equally likely would be the spread of such bans to other forms of media as mentioned in opposition argument one.The second concern of the 'slippery slope' argument is that banning this type of music may cause a stagnation of creative output as people are scared to produce any music that might be considered offensive. This might result in no new styles of music being created and thus styles of music may begin to become torpid.  1Schauer, Frederick F, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)

To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would  Many of those who argue that censorship of music depicting violence towards women would be a bad thing do so on libertarian grounds. That is, they believe that to restrict the creation, circulation and consumption of this type of music would result in a restriction of people's freedom of speech/ expression. As some people enjoy and relate to the type of music that depicts these images, to deny people the right to listen to this music is to unfairly restrict their enjoyment and marginalise their tastes.  Some people take this further to say that morbidity is part of the human condition. A consequence of our highly developed brains is that we become very conscious of our mortality, we become fascinated with violence as well because it is so closely linked to death, and we all want to understand death, we all want to know what happens after we die. So people end up seeking different ways of dealing with their fear of death, and one common way is desensitizing ourselves to the idea, perhaps through subjecting ourselves to an environment awash with death, i.e. music that depicts violence. This obviously extends to the creative aspect of humanity as well. We all spend a lot of time thinking about violence, so it is not really surprising that the most creative of us end up making art about it. From paintings, to music, to theatre, we are obsessed with violence in our entertainment, even gratuitous violence. We have famous painters like Francisco Goya who invoke gruesome violence for effect1 and who also receive critical acclaim; Stanley Kubrick won an Oscar nomination for directing A Clockwork Orange, a movie rampant with violence, sexuality and misogyny. Both these examples show violent art which have had both critical and commercial success. Therefore for the proposition argument to successfully defend the banning of music depicting violence towards women it would seem that we would equally have to ban films and paintings that display similar themes. This would result in a huge restriction of expression and society would potentially loose a vast amount of creative output. Furthermore from the examples given above it would seem that a ban would go against popular desire.  1 Francisco Jose de Goya. 'Saturn Devoursing his Son.' Wikipedia.

It would be highly impractical to ban this music glorifying violence.  There are many reasons it would be impractical to ban certain types of music: First, who would choose what music counts as inappropriate and on what criteria? This would include concerns such as the Rolling Stone's song, 'Brown Sugar' which depicts sexual violence towards a slave by a slave owner (see scrapbook). It would be up to this censor to assert whether this song is highlighting and mocking a distressing moment in history, or whether it is glorifying this incident or merely describing it with no moral judgement. The censor would also have to then choose which of these where fitting reasons to ban the song. This is just a matter of opinion and thus no-one can be unbiased in making a decision. If this is true then it seems that no-one should have the right of it over someone else's opinion.  Second while there could be a ban made on recording or selling songs that depict violence towards women, or prohibit them being played on the radio, with current technological advances it would be very difficult to enforce a total ban. Music is widely available on thousands of websites via video/internet radio etc. More basically, music is a very communal activity and people may sing in crowds or to each other. Country songs (as a genre) have one of the highest percentages of music depicting violence towards women, and these songs tend to have an oral history. Thus even if there was a ban on new songs being recorded, these old songs would continue to be heard and new songs may be heard to a smaller audience. Thus people would still be exposed to these lyrics of women being abused in music.  The final reason it would be difficult to ban music that depicts violence towards women is that this runs a risk that this will only encourage musicians to write such songs, which become more popular for being 'forbidden fruit'.

No 'slippery slope' situation exists. It would be clear that the ban only applies to music that glorifies violence. This is not a justification that could be infinitely expanded to cover more and more music and art. It could not be considered a precedent to ban music with a political message as most political messages do not promote violence.  Far from stifling creativity it is likely to stimulate it. Artists would need to find new styles of music and would attempt to find ways around the ban while still keeping their music as near to its previous style as possible.

To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would not be met with claims that their ban merely encourages the view of children as victims (as an argument against the practise). Why is that any different in this case?  improve this  We desire freedom of expression.

This argument is just specious. There have been plenty of times in history when medicine was ‘learnt on the job’, it didn’t make it a good idea. However, and medicine is an excellent example, we now realise that there is a huge benefit to having students acquire a theoretical underpinning of their discipline before going on to get some hands on experience. Of course there is some need for practical training but there is little reason why universities cannot offer this rather than individual artists.

The Arts should be learnt on the job – it’s a craft  The idea that the best place to learn an artform is a classroom is fantastically modern. The idea of teaching them at all is fairly recent. If ever there were an example of ‘those who can, do; those who can’t, teach’, then it’s the arts. Novelists, poets, painters, dancers, composers, musicians and others have been learning from each other as they practiced their art for, quite literally, millennia.  Practitioners learning by doing has worked perfectly well for most of history and produced, for example, the extraordinary works of the renaissance or classical art mostly without the benefit of a university degree. All a degree in this area does is extend the period of delusion that an individual is good enough to cut it as a professional artist [i] .  [i] Goldman, Jeremy, ‘Actors dilemma: Theatre major vs. No theatre major’ USA Today, 25 June 2012.

This isn’t an either/or discussion. Despite Prop’s efforts to suggest that there are masses of homeless, would-be engineering students roaming around university campuses, the reality is that universities pack their bankable courses just fine and ensure that they have the capacity to do so. The fact that universities do not just churn out an endless round of vocationally-focussed graduates is hugely to be welcomed. If nothing else, it ensures that the university experience itself is a well-rounded one.  The very fact that students continue to apply for these courses, and universities continue to meet that demand, suggests that applicants are interested in something more than money. Presumably the very students who are applying for such a degree – and will shoulder the repercussions of having one – form part of society and are quiet happy to ‘afford’ their degree.

Creative arts graduates are rarely well rewarded  It is a simple fact that degrees in the Arts offer less earning potential than those in all other sectors (except Education and social work) [i] . As well as being an issue for the individual, this affects wider society, as those on lower incomes are more likely to become dependent on the state at some point in their life and are less well placed to stimulate other sectors of the economy through their own consumption.  The median earning figure across Arts degrees is, itself deceptive. The median in the US is $45,000 but this disguises the lower end of the scale, with 25% earning $30,000 a year or less.  Unlike education and social work which at least tend to have the consistency of a government salary, the Arts are also fantastically unreliable as an employment sector. Teachers and social workers may have comparatively low salaries but at least they can be assured of job security. The Arts offers low and unstable wages, frequently at an ongoing expense to the taxpayer, when the jobs exist at all.  As a result, encouraging the creative arts through university qualifications places both an initial and, potentially, ongoing cost on the rest of society. It also means that graduates are likely to be destined to long term financial instability because of a decision they made as a teenager.  It is difficult to see who benefits from such an arrangement.  [i] ‘Arts’, Georgetown University,

Very few go into the arts expecting a high income, they do so because they enjoy it. Likewise, the very fact that people pay for the arts – both through their own purchases and social funding, suggests that the pleasure that performance - and other creative arts – gives is recognised by wider society. The output of the Arts sector provides entertainment and pleasure to others in a way that really cannot be said of, for example, banking or derivatives brokerage.  By the by, it would also be interesting to see how any graduates in, say, the humanities are likely to match the earning potential of a movie star or an ‘it’ artist.

Arts degrees limit opportunities for Universities to offer other courses  Universities have to provide a range of courses, some of which are going to be more financially viable than others, that fine. However, investment in one area inevitably means that there are resources not being focused elsewhere. It’s not a huge factor but some subjects – creative arts, Theology and a few others do represent a ‘back door’ into universities for those who didn’t get the grades to get onto more demanding courses.  Those students still need to sleep, study and socialize somewhere – in place of those who could have taken their places on Engineering, Medicine, Economics or similar courses had the space been available.  By keeping these courses, universities are turning away students for other disciplines and those studying the arts courses are learning in a way that may not be the most productive – as mentioned in the previous argument. It’s difficult to see who wins.

Opp’s case sounds excellent, and reasonable and sensible. And complete nonsense. Those countries that have changed their fee arrangements for students in recent years, such as the UK, have seen that students are very concerned with whether their degree is likely to cover the cost of taking it – now that they are expected to pay for it. When it is society at large footing the bill, unsurprisingly, they are less concerned. Of course the financial outcome of doing a degree is of paramount interest to both the student and wider society, suggesting otherwise is sophistry.

Opp makes an excellent case for further refining the role of Higher Education but not a very satisfactory one for keeping it structured as it currently is. The whole point here is that nobody benefits – not the graduate, not the Arts and not the society that is footing the bill. The benefit to society of art would remain if the arts were no longer taught as university degrees.

The Arts pay their way in film, heritage and design industries  The major film, theatrical, dance and other artistic ventures of any nation provide an enormous benefit in terms of reasons to visit as country, or travel within one. Going to the theatre, for example, has knock on benefits for the catering, transport, and retail sectors as well as crating employment in its own right for many who never went anywhere near a degree in the Arts [i] .  For many nations one or two key sectors of the arts are massive revenue generators – especially film, television and music. Theatres and galleries have considerably more pulling power than heavy industry or high finance for tourists [ii] – and Prop has been very quiet on the subject of architecture, without which the bankers and financiers they so admire would be homeless. The arts may not square up to banking in terms of the amount of money earned for the economy but they also have much less of a record of damaging the rest of the economy through sparking crises.  Even just focussing on the finances of the sector, the Arts justify their presence not only through their own revenue but also through those other sectors that benefit as a result but pay nothing towards their development [iii] .  [i] Lord, Clayton, ‘The Value of Arts is Not Going to be Found in Economics’, New Beans, 19 May 2011.   [ii] The National Campaign for the Arts. Theatre: Contribution to the Economy. 2010.   [iii] National Endowment for the Arts. ‘Art and GDP.’,

The notion that money is the best way of judging value is far more damaging to society than the Arts  If the value of a degree is judged purely on the likely salary at the end of it, then society has a very real problem. Even without rehearsing the fact that other disciplines would vanish by the wayside, it also ties into the myth that a degree is simply a vocational tool to increase the salary of the person taking it [i] .  The mindset that insists that everything can be reduced to the level of individual income has also brought us the obscenity of the bonus culture in high finance and, so far, five years of recession. The value of the arts is primarily non-monetary; it comes from the psychological benefit of well-designed buildings [ii] or the happiness and creativity stimulated by engaging with a work of art. [iii]  University fulfills a far wider societal role in terms of training the mind and socializing the individual. For the vast majority of students, it also provides a respite between the constrictions of the family home and those of the workplace.  It is also just possible that people select their degrees primarily because they are interested in them. That in itself is something that cannot be said of significant parts of the world of work.  The logic of this motion is that all members of society are employers – or at least wealth generators – first and last. Their role as voters, community members, parents, and plain human beings seems to be irrelevant to both the spirit and wording of the motion and the Proposition’s case.  [i] Edgar, David, ‘Why should we fund the arts?’ The Guardian, 5 January 2012.   [ii] Steadman, Ian, ‘Study: school design can significantly affect a child’s grades’, Wired.co.uk, 3 January 2013,   [iii] Alleyne, Richard, ‘Viewing art gives same pleasure as being love’, The Telegraph, 8 May 2011,

The Arts provide huge benefits to society; easily comparable to humanities or theoretical science  It has already been mentioned that there are plenty of degrees where it is unlikely that graduates will ever use the knowledge they acquire, per se, in their later careers. Proposition has failed to give a reason – other than earning power – as to why the creative arts should be singled out on this ground [i] .  However, in terms of the general utility provided to wider society, it would be hard to point to a discipline that out performs the arts.  Every TV drama, theatre production, concert and so on is likely to include at least a smattering of participants who studied the subject. It is in the nature of the arts that its audience massively outnumbers those participating in its production. Beyond that the trickle down affect of knowledge into every area of public life from ideas and concepts initiated by artists is enormous.  However, if Prop’s entire case is that artists should be paid more for the enormous amount of good they do, we are quite happy to concede the point.  [i] McCarthy, Kevin F. et al., ‘Reframing the Debate About the Value of the Arts.’, The Rand Corporation, 2005,

This is a little like saying that the petroleum industry benefits from medicine because of the need for ambulances. People would still go out for dinner and still take holidays. More to the point, as has been suggested, they will still go the theatre or cinema, where people will still act. The issue here is that Universities are unnecessary in the process of training creative artists.

Reality TV does not discourage hard work or education, rather it creates a society whereby we have shared experiences and a strong sense of community. As such, reality TV provides an important social glue. Once upon a time there were only a few television channels, and everybody watched the same few programmes. The sense of a shared experience helped to bind people together, giving them common things to talk about at work and school the next day – “water cooler moments”. Reality programs like ‘Survivor’ play that role in contemporary society with viewership being ‘almost a cultural imperative’, the experience shared simultaneously with friends and family.1  Furthermore, even if it were the case that the moral lessons of reality programmes are not always advisable, just as viewers can empathize with characters in the Godfather without wanting to be them, the same applies to questionable characters and actions in reality shows.2  1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker  2 Poniewozik, J. (2003) All the News That Fits Your Reality Retrieved July 4, 2011, from TIME MAGAZINE

Reality TV encourages people to pursue celebrity status, and discourages the value of hard work and an education  Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a cult of instant celebrity. They are typically built about shameless self-promotion, based on humiliating others and harming relationships for the entertainment of each other and the viewers at home. These programmes suggest that anyone can become famous just by getting on TV and "being themselves", without working hard or having any particular talent. Kids who watch these shows will get the idea that they don't need to study hard in school, or train hard for a regular job. As John Humphrys points out, 'we tell kids what matters is being a celebrity and we wonder why some behave the way they do' 1 As American lawyer Lisa Bloom fears, 'addiction to celebrity culture is creating a generation of dumbed-down women.'2 Reality shows encourage such addictions and promote the generally misguided belief that they should aspire to be the reality stars they watch on their televisions. 1 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian: 2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today

Reality TV programmes are not corrupting. They do reflect our society, which isn't always perfect, but we should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. When Adam Lambert, an openly gay contestant on American Idol, lost in the final of the show despite being widely regarded as the best singer, many rightfully pointed out what it demonstrated about the homophobia of American society. To deride reality shows as 'corrupting' therefore is misguided; it is society who is corrupt and reality shows that offer a potential solution. To solve a problem first requires accepting one exists, and reality shows provide a means to do that; they are a window into society, permitting everyone to reflect on the issues that are most harmful to society. As such, reality show producers should not be accused of a lack of creativity or laziness for their programmes, but congratulated for drawing attention to important issues.

The sheer number of reality programmes is now driving TV producers to create filthier, more corrupt reality shows  Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience becomes more and more used to the genre. In a search for ratings and media coverage, shows are becoming ever more vulgar and offensive, trying to find new ways to shock. When the British Big Brother was struggling for viewers in 2003, its producers responded by attempting to shock the audience that little bit more1. "Big Brother" programmes have also shown men and women having sex on live TV in a desperate grab higher ratings to justify their continued existence. Others have involved fights and racist bullying. Do we let things continue until someone has to die on TV to boost the ratings?  When reality is "constructed" then it substitutes the "natural" reality. This in turn has adverse effect on the natural growth of the children who are either actively involved into it or as audience become a passive recepient. We therefore in a pursuit of commercialization are taking away an inalienable right of children i.e. full personality development in a natural environment which is not contaminated by "constructed" reality.  1 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:

Reality shows are not becoming more corrupt or more filthy. What has changed is rather what the public defines as acceptable viewing. In other words, the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality is closing thanks to modern reality programs. And the gap is closing due to popular demand to see reality on their TV screens. For example, the sex shown on Scandinavian episodes of Big Brother is not shocking or unrealistic, it is only unusual in the context of what we expect to see on television. The fact it was shown only illustrates that the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality on television is closing. If the proposition has an issue therefore with what modern reality shows are presenting, they have an issue with society at large, not reality programs. Even if were the case that reality programmes are getting more corrupt and filthy, viewers should take the advice of former U.S. President Bush Jr. and 'put the off button on.'

Reality shows are real; they are real people operating without scripts and often, live. The fact that characters are often cast to encourage disagreements or tension does not take away from the reality of the program, in fact it only adds to it. The unrealistic settings of shows like Big Brother and Survivor do not take away from the educational value of observing how they cope. In fact, without such shows, most people would have little concept of how a group of strangers would be able to survive, co-operate and develop in such environments. As Time describes, 'they provoke, they offend but at least it's trying to do something besides help you get to sleep'. The insight therefore into the human condition is invaluable, and it is little surprise that viewers are eager to watch such programs. What is real is not always the same as what is normal, the events on Survivor Island are no less real for being in an unrealistic setting.

Reality shows make for bad, lazy and corrupting television, encouraging such behaviour in society  Reality shows are bad, lazy and corrupting television. They mostly show ordinary people with no special talents doing very little. If they have to sing or dance, then they do it badly – which doesn’t make for good entertainment. They rely on humiliation and conflict to create excitement. Joe Millionaire, where a group of women competed for the affections of a construction worker who they were told was a millionaire, was simply cruel. The emotions of the contestants were considered expendable for the sake of making viewers laugh at their ignorance. Furthermore, the programmes are full of swearing, crying and argument, and often violence, drunkenness and sex. This sends a message to people that this is normal behaviour and helps to create a crude, selfish society. One American reality show, “Are You Hot?”, in which competitors submit to a panel of judges for ‘appearance-rating’, was blamed by eating disorder experts as encouraging the notion that ‘appearance is the most important thing’ (Becker, 2003).1 Furthermore, Paul Watson, a former reality TV show producer, believes they are ‘predictable and just creates more of the same and makes our film makers lazy’ (Jury, 2007).  1 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women.Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today  2 Jury, L. (2007, January 4). The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it? Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Independent

Reality shows are not 'real', therefore they have no education value  Reality TV is dishonest – it pretends to show “reality” but it actually distorts the truth to suit the programme makers. The shows are not really “real” – they are carefully cast to get a mix of “characters” who are not at all typical. Mostly they show a bunch of young, good-looking self-publicists, who will do anything to get on TV. Usually the programme makers try to ensure excitement by picking people who are likely to clash with each other. They then place them in unnatural situations, such as the Big Brother house or the Survivor island, and give them strange challenges in order to provoke them into behaving oddly. In The Bachelor, where a group of women compete for the affections of an eligible male, the ‘intimate dates’ they go on are filmed in front of any number of camera; that is not reality (Poniewozik, 2003).1 Finally the makers film their victims for hundreds of hours from all angles, but only show the most dramatic parts. Selective editing may be used to create “storylines” and so further manipulate the truth of what happened.  1 Poniewozik, J. (2003) All the News That Fits Your Reality Retrieved July 4, 2011, from TIME MAGAZINE

Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that often there is nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap and series can go on for months on end, providing hundreds of hours of viewing to fill schedules. TV bosses like this and are cutting back on comedy, music, drama and current affairs in favour of wall to wall reality rubbish. This is even worse when reality shows crowd the schedules of public service broadcasters. Stations such as the BBC in the UK, France Télévisions, or Rai in Italy have a duty to inform and educate the public. They should be made to meet that responsibility – as Rai has by saying it won’t have any more reality shows.

Reality television is not what audiences want, it is watched simply because it is ‘there’. It is what John Humphrys calls ‘carbohydrate television’, it ‘probably hasn’t done you much harm and if it leaves you feeling a bit bloated…well you can search out of a bit of quality stuff’. [1] With tens of television channels and twenty-four hours of programming to fill, reality is simply a cheap means to ensure there is always something on TV to watch. In Italy, the evidence supports such claims, with the state broadcaster Rai deciding to scrap reality programmes in 2008 due to low demand. [2] As Rai’s President stated, ‘I don’t believe they are the type of shows the majority of our viewers expect or want from a public service broadcaster’. [3]  [1] Humphrys, John. “Take this oath: First, do no harm.” 28 August 2004. The Guardian. 4 July 2011.  [2] Fraser, Christian. “Italian TV bins reality shows.” 3 April 2007. BBC News. 4 July 2011.  [3] Fraser, Christian. “Italian TV bins reality shows.” 3 April 2007. BBC News. 4 July 2011.

Reality TV can be educational and have real effects in society in a way other television programmes do not  Reality TV can be very educational. They educate people by displaying disastrous consequences of someone's behaviour, thus deterring others from doing unplanned and silly actions. Programmes such as "The Apprentice" have made people think about business. Jamie Oliver has raised issues of youth unemployment and poor diet, and "Fit Club" has got people thinking about health and fitness. Jamie Oliver's inaugural reality show, 'Jamie's Kitchen', offered jobless youngsters the 'chance to train and lead a nationwide campaign to improve the quality of school meals'1. Without the TV show's popularity funding the initiative, the youngsters involved would not have had such an opportunity and school meals would still reflect what kids want to eat, not what they should be eating. Such effects on society are beneficial and should be encouraged, not restricted. 1 Jury, L. (2007, January 4). The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it? Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Independent

Reality television forces us to analyse our own behaviour as a society  Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society; they are effectively anthropological experiments, allowing the public to study people and societies from the comfort of their living rooms1. Humans are endlessly different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In these programmes we see people like us faced with unusual situations. Shows like Survivor, which place a group of strangers in remote environments, make us think about what we would do in their place, and about what principles govern human behaviour in general. It also shows us people who look and act very different from us, and helps us see that actually we have a lot in common with them. MTV's reality show 'Making the Band 2', a 'hip-hop American Idol', gives centre stage to inner-city kids who would be portrayed as criminals or victims on a cop drama. There is nothing immoral about reality shows, merely the society which demands them; these shows are just a product of our values and desires. We should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker

The public can always just turn reality programmes off, or watch something else  Television provides a wide mixture of programmes, including reality television. For those who want it, there is high quality drama such as "The Sopranos" or "Pride and Prejudice" whilst the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and other international broadcasters also cover news and current affairs in great depth. Wildlife programmes on the National Geographic or Discovery bring the wonders of the natural world into our living rooms. More sports are covered in more detail than ever before. So, ultimately, reality shows have not ruined television as a whole, they have merely added another option for viewers. Indeed, because they make a lot of money for broadcasters to spend on other types of programmes, they are actually good for all viewers, regardless of personal taste for genres.

Reality television is popular and TV producers should give audiences what they want  Reality television programmes are very popular with audiences of all ages and types. They may not be high culture but most people do not want that from television. Most viewers want to be entertained and to escape for a while from the worries and boredom of their everyday life. American Idol rejectees who stubbornly insist that they have talent provide such escapism. [1] Furthermore, and importantly, such contestants are good natured in doing so, they are not exploited but offer themselves to reality shows. [2] Therefore, there is no harm in giving the people what they want – that is what the free market is all about. Reality shows are also popular because they exploit new technology so that millions of people can participate in the programme – typically by voting. Britain is believed to have had as many as 176 reality TV shows in a single year. [3] Such supply can only be driven by excessive demand.  [1] Poniewozik, James. “Why Reality TV is Good for Us.” 12 February 2003. Time. 5 July 2011.  [2] Poniewozik, James. “Why Reality TV is Good for Us.” 12 February 2003. Time. 5 July 2011.  [3] Jury, Louise. “The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it?” 4 January 2007. The Independent. 4 July 2011.

Reality TV is less about exposing society and allowing us to evaluate our own behaviour than it is about 're-inforcing particular social norms'1. As such, it is deliberately misleading. If it is portrayed as being real, it implies authenticity and honesty, two things that most reality TV programmes are not. They serve not to challenge our views of society, but reinforce the often false notions we already collectively hold. For example, the US reality show "Are You Hot?" asks competitors to submit to appearance-rating by judges, only re-inforcing the false premise that one is defined solely by the way they look2. Furthermore, even if accepted that reality shows do present a 'real' image of society, programmes like Big Brother and Survivor erode the distinction between public and private, turning 'people with real lives and real problems and real children (into) entertainment'3. Society's entertainment cannot be allowed to come at the expense of the privacy that protects families and children. 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker 2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today 3 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:

The few reality TV programmes that are educational and beneficial do not balance the bad majority. The majority are not educational, either to the public or the participants, and the insight they purport to offer into the human psyche are misguided. As Vanessa Feltz, a contestant on the British Big Brother series, describes, contestants and viewers alike 'subscribe to this utterly specious notion that fame is entirely desirable' (BBC News, 2001), whilst Narinda Kaur, another contestant on the show, admitted "I came away from this experience thinking 'oh my God, did I really say that?" (BBC News, 2001). As Claudio Petruccioli, head of the Italian state broadcaster Rai, notes, 'reality TV shows put people into environments that are both unrealistic and coercive'1 Any lessons learned are therefore inapplicable to real-world situations. 1 Fraser, C. (2007, April 3). Italian TV bins reality shows. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from BBC News:

PSBs are a thing of the past. People no longer sit around the Television together. Commercial broadcasters provide more cultural freedom and choice for people. The idea of TV bringing a nation together no longer holds any merit in fragmented globalizing media markets where individualism dominates. TV is now more often than not a solitary experience rather than a communal one. This can be demonstrated by the amount of TV sets owned per household. A marketing report from Nielsen shows that in 1980 49% of US households had only 1 TV set and that 15% had three or more. Compare that with data from 2010 and only 17% of people in the US own only 1 TV set whereas 55% have 3 or more. [1]  [1] Nielsen (2010) U.S. Homes Add Even More TV Sets in 2010. [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at:

PSBs bring nations and people together and are an actively positive force within the mediasphere  As well as airing programming for minorities which the private broadcasters would not provide, by providing and presenting content in a manner that resonates with the society in which they operate and by offering universal and affordable access to such content (see definition in the introduction) PSBs can also help bring people together and thus promote social cohesion. PSBs are able to put people and society first before financial and commercial interests. For example the BBC in its 2005 “Building Public Value” report states that it “aims to serve its audiences not just as consumers, but as members of a wider society, with programmes and services which, while seeking to inform, educate and entertain audiences, also serve wider public purposes”. [1]  [1] BBC (2005) Building Public Value. [online] [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at:

The same could be said equally about PSBs. They are unlikely to broadcast items which may damage their funding stream. In the case of networks using the underwriting model they are also unlikely to broadcast things which underwriters do not approve of. Due to the fragmented and competitive broadcasting market place there will always be a home for programming which challenges businesses and other entities if there is enough public interest in the given issue.

PSBs provide quality and original content that can cater for niche or commercially unattractive market segments  PSBs create unique content which private broadcasters would be unable to produce as they strive for mass market appeal to satisfy the demands placed upon them by commercial interests looking to purchase advertising. PSBs create more educational and minority output which enriches society rather than just entertaining it.  PSBs can concentrate on creating high quality programming across all genres rather than simply producing mediocre populist programming such as low-cost game shows and reality TV. For example it is unlikely that commercial broadcasters would have aired nightly university lectures as the BBC did with its partnership with the Open University. PSBs are usually among the highest investors in the domestic content industries and nurture local creative talent.

Commercial broadcasters have to directly interact with their audience to ensure that the programming being provided is what the public actually wants to consume. Commercial broadcasters have to pull in audiences whereas the (partly) publicly funded PSBs have a financial safety net which allows them to push content onto the audience in an elitist manner and allows them to essentially tell their audience what is good for them. It is also erroneous to suggest that minority tastes are not served by commercial broadcasters. Technology has allowed for a greater number of broadcast channels and as a result many of these specialize to cater for particular niches, for example, The History Channel.

PSB are better equipped than private broadcasters to air accurate, objective and impartial information and programming  Advertising limits the types of programming and stories commercial networks will run as they may fear losing lucrative advertising deals with large corporations. As PSBs do not rely (solely) on advertising they are more likely to air programming which is critical towards the practices of large corporations and serve the public interest. For example, In August 2011, PBS aired Food Inc., a documentary that ‘lifted the veil on (the US’) food industry…exposing the underbelly that’s hidden from the American consumer with the consent of (the) government’s regulatory agencies’. [1]  [1] PBS (2011). “Food, Inc. – Synopsis”. [Accessed 6th September, 2011]. Available at:

Public ownership of broadcasting is good for the citizen/consumer, as it is free once your license fee or taxes have been paid. With the erosion of advertising revenues streams, private broadcasting companies are seeking to make popular programming (such as sports events, concerts or films) subscription based, a trend which risks excluding poorer audiences and threatens social cohesion. Nor is it in the interest of current private broadcasters to see their public rivals privatized and forced to accept advertising, as the overall increase in advertising space would drive down the amount broadcasters could charge advertisers for a spot, reducing their revenues and profits.

It is true that government should not be allowed a monopoly over broadcasting, but that is very rare outside totalitarian states. Usually countries have at least one privately owned broadcasting network competing with the public media and so limiting political manipulation by the State. In addition, corporatization, as with the BBC in the UK, or CBC in Canada, sets the broadcaster up as accurate and impartial, allowing for the benefits of public ownership without the risk of political interference. Instead, the greatest risk of bias lies within a purely private broadcasting sector, where the high costs of entry and technological development encourage consolidation to the point where powerful individuals, such as Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, can manipulate the broadcast agenda in their own interests. Without the balance guaranteed by public service media, meaningful participation by all citizens in the social and political lives of their societies and fair elections might become impossible.

Privatising PSBs would improve the efficiency of their operations and the quality of their programming  Privatization would be good for public broadcasters, exposing them to the bracing impact of proper competition and forcing them to focus more effectively upon their strengths while producing efficiencies. When it was privatized, it was expected that New Jersey Public Television could save the state $11million a year. [1] Freed from government control, they would be less exposed to political decisions about the level of license fee or direct subsidy, and better able to raise finance in the capital markets. This would allow them to compete internationally in the changing digital marketplace, developing commercial operations, and ploughing increased profits back into better program making for their domestic market.  [1] McGlone, Penny. (2011) “N.J. public television to undergo name change, cuts in staff”. The Star-Ledger, 7 June 2011. [Accessed 23 August 2011] Available at:

PSBs funding sources give them an unfair advantage in the broadcasting market, harming competition.  Public ownership of the media distorts competition, harming private companies in their domestic marketplace and their ability to compete internationally. It does this because the government is funding a service that could be supplied profitably by the private sector - for example, a pop music radio station or the broadcast of sporting events. The market share of private companies inevitably suffers, along with their ability to raise advertising revenue based upon the size of their audience. This means that private broadcasters end up with less money to spend on their programmes and are less well placed to compete internationally. James Murdoch, son of the medal mogul Rupert Murdoch, in his MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival in 2009 echoed this opinion stating that the free news output by the BBC “"threatens the provision of news in Britain". [1]  [1] The Independent (2009) The BBC’s Unhealthy Dominance. [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at:

The relationship between governments and PSBs can be problematic  The broadcast media has so much power to form opinion that it is dangerous to give politicians too much influence over it. Once in government, a political party can use public ownership and control of television and radio stations to manipulate both the news agenda and its editorial policy - as many Middle-East regimes did during the 2011 Arab Spring. For example in Egypt, during sustained and substantial protests aimed at removing President Hosni Mubarak from office the state run media described protestors as “... ‘Vandals’ and ‘hooligans’. A few hours after Mubarak’s fall, the ‘vandalisers’ had become ‘heroes’, and what [they] had previously described as ‘chaos instigated by foreign powers’ had suddenly become ‘a glorious revolution.’” [1]  [1] Diab, O. (2011) New Egypt, New Media. [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at:

PSBs are already exposed to competition as their audience figures are compared with those of their private rivals, and they constantly have to justify the level of their license fee or subsidy. Outsourcing most actual program making, as the BBC does, provides a competitive environment in which costs can be controlled effectively. Nor does public ownership prevent organizations from raising money - government bodies often resort to bond issues to fund investment. The BBC has successfully launched BBC Worldwide and developed a profitable commercial arm while remaining a public corporation.

Indigenous populations have no more right to special government treatment than other minority groups. Even indigenous populations did not inhabit their current territory from the dawn of time, and many ethnic groups around the world live where they do because they were pushed out of some other territory hundreds or thousands of years ago. Virtually every ethnic group in the world has been conquered and abused by some other group. Tracing the entirety of human history to determine which group owes reparations to which other group is unproductive; rather, governments should move forward to promote a better standard of living for all citizens.

Existing states are responsible for the destruction of indigenous populations and their societies, and thereby have an obligation to help reverse the effects of their actions  The Indian Removal Act of 18301, the 1871 Indian Appropriations Act, and the 1887 General Allotment Act are just a few examples of legislation used to destroy Native American communities in the US2. Settlers in Australia are similarly responsible for a multitude of massacres3, as well as several decades of forced separation of aboriginal children from their parents in an effort to "Christianize" them4. While the current citizens of Canada, the US, and Australia are not guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, they nevertheless reap the benefits of those atrocities while today's indigenous populations still suffer from the lasting impact of oppression. When chemical companies make huge profits at the expense of damaging the surrounding community's environment, those companies are expected to pay reparations. A government that destroys an indigenous culture must similarly work to reverse their destruction.  1 Indian Treaty and Removal Act of 1830, U.S. Department of State. 2 Preamble to the Trail of Broken Treaties 20-Point Position Paper: An Indian Manifesto. American Indian Movement, 1972. 3 History of Australian Aboriginal Massacres, Treaty Republic, 2011. 4"Living With the Past," FOCUS September 1997, Vol. 9, Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center.

The government should rely on just legal systems to protect the rights of indigenous people, not cultural preservation. A constitution that enumerates rights and a court system that scrutinizes government activity is a much more direct and reliable venue of protecting indigenous rights than sporadic funding for cultural programs.

All of society benefits from protection of indigenous culture  Across the United States, Australia, and Canada, native customs are often tied closely to the land. For example, while descendants of the Sioux Indians of the American Midwest may no longer hunt buffalo, learning about traditional means of hunting, animal use, rituals involving the surrounding wildlife, means of ensuring a sustainable food supply, and other cultural norms related to the land gives people a greater appreciation for the land they now inhabit. Exposure to traditions that have been practiced in one's land for thousands of years helps us to appreciate the legacy we have inherited. This does not just benefit the direct descendants of those practicing these traditions but the whole of society.

Protecting indigenous culture is unlikely to have a significant impact on the general population. Native groups often live in relative isolation, thereby having little contact with people outside the community. Furthermore, antiquated forms of hunting and cultivating food that were used over a hundred years ago have little relevance to the modern environment in which people live. Learning about these traditions is unlikely to impact the public's perception of its environment because the public is unlikely to make an emotional connection between these traditions and their modern homes.

Governments also ignore or destroy culture all the time. Historic and significant buildings are built to build infrastructure, traditions are lost through an unwillingness to provide funding to prevent it from dying. When governments protect culture they inevitably protect one over the others. This is nearly always the culture of the majority. Instead it is not for the government to promote or protect any culture over others rather it should be left to private individuals and each cultural group to promote their own culture.

The preservation of displaced cultures is important in preventing future oppression.  Notions of cultural superiority virtually always influence displacement and abuse of indigenous cultures. For example, when the government of Botswana expelled the Kalahari Bushmen from their land in 2002, President Mogai defended his actions by describing the bushmen as "stone age creatures."1 This cultural insensitivity, in addition to the incentive of material gains, led the Botswani government to violate the tribe's rights. By preserving indigenous culture, governments recognize the value of these groups and prevent future hostility.  1 John Simpson, "Bushmen Fight for Homeland," BBC, 2005

Governments protect culture every day  Governments already protect culture so it is not a big step to apply the same protections to aboriginal culture as well. In school, students learn about traditional art and their national history. For example, the state of California compiles reading lists that largely include Shakespeare, Virgil, and John Steinback, though also including ethnic authors like Maya Angelou1. Governments recognize days like Christmas and New Years and fund programs that promote the arts. States recognize marriage and structure divorce and custody laws based on cultural norms of gender roles and family responsibility. If a government can protect the norms on one culture in society, there is no reason that the government should not also protect the culture of those who first inhabited the land. This current protection makes it easy to build on, to make highlight more aboriginal culture, recognize their festivals etc.  1 California Reading List, California Department of Education, 2011.

Mainstream cultural norms are so pervasive in every aspect of society that without an active effort, indigenous values and traditions will be lost. Preserving culture often involves funding- whether it is for a theatre group, art show, language program, or other means of cultural expression. In countries like the US and Australia, indigenous groups make up less than 3% of the current population; 1;2 without assistance from the government, it is unlikely these groups would be able to sustain such cultural efforts and as a result their culture would not have any chance to evolve.  1 Race - Universe: Total Population, U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder, 2009. 2 Experimental Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 1991, to 2021, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009.

Cultural preservation enriches society; just because it cannot be measured quantitatively does not mean it is not worthwhile. Without government assistance, many museums and theaters would have to close down, or would be too expensive for the general public to access. Government support for cultural enrichment contributes towards the public's education and allows citizens to develop an appreciation for traditions other than their own. This does not mean arguing that the government should abandon its basic duties, but simply that a small portion of the budget be dedicated to preservation of indigenous culture.

Government interference is not necessary to preserve culture  Plenty of ethnic groups immigrate to countries like Canada and the US and preserve their culture without government aid. They do so through religious education for children, speaking their native language at home, schools at the weekends that teach their culture and communication and cooperation within the ethnic community. This cultural preservation demonstrates that government assistance is unnecessary and thereby a form of excessive government involvement.

Culture is an incredibly complex concept  Culture contains many elements; it is the food one eats, the clothing one wears, the holidays one celebrates, and the names of the spirits one worships. However, it is much more than that; culture dictates parent-child relationships, courting customs, family size, gender roles, healthcare, education, and every law, regulation, and standard a society holds. Governments rarely give blanket approval to an indigenous customs; children are often compelled to attend school and receive vaccines, substances used in religious rituals may be banned, and customs that infringe on the rights of group members are not permitted. These restrictions may be reasonable, however, they create a false sense of cultural preservation. Rather than ostensibly protect aboriginal culture, governments should leave it alone.

Culture evolves over time and is largely impacted by improved standards of living and exposure to other cultures  Virtually all cultures around the world have changed radically over the past two hundred years; if a government takes action towards "preserving" an indigenous culture, it is interfering with the group's ability to mold their identity to fit the modern world on their own terms. For example, the Australian and American governments have tried to appease native groups by offering land for reserves where they may lead a traditional lifestyle. Native individuals, however, often do not want to live in isolation, and would rather adapt their culture to an urban environment where they can have a higher standard of living.

Culture provides no tangible benefit that justifies the use of government funds to preserve it.  If indigenous populations feel strongly that their unique culture is worth preserving, they may direct their attention and funds towards this endeavor. However, a government's first priority must be services that improve the standard of living for its citizens. Society, including indigenous people, would be better served if tax dollars were spent on services like healthcare and law enforcement.

Anarchy is not necessary for culture to exist. Legal restrictions do impact cultural norms; for example, Native American use of peyote for religious ceremonies is permitted only at the discretion of state governments1. However, restrictions on drug use have not turned native cultural expression into a meaningless practice. Rather, the fact that native groups must conform to external standards is more reason for the government to make an active effort to protect indigenous culture. In the previous example, the US government acknowledged that Native American use of peyote in religious ceremonies is different from typical drug use, and consequently permits such peyote use (with limitations). It is this active effort to respect native culture that allowed Native Americans to preserve their religious practice.  1Elijah Sweete, "Peyote in Short Supply," The Moderate Voice, 2010.

Immigrant populations generally do not retain their cultural distinctiveness in the long run; while the first generation may be heavily influenced by their parents' culture, this influence fades by the second generation. Immigrant assimilation is actually proof that government assistance would be useful to native groups.

Anyone setting out on such a career is aware of the legal requirement to undertake service in the armed forces. There is absolutely nothing to stop them doing it before they start their career. There are plenty of jobs where it is inconvenient to have to take an extended break. Anything relating to technology or research, for example, where there is a need to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field is fairly unforgiving of such a break and so people build their careers around it, knowing that at some point they will be out of the loop for 24 months or so.  To suggest that it is more important that a pop star is able to keep on recording but that it is for scientist and technicians in the most wired country in the world to keep up with changes in technology is as inconsistent as it is unfair. The case of the performer is clearly weaker it’s simply that they have the status and fame to mean that they can make a big fuss about it and people will notice.  Whatever the vanity of celebrity may suggest it’s just another job and it’s questionable as to how much benefit it actually provides to society at large.  Further pandering to that vanity by suggesting that society can’t cope without a particular singer or actor for two years is ridiculous. There is no shortage of people wanting to do the job.

Celebrities are in the unusual position of requiring constant media attention  The career path of celebrities is unusual in that it accretes over time on the basis of the performers standing in the public mind. Unlike other professions this does not lend itself to taking two years out of the limelight, especially years when fame is coming to its height.  The media is notoriously fickle and equally well-known for having a short memory. It generally struggles to stay interested in a celebrity if they’re out of the limelight for more than a few weeks. It is simply unfeasible that they would remain interested when someone has been out of the spotlight for over two years. In effect this means that for a Korean musician or actor their career will finish at the age of 29.  In other profession it is possible to build a career around national service and employers know that at some point any young man they employ will need to undertake their military service but celebrities simply aren’t employed in this way.

Again, there is nothing to stop celebrities doing their military service before they start performing but, even were that not the case, military service is not something that is undertaken because it is convenient or easy but rather something that is done because it is necessary. The country is at risk of invasion, it is still technically at war with the North and in the last Kim Jong-Il has become increasingly erratic.  Of all professions surely performers, with their peculiar interest in the combination of a consumer society and the right to freedom of expression have the greatest interest in insuring that the north doesn’t invade. Neither wars nor dictatorships are particularly known for encouraging the performing arts.

Celebrities, like athletes, enhance the nation’s image and generate revenue  The South Korean government issues occasional exemptions to athletes who have won an Olympic gold medal or achieved a similar feat. If we accept that the law ought to be consistent then there is no reason why entertainers should not be proffered the same opportunity. Both professions tend to favour the young and the requirement that military service needs to be completed before the age of thirty mean that either career would be interrupted just at the point when the individual is likely to be at the height of their skills.  Equally both groups bring prestige for Korea as a nation. Entertainers like Jung-Ji Hoon (Rain) have just as much of a following as athletes such as Park Ji-Sung who, along with his team mates on the Korean national team was exempted from military service for reaching the semi-finals of the world cup [1] .  Indeed Rain predominantly works in Korea and has a following throughout the country and the region whereas Park has spent most of his career playing for foreign teams.  [1] Arsenal Forum , August 30 2011

Celebrities, unlike athletes, work for themselves whereas athletes represent the country. Military service means representing the nation to the rest of the world as does being an athlete, that’s the reason for the exemption, not simply a matter of celebrity.  The psychologist Hwang Sang-Min [1] has made clear that “Entertainers are thought to work for their own sakes. That’s the difference.”  Park Ji-Sung and his teammates were representing their country and achieved a national first. Granting an exemption recognised their accomplishment on behalf of the country. In a very literal meaning of the phrase they performed national service.  Equating such an accomplishment with a performer who is simply doing their job – for which they are well paid – misses the point of the exemptions. Singers and actors happen to be Korean; they are not acting or singing for Korea. Indeed given the speed with which some performers have given up their nationality in a bid to avoid national service, comparing it to a genuine national accomplishment seems absurd.  When actors such as Song Seung-heon attempted to avoid national service they were rightly decried and their actions have far more in common with the sons of politicians and businessmen who seek to use their status to avoid the draft.  [1] Salon.com , Jim Lee, Pop Sensation Rain Joins the South Korean Army

Having the age of 30 as the cut-off point is uniquely unfair to performers as this is the age when they are likely to be at the height of their fame and towards the end of their career.  For most professions, getting military service out of the way early in one’s career makes sense. Nobody would suggest that members of other professions should be expected to interrupt it when they are at the height of their profession. In reality for most people this would be when they are in their fifties. For professions like acting and music this tends to be the late twenties and early thirties. Indeed, for pop singers in particular their career is likely to be over when they are 35.  In the light of this setting the age limit where it is is uniquely unfair to performers – just as it is to athletes.  Military service anywhere in the world is considered to be something you undertake before your career, not in the middle of it. Regulations should reflect reality, in this instance that means allowing performers to get on with their careers.

There may well be a case to be made that certain other professions or groups should be given exemptions. That does not, however, demonstrate that celebrities should not. This simply reflects the fact that, by definition, celebrities are not typical citizens.  They provide a valuable role in society and that should be recognised. They provide entertainment and glamour in peoples’ lives, they promote Korea around the world and they are also very few in number.  News reports whenever a celebrity undertakes national service are always keen to stress that they will not receive special treatment, it is difficult to see why. Historically, entertainers serving in military forces around the world are always used to build national morale and yet in South Korea they are not. It is this instance that is the exception to the rule.

It could be done in much the same way as with sportsman where ‘exceptional achievement’ is recognised concept and, while difficult to define, is easy to apply. As long as the whole process takes place transparently it should ensure that it is not abused. The issue is not so much introducing exemptions to the universality of the current system but, rather, ensuring the transparency of the process.  There are already abuses of the system with the children of the powerful, the so called ‘sons of gods’ often finding ways around the law. That is not a difficulty of definition, it’s simple corruption.

One of the great strengths of national service is that it demonstrates that everyone is equal  Both the Constitution and the National Security Act [1] make it explicitly clear that there are occasions when individuals in South Korea must surrender some of their liberty in the interests of preserving the state. These pieces of legislation and others reflect the reality of living next door to North Korea. The whole point of legislation that preserves the state is that it applies to everybody.  Particularly in the instance of national service, the moment it becomes optional it ceases to work. No doubt many of those who have been arrested under the NSA took the attitude that it really didn’t, or shouldn’t, apply to them. It does.  Even if a compelling case could be made for celebrities to have the right not to serve, it is inconceivable that such a case could be made exclusively for celebrities. It is hard to see how the national interest is well served by having someone appear in a soap opera or a record sleeve but not by having someone in an emergency room or classroom.  [1]

Celebrities are respected by young people and this is a way in which they can act as a role model and set a positive example.  At a time when the 1950-53 war is becoming less relevant to peoples’ daily lives and all generations, particularly the youngest, are becoming reluctant to fulfil their duty in a country that is still at war, celebrities have a powerful opportunity to act as role models for others to fulfil their national service obligations.  Allowing them an opt out would set a terrible example. By definition they are of a generation with others entering the military and there is a powerful symbolism in their doing so as well.  By contrast allowing them an exemption would encourage others to try and find a way out of serving.  Although it seems probable that in the event of a conflict the main protagonists would be the USA and China rather than the conscript armies of North and South Korea, there would seem to be a definite benefit in having the male population trained sufficiently well to take on civil defence duties and to be able to ensure their own safety and that of their families.

There are many professions that could more sensibly be given exemption such as teachers  Only in a world truly and unhealthily obsessed with the cult of celebrity would pop singers and soap stars be at the top of the list for exemptions to military service. Surely scientists and surgeons would have a better claim. Indeed with shortages of professionals reported in both science and technology [1] it would seem to make far more sense to offer opt outs there in an effort to encourage more people to study the subjects at university and to make their careers in those areas.  On the basis that people are not even given an exemption on the basis of religious or moral conviction, it seems perverse to give exemptions on the basis of fame [2] .  [1]   [2]

In practical terms how would you define who should be given an exemption and how do you prevent abuse?  The advantage of the current system is its universality, it does not require any interpretation of who is and is not included. Who exactly is a celebrity? How do you define that and how do you insure that it isn’t used to cover the children of law makers and other influential individuals?  Celebrity, almost by its nature, is impossible to define and the moment you attempt to do so – ‘all professional singers’ for example – you create a loophole that people will rush through.

It seems, frankly unfair to ask people to destroy their careers on the basis that it will encourage others to do something that the law already requires of them. The legislation for national service was structured on the basis of a country that was very different from modern day Korea. In 1953 Korea was the poorest country in the world and national service was, among other things, a useful tool for training and providing employment for the young. That is simply no longer the case. The legislation and the principals that underpin it are simply not designed to deal with a Korean in their twenties who is already recognised around the world and has a staggeringly successful career.  It’s clear that the framers acknowledged that there was at least one profession where people could excel while still young – hence the exemption for highly successful athletes. The fact is that 60 years ago the idea of a rapper, singer or actor who could genuinely promote Korea around the world was simply not there.

Celebrities fulfill two important roles that allow them to demonstrate that they are better serving the national interests by pursuing their careers. The first is the unifying and moral building effect on the nation. It is even possible to argue as some scholars have [1] that in an increasingly fractured society, celebrities may be the only people who can have a unifying effect.  The second role is taking an international profile. They act as a constant reminder to the world of the existence of South Korea and that it is a free country with a thriving arts scene. These roles make a far greater difference to the process of protecting the state and the freedoms for which it stands than they could ever do as just another man in fatigues.  [1]

A white Christmas is not traditional. Even in northern countries such as Great Britain snow has always been very rare in December – it is much more likely to fall later in the winter. It’s all Charles Dickens’ fault – he grew up in the unusually snowy 1810s, and later wrote snowy scenes into his popular Christmas stories, such as “A Christmas Carol”. Even in the 19th Century, snow at Christmas was uncommon, and in many places today it is quite rare (Western Europe, most of the USA) or impossible (southern hemisphere countries like Australia). It is better to enjoy Christmas for what it is rather than feeling sorry every year that it doesn’t live up to some storybook picture.

Christmas is inextricably linked with an image of a snowy wonderland.  We all love the traditional white Christmas. When we think of Christmas we see snowy scenes, with people skating and sledging, and children making snowballs and snowmen. Later the families gather inside around a warm fire to celebrate. This is the sort of Christmas shown on greeting cards and celebrated in so many songs (for example, White Christmas, Jingle Bells, Frosty the Snowman, Walking in a Winter Wonderland, etc.). It isn't a proper Christmas without snow. "The interest in snowy Christmases has its origins in the colder climate of the period 1550–1850 when Britain was in the grip of a ‘Little Ice Age’[2] That way, the traditional image was created.

It might suit the non-religious people who run much of the media to say that, but it strips Christmas of all real meaning. The truth is that anyone can celebrate Christ's birth at Christmas, whether they are in snowy Lapland, summery Australia or tropical Africa. Christmas has nothing to do with snow; it is the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth in a Bethlehem stable. Snow is not mentioned in the Bible story and it is very, very rare in Bethlehem. Seeing the holiday as just a snowy winter festival is a way of taking Christ out of Christmas.

The dream of a white Christmas satisfies a need for hope deep within us.  The ideal of a white Christmas also speaks to the old pagan festivals. The winter solstice (Yule, Saturnalia) was a time of hope in the cold and darkness, as nights stopped getting longer and people looked for the promise of new birth in springtime. The Christian Church recognized the power of existing winter festivals and chose December 25th for their own nativity celebrations. People still feel a need to move in time with the seasons, and snow represents winter at its most extreme. For these reasons the dream of a white Christmas satisfies a need deep within us.

If the idea of a white Christmas is pagan then we should drop it. We are not pagan anymore and we have a modern understanding of the seasons. If the festival was all about the shortest day, then much of the world's population would be left out. Everyone in the southern hemisphere would have to celebrate the festival in June. Those near the equator would never get to celebrate at all. Christmas should unite humanity, not split it apart.

Wishing for a white Christmas shows a desire to return to the true nature of the holiday  For most people Christmas today is not about a religious festival, but about consumption, greed and shopping. Wishing for a snowy white Christmas is about turning the clock back to a time when life was simpler. Instead of focusing on getting presents, getting fat and getting drunk, a white Christmas is something money can't buy. It symbolizes time with family, playing outdoors in the snow, making your own entertainment and enjoying the wonder of nature. Who wouldn't prefer a Christmas like that?

Human cleverness means that a white Christmas is within reach. Modern technology includes snow-making machines — commonly in use in many ski resorts. So whenever it is cold enough, we can spray fake snow all over our towns to delight young and old alike. And even if outdoor temperatures are too warm, we can refrigerate huge buildings in order to create Christmassy winter wonderlands.

Snow is actually a lot of fun. It makes even the dullest countryside or ugliest town look beautiful, even magical. Snow changes everything, yet it is fragile and short-lived. Children love to stamp and slide in snow, to crunch it together to create snowmen and play snowballs. Young people enjoy healthy winter sports like skiing and skating. Older adults enjoy sharing the romance of a snowy landscape over a warming drink, and remembering happy childhood winters. There is no wonder people dream of a white Christmas; it's a magical image.

Global warming has made White Christmas an image of the past  Global Warming means that few people will ever get to see a white Christmas. Many of the most populated areas of Western Europe and the USA could once expect snow at Christmastime, so perhaps the idea of a white Christmas once had real meaning. Now we have to accept that those days have gone. Mankind's damage to the world's climate means we have to get use to a coldish, greyish Christmas each year. There is no point dreaming, and denial can even be harmful, as we will be disappointed every year. We need to learn to love Christmas for what it is in the modern world.

Linking Christmas with snow denies it to some countries  Dreaming of a white Christmas also suggests that some countries have a special relationship with Christmas (e.g Finland, Norway), and that hot countries (e.g. largely Christian Kenya, Ethiopia and Mexico) or Southern hemisphere countries (e.g. Australia, Argentina, South Africa) cannot celebrate Christmas properly — surely the opposite of the true Christmas message.

There is nothing Christmassy about snow.  Snow can look lovely but the novelty soon wears off. Snow is cold and wet and the ice that comes with it is dangerously slippery. Every year even light snow causes broken bones and other injuries. Heavy snow is worse – it can leave elderly people trapped in their houses, bring down power lines, shut down transport systems and cause deaths through both cold and car accidents. None of this is remotely Christmassy. Snow can even wreck Christmas for many families, as travel hold-ups prevent relatives from reaching them for the celebration. As the BBC wrote in December 2010, “The wintry weather has caused chaos for many thousands of travelers trying to get to their destination of choice for Christmas."

White Christmases may not be common any more but we can still dream of them. The scientists say that climate change is warming the world and many places that used to get snow in winter (e.g. Moscow, New York) will see it much more rarely in future. But our desire for a white Christmas just like the ones we used to know symbolizes our awareness of climate change. This issue could help shift public opinion in favor of tackling global warming.

It is true that newspapers cannot adapt as quickly as other types of media to breaking news events, however there are advantages to having slower news. Reporting news events immediately as they happen often leads to speculation as the bigger picture is often unknown by the journalists, therefore having time to digest the given event can allow for more accurate and detailed reporting rather than broadcasting facts which may not be immediately confirmable, a longer time before publication then is likely to result in more accurate, less speculative information. For example many TV news outlets were reporting, when the first plane to hit the World Trade Center on the 11th September, that it was an unfortunate accident. It of course later emerged to be the work of terrorists.

In the internet age immediacy is everything, newspapers can often contain out of date information by the time they hit the shelves.  In an interconnected global world whereby technology allows us within seconds to communicate across the globe in a variety of forms the newspaper medium becomes obsolete. In the time it takes to write, edit, print and distribute a newspaper the events being covered may very well have changed, when we have the technology to overcome this problem it seems unlikely that newspapers will continue to exist because who wants to read old news? An example of newspapers not being able to adapt to changing events can be seen with the killing of Osama Bin Laden on 2nd May 2011, the story broke too late for the morning newspapers in the UK to be able to change their pages to include the story, it was then subsequently reported a day late on the 3rd May. 1  1 Front Pages Today (2011) Newspaper Headlines from UK for 3 May 2011. [online] [accessed 27th July 2011]

Newspapers do still have a place in the modern media landscape; the environmental argument against them is flawed, for example the Newsprint and Newspaper Industry Environmental Action Group (NNIEAG) state that: “Recycled paper made up 77.4% of the raw material for UK newspapers in 2010” 1 so the claim regarding the amount of waste newspapers generate is not actually as high as is being suggested.  What the argument also neglects to state is that electronic media is not entirely environmentally friendly in itself, much of the power required not only by personal digital devices but also the infrastructure needed to keep it working does not on the whole come from renewable sources, whereas printed media does makes greater use of environmentally friendly sources for its production. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers states that: “Forestry, paper and packaging are among the most sustainable industries in existence.'” 2  1 NNIEAG (2011) Newsprint and Newspaper Industry Environmental Action Group Homepage. [online] [accessed 13th June 2011]  2 Two Sides (2011) Print and Paper is a Wasteful Product. [online] [accessed 16th June 2011]

People no longer consume media in a linear way, people prefer to pick and choose what news they consume  With the development of Digital Video Recorders (DVRs) and more generally the internet people have come to no longer simply consume media in a linear fashion, they take a more fragmented approach. In news consumption people no longer want to simply have one newspaper with a vast array of topics inside. They want to pick and choose which stories and columns they consume, people now prefer to pull the content they want rather than have it pushed on them. In a digital world the news consumer can become their own editor and no longer need to rely entirely on old hierarchical structures.

The positive side of a newspaper IS the fact you have a vast array of topics, which you would not usually consume. It broadens the mind as you may often come across stories you never usually take notice of. This opens up a whole new world of interest, whereas if people are given the role of editor they would most likely simply choose to read what already interests them and their channels of perception will become narrower. In addition to this, newspapers are not necessarily linear. They do not have to be read in a linear fashion, people can choose which stories they wish to read and reject those they do not. Newspapers are far more flexible than they are generally portrayed 1. Modern newspapers have adapted their design to increase their consumption by the public.  One good example of this is the change in size of many British newspapers, from broadsheet to tabloid 2.  1. Daily Beast, 2009  2. BBC, 2011

This argument overstates the situation. Newspapers are less profitable than they were at their peak, but newspapers have been affected by other media ever since the invention of the radio. Much of the evidence the proposition has raised focuses on the Western World. According to the World Association of Newspapers, more newspapers are being published than at any time previously. There are strong growth markets in Asia, Eastern Europe and South America. The Middle East and Africa also sustain strong markets, though there is less growth 1.  Furthermore, Newspaper advertising is an effective revenue source. Advertisements in the traditional print tend to get more attention from readers than on the internet, because people read papers more intently.  Finally, some newspapers are actively engaging with the internet by charging for premium content to their services. Even if they lose some customers, this is made up by a net increase in revenue2.  1 World Association of Newspapers (2010) World Press Trends: Advertising Revenues To Increase, Circulation Relatively Stable. [online] [Accessed 2nd September 2011]  2 Columbia Journalism Review, (2009) Print Newspapers Still Dominate Readers' Attention. [online] [Accessed 2nd September 2011]

Newspapers cannot be environmentally sustained.  Newspapers have no place in the modern media landscape as they are not environmentally friendly, they are a waste of paper when there are many other my efficient ways in which news can be disseminated. For example a single annual subscription to the New York Times roughly generates 520lb of waste which equates to approximately 4.25 trees being cut down per reader per year 2, when you take into account all the other publications that printed throughout the world this equates to a lot of wastage of increasingly scarce natural resources which could be avoided. Using digital tools to distribute news is more efficient as you only use resources when the content is actually required rather than the print media method in which the product is printed when it may not be necessarily purchased and consumed.  1 ID2 (2011) Facts about Paper and Paper Waste. [online] [accessed 18th June 2011]

Newspapers are financially unviable  In the internet age, Newspapers are no longer financially profitable businesses. They are struggling to encourage investment and to survive in the long-term. Revenue is falling across the three main streams available to newspapers: sales, advertising and subscriptions. Sales and subscriptions are dropping as consumers move to the internet for information (often the website of the newspaper themselves!)1 Advertising is not as profitable either, as increasingly advertisers look to pop-up systems on websites and buying space on search engines. Many newspapers have resorted to cutting costs (firing staff, reducing the length of the paper) and raising prices. Yet it does not seem likely that people will be willing to pay more for less.  1. Keevey, R., Sattin, D and Hale, T. (2009) The Newspaper Crisis. Princeton University, 1st May 2009. Policy Research Institute for the Region: Princeton University.

As newspapers are funded by private companies they can be accused of avoiding to publish information which may damage their revenue streams, independent bloggers often do not have this issue so can be much more free in what they publish which is ultimately good for democracy. In addition to this journalists may vastly distort the truth in their reporting in order to satisfy advertisers which seek certain demographics, whereas independent bloggers do not have this concern.  A consequence of online freedom is of course that anyone can publish anything but it should be down to the reader to decode what has been blogged and make up their own mind as to its accuracy, it is demeaning to suggest that consumers of news information are simply passive consumers.  Professional journalists, even when based in an official setup and with a code of ethics, are not entirely guilt free in regards to publishing inaccurate information either, there are many instances where false information has been published, for example many journalists reported the potential link between MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccination and Autism in a sensationalized way which did not entirely relate to the research and which, as a result, caused a huge number of children not being immunized 1. Perhaps the most famous recent example where journalists have behaved unethically is the phone-hacking scandal in the UK 2.  To call blogs ‘parasitic’ is also insulting and unfair. Many of them do their own research and cover issues not in the mainstream media. It’s not unique to blogging to discuss the work of others, and indeed many newspapers do so 3 So what’s the difference?  1 Deer, B. (2011) The MMR-Autism Scare: An Elaborate Fraud. [online] [accessed 13th June 2011]  2 BBC, (2011) Phone Hacking: US Senator Calls for News Corp Probe [online][accessed 2nd September 2011]  3 Online Journalism Review (2007) Are blogs a 'parasitic' medium? [online][Accessed on 2nd September 2011]

Normal backlighted displays can be bad for the eyes, however there are other digital technologies which address this issue, for example Amazon’s Kindle e-reader using a technology called e-ink which simulates ink on a page and requires natural light to be read 1. It could be argued that the tactile argument is flawed, because if people did prefer the tactile experience, newspapers would not be in a state of severe decline. Furthermore the concept of what constitutes a better reading experience is subjective. Shorter, more to the point text and the ability to hyperlink to related pieces of content and access information in a non-linear way could be considered a much better experience compared to reading long passages of text in a linear fashion.  1 Popsci, (2010) Testing the Best: The Kindle's E Ink Pear Display [online][Accessed 2nd September 2011]

Newspapers provide higher quality journalism than other media  As newspapers are a slow medium, having a daily output most typically, they can produce better quality material than other news sources which strive for immediacy. Professional journalists and experts have time to consider the issues and write well structured, coherent and highly informed pieces which other types of media cannot compete with. A demonstration of the high quality of journalism found in newspapers can be seen in the fact that quite often newspapers set the news agenda for the rest of the day for other media outlets 1. Perhaps most importantly, modern graduates of schools of journalism still tend to favour working for newspapers as their long term career ambition. This is because the working conditions tend to be far superior, as is the regularity of payment and job security.  Those blogging in the online media note their treatment as second-class outlets, long hours and poor pay. The best and the brightest head to newspapers 2  1 Economist, (2006) Who killed the newspaper? [online] [accessed 27th July 2011]

The internet edits what you can see without your knowledge  When you purchase a newspaper you know what biases they may contain, getting news online can be more troublesome as services such as Google and Facebook use algorithms which personalize content for you based on your interest. This creates what is known as a “filter bubble”1 whereby online services filter out news which may not be of normal interest to the reader, the problem with this is that it is often done without the user being aware of it, which clearly raises issues of trust.  1 Praiser, E. (2011) Beware Online 'Filter Bubbles' [online] [accessed 15th June 2011]

The balance of analysis and relevancy is better struck by newspapers  The argument that internet news tends to offer small passages of text compared to newspapers is to be liberal with the truth, due to the vast nature of the internet it offers a variety of styles and is arguably more likely to provide longer passages than newspapers as there is not space restriction as there is with newspapers which can only be a certain size, due to advertisements and printing agreements.  With the ability to both search for and easily share content via social networks, the argument that newspapers are better as they prevent information overload feels weak because there are many ways in which content can be filtered to ensure that both the news you actually want and the style and perspective you prefer can be easily accessed.

Newspapers are a more trustworthy source of information than independent bloggers  Online anyone can launch a blog and start publishing, these articles could potentially be false, badly-researched or overly bias to name but a few issues, this raises the question of quality control of information online and its trustworthiness. For example a blog purportedly written by a gay woman in Damascus trying to avoid state persecution over her sexuality turned out to be a hoax, the identity of the blogger turned out to be straight 40 year old US man living in Edinburgh. 1  As newspapers are most often subject to regulations regarding what they print as well as being subject to market forces it is on the whole unlikely that they will publish something that is factually inaccurate, at least not with intent. Journalists working at newspapers are well trained and more often than not sign up to voluntary ethic codes in order to be accepted as trustworthy sources 2. Bloggers on the other hand can publish without any formal training and for the most part stay anonymous, which could lead to falsehoods being spread. Bloggers are often described as “parasitic,” since they criticize “old media,” whilst simultaneously relying upon it for the basis of their factual information. Yet Bloggers do not tend to be the groups funding news reporters across the world 3.  1. BBC. (2011) Syria Gay Girl in Damascus Blog a Hoax By a US Man. [online] [accessed 15th June 2011]  2.Pew Research Center, 2011  3. Murley, B and Roberts, C. (2005) Biting the Hand that Feeds: Blogs and second-level agenda setting. In: Convergence Conference. BYU (Brigham Young University), 2005.

While algorithms may filter out content which does not normally appeal to a particular reader the internet itself does not block access to any information, if someone wishes to seek out another view on a topic it can be easily found by changing a search term. The idea that having news personalized behind the scenes makes online news less trustworthy is a weak proposition as the personalization constantly changes along with the users unlike inflexible newspapers chasing particular demographics.

Newspapers offer a better reading experience than digital alternatives  The experience of reading from a newspaper is a far better user experience than reading from a screen, reading from a screen for long periods of time is not only bad for the eyes but quite often becomes uncomfortable. A newspaper however requires natural light to be read and therefore is not as harsh on the eyes. It could also be suggested that people actually prefer the tactile physical experience of a newspaper or book over holding an electronic device, a poll taken on the Guardian 1 website found that 76.1% preferred books, i.e, a physical experience, over a digital one.  Video and audio-based advertisements placed online around the text can also disrupt the reading process, a problem, which does not afflict newspapers.  1 Guardian (2008) E-books or Real Books? [online] [accessed 13th June 2011]

The argument that internet news tends to offer small passages of text compared to newspapers is to be liberal with the truth, due to the vast nature of the internet it offers a variety of styles and is arguably more likely to provide longer passages than newspapers as there is not space restriction as there is with newspapers which can only be a certain size, due to advertisements and printing agreements. With the ability to both search for and easily share content via social networks, the argument that newspapers are better as they prevent information overload feels weak because there are many ways in which content can be filtered to ensure that both the news you actually want and the style and perspective you prefer can be easily accessed.

Other types of media can produce equally, if not better, pieces of journalism than newspapers: it’s more just a matter of style. While many TV news outlets do often strive for immediacy in their coverage they also feature special reports, such as the BBC’s flagship Panorama program, which are much more detailed and can stand on an equal footing with newspaper journalism. There are many newspapers, such as tabloids with little journalistic quality. So, the matter of quality does not come down to the type of medium being used, as this only affects style, it comes down to the person or people behind the given output.

It is wrong that civil society should have reduced influence over the governance of the internet with governments making all the key decisions. Many governments around the world are not democratic and so cannot be said to represent their people while even those that are democratic are prone to advancing the interests of minorities of their constituents as shown by treaties and legislation such as SOPA and ACTA. Governments of all stripes whether authoritarian or democratic do not have a good record of transparency; ICANN on the other hand does. [1] ICANN works on a "bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder model" meaning that ICANN is very inclusive bringing together governments, experts, private companies and ngos, potentially even individuals can get involved and have their say. [2]  [1] ‘ICANN Accountability &amp; Transparency’, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.  [2] ‘About Us’, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers .

Governments not ‘civil society’ must be in control of internet governance  It is governments who are in charge of setting public policy within countries so it makes sense that these same governments should set public policy in the international sphere; [1] this is why international organisations have been set up and why it is governments that are represented in them. Internet governance should also be the purview of governments on account of the wide range of issues it covers. These include who gets access to the technical resources of the internet, intellectual property, participation in the online economy (which now has an immense impact on the physical economy as well - just consider how the financial markets around the world are interconnected in part as a result of the internet), freedom of expression, and security which ultimately can affect national security and the high politics if balance of power. [2] Private companies and civil society will inevitably only represent a minority of opinions within these countries and cannot be said to truly represent their country, the right place for them is in providing advice to their governments rather than through direct control such as that currently held by ICANN.  [1] Al-Darrab, Abdullah A., ‘The Need for International Internet Governance Oversight’, Internet Governance Forum.  [2] ‘About’, Internet Governance Project Syracuse University.

The United States is unlikely to give up control and no one can force it to do, the ITU itself has accepted that it could not do so, [1] so creating CIRP would really be a pointless increase in bureaucracy. There is already government involvement in ICANN through the Governmental Advisory Committee [2] so there is little need for another body giving governments more control over the internet. If the United States does not give up control voluntarily then there is likely to be added problems arising from conflicts between the ICANN and CIRP.  [1] Kelion, Leo, ‘US resists control of internet passing to UN agency’, BBC News, 3 August 2012.  [2] ‘About the GAC’, ICANN GAC.

Internet governance must be multinational  The internet is global, things on the internet do not just affect one country, indeed they often don’t just affect a small group of countries but affect every country. This is especially true of issues of internet governance as setting the rules for the internet and the architecture has to be for the whole internet not isolated bits of it. The function that ICANN currently performs is one that should rightfully be done internationally in the interests of all the nations. This is not the case at the moment as the United States has essentially has a monopoly on internet governance. While ICANN is an independent non-profit body it is under contract from the U.S. department of Commerce and is subject to U.S. laws. [1]  The United States already abuses its control over the internet. It has become commonplace for the U.S. to seize domains, as it did with Bodog.com, regardless of where their domain name registrar, or the owner of the website, is based. It can do this easily because the companies that have the contract to manage the generic top level names such as .com and .org are based within the United States. As it is U.S. based the company with these top level domains has to comply with U.S. law so when it is asked to shut down a site even if it is a foreign site with a foreign registrar it will do so. [2] Actions like this show that the United States is only interested in its own power over the internet. It is not interested in the rights of other countries and owners of websites that are registered in those countries highlighting a need to a change to a more multinational system.  [1] Singh, Parminder Jeet, ‘India’s proposal will help take the web out of U.S. control’, The Hindu, 17 May 2012.  [2] Kravets, David, ‘Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable’, Wired, 6th March 2012.

While the US government may have more influence over ICANN than other governments it does not control ICANN. This lack of control is demonstrated by the organisation being willing to do things that the United States is opposed to. For example ICANN the rolled out of the new top level domain names which both the United States and European Union were opposed to, and was incidentally were supported by developing countries. [1]  [1] Mackinnon, Rebecca, ‘The United Nations and the Internet: It’s Complicated’, Foreign Policy, 8 August 2012.

Simplicity  One of the best things about the proposal to create CIRP is that it simply brings the internet into line with other areas of international communication and the global economy by bringing the internet into the United Nations system. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for example is the body that allocates radio spectrums and satellite orbits, in other words it does for telecommunications what ICANN does for the internet, and it is a United Nations agency. [1] The ITU has 193 countries as members but is also open to the private sector and academia, just as CIRP would be. [2] Having internet governance working through the United Nations would therefore mean using a tried and tested method of governance.  [1] ‘About ITU’, International Telecommunication Union.  [2] ‘Membership’, International Telecommunication Union

ICANN has not been very supportive of growth in the developing world, as is to be expected of a body that is dominated by rich world governments and corporations. Sub-Saharan Africa for example only has three accredited registrars that provision domain names compared to the four that Denmark alone has. [1] Changing to CIRP would help rebalance the control of the internet to the global south where the majority of future growth is bound to occur. Even if ICANN has been successful in managing the growth of the internet as it spread through the developed world it is not in a good position to be as successful in the future.  Moreover as the internet becomes more ubiquitous politics will inevitably intrude regardless of whether those controlling the internet want it to or not. Creating new top level domain names is inherently political. Saudi Arabia for example objected to a number of proposed domain names such as .gay, .bar, .islam, and .baby, [2] it is clear that in cases like this governments need to decide in order to avoid there being domain names that are offensive to some users of the internet.  [1] ‘The Accredited Registrar Directory’, InterNIC .  [2] Kelly, Heather, ‘Saudi Arabia objects to .gay and .islam domain names’, CNN, 15 August 2012.

While this might be a valid argument if the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies means handing over governance to an individual state it is difficult to question that collectively through the United Nations system states have generally worked to improve citizens quality of life and human rights. CIRP will be just such a multilateral institution so will not be a threat to freedom on the internet. It is even suggested that the mandate for the new organisation include “the promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development”. Even those who don’t want governmental control accept that there is a need for some form of constitution with a bill of rights and some kind of board for review [1] – thus showing that under ICANN the internet is not governed in the interests of the users.  [1] ‘ A plaything of powerful nations’, The Economist, 1 October 2011.

CIRP would place power in the hands of authoritarian governments  The intention for the creation of CIRP is to give more power to governments, and particularly to authoritarian governments that wish much greater control over the internet. If CIRP is meant to enable “enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet” [1] this may result in CIRP becoming an international organisation that would impose censorship on the internet. This is practically an inevitable result as the main tool of government is regulation. In the case of the internet such regulation will mean more controls on what users can and cannot do online.  The result is likely to be similar to the U.N. Human Rights Council where many of the world’s biggest human rights abusers are regularly elected and Israel and the U.S. are constantly investigated while a blind eye is turned to many abuses. [2] At the very least such control will provide an enabler that will allow countries that want to censor the internet to shelter behind the international organisation. India’s Minister of Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal has said the solution to this problem of objectionable content online should be permanent "That will only happen when we talk to all the stakeholders and form such a mechanism under which any objectionable content is removed," [3]  [1] ‘Full text: India’s United Nations proposal to control the Internet’, IBNLive, 21 May 2012.  [2] Ayalon, Danny, ‘Theater of the Absurd’, Foreign Policy, 30 March 2012.  [3] Julka, Harsomran, ‘Internet censorship: India to push for internet regulation at United Nations’, The Economic Times, 24 August 2012.

The status quo has been very successful; don’t fix something that is not broken.  The current system for control of the internet has been successful in managing phenomenal growth in the internet with very few problems. ICANN has been a success precisely because it does not focus on politics but on making the internet as efficient as possible, in contrast the telecommunications sector remained static and costly for a long time as a result of government interference. [1] Experts such as Rajnesh Singh argue ICANN’s “multi-stakeholder approach has proven to be nimble and effective in ensuring the stability, security, and availability of the global infrastructure, while still giving sovereign nations the flexibility to enact and enforce relevant Internet legislation within their borders… This model has been a key contributor to the breathtaking evolution and expansion of the Internet worldwide.” [2] It is this openness that has contributed to the internet generating 10% of GDP growth in the rich world over the last fifteen years. [3]  The change to CIRP would cause a lot of disruption; it would mean changing the current bottom up model of regulation to a top down model such as that used by the ITU. [4] The White House has highlighted the likely effect this would have on the internet; “Centralized control over the Internet through a top-down government approach would put political dealmakers, rather than innovators and experts, in charge of the future of the Internet. This would slow the pace of innovation, hamper global economic development, and lead to an era of unprecedented control over what people can say and do online.” [5]  [1] ‘America rules OK’, The Economist, 6th October 2005.  [2] Kwang, Kevin, ‘’Multi-stakeholder’ management of Internet should stay’, ZDNet, 15 June 2012.  [3] ‘In praise of chaos’, The Economist, 1 October 2011.  [4] ‘OECD input to the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance’, OECD.  [5] Strickling, Lawrence, Verveer, Philip, and Weitzner, Daniel, ‘Ensuring an Open Internet’, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2 May 2012.

The internet should be governed in the interests of freedom  The internet is used by everyone and so should be governed in such a way as reflects the desires of the users of the internet; and this is somewhere where internet users are often at odds with their governments. Where the freedom of individuals are concerned it is undoubtedly the bottom up system of ICANN which will be less restrictive than the option of top down control through an international organisation in which governments have the lion’s share of the power. While governments are meant to be protecting the interests of their people and their rights it is rare that this is actually the case. More usually it is states that are violating the rights of their citizens both online and offline as is shown by the human rights records of countries like Iran and China. On the internet government involvement equally regularly means attempts by states to create restrictions and prevent the internet from being a place where citizens have freedom of expression. This can even be the case in democracies, for example in South Korea a critic of the government who called the president names found his twitter account blocked as a result. [1]  [1] Sang-Hun, Choe, ‘Korea Policing the Net. Twist? It’s South Korea.”, The New York Times, 12 August 2012.

CIRP would give some influence to authoritarian governments; among 50 governments represented some are bound to be from non-democracies. This influence would however be counterbalanced by the democracies that are represented. The United Nations have a good track record of including as many as possible through the tradition of making decisions by consensus [1] which will prevent states that might wish to use CIRP in ways that other states would not agree with from succeeding.  [1] Kurup, Deepa, ‘Who controls the World Wide Web’, The Hindu, 27 May 2012.

Historical precedent does not apply to the internet. It is very different to media reporting during times of unrest; the internet is not just a means of disseminating information but also for many people their main form of communication; the U.S. government has never tried to ban people from using telephones. There are severe downsides to the censorship of information during times of war or civil unrest, the most notable one being that it is used to hide the real cost and consequences of war from the population which is expected to support it. Conversely, in a world where every mobile phone is now connected to a global network, people all around the world can have access to an unparalleled amount of information from the field. Curtailing such internet access is to their detriment.

Historical precedent.  Historically, governments have always controlled the access to information and placed restriction on media during times of war. This is an entirely reasonable policy and is done for a number of reasons: to sustain morale and prevent predominantly negative stories from the battlefield reaching the general public, and to intercept propaganda from the enemy, which might endanger the war effort [1] . For example, both Bush administrations imposed media blackouts during wartime over the return of the bodies of dead American soldiers at Dover airport [2] . The internet is simply a new medium of transmitting information, and the same principles can be applied to its regulation, especially when the threat to national security is imminent, like in the case of disseminating information for the organization of a violent protest.  [1] Payne, Kenneth. 2005. “The Media as an Instrument of War”. Parameters, Spring 2005, pp. 81-93.  [2] BBC, 2009. “US War Dead Media Blackout Lifted”.

Other means can be employed to ensure the safety of the population without disrupting access to the internet, like deploying security forces to make sure protests don’t get out of hand or turn violent. In fact, being able to monitor online activity through social media like Facebook and Twitter might actually aid, rather than hinder law enforcement in ensuring the safety of the public. London’s police force, the Metropolitan Police, in the wake of the riots has are using software to monitor social media to predict where social disorder may take place. [1]  [1] Adams, Lucy, 2012. “Police develop technology to monitor social neworks”. Heraldscotland, 6 August 2012.

National security takes precedence.  Internet access is not a fundamental right as recognized by any major human rights convention, if it can be called a right at all. [1] Even if we accept that people should have a right to internet access, in times of war or civil unrest the government should be able to abridge lesser rights for the sake of something that is critical to the survival of the state, like national security. After all, in a war zone few rights survive or can be upheld at all. Preventing such an outcome at the expense of the temporary curtailment of some lesser rights is entirely justified. Under current law, in most states, only the most fundamental of rights, like the right to life, prohibition against torture, slavery, and the right to a fair trial are regarded as inalienable [2] .  [1] For more see the debatabase debate on internet access as a human right.  [2] Article 15 of the European Convention on Human rights: “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”

In July 2012, The United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed a resolution upholding the principle of freedom of expression and information on the internet. In a special report, it also “called upon all states to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest” [1] . While access to the internet has not yet had time to establish itself legally as a human right, there are compelling reasons to change its legal status, and the UN is leading the charge. Even before internet access is recognized as a human right the idea that national security should take precedence over ‘lesser rights’ is wrong; states should not survive at the expense of the rights of their citizens. States exist to protect their citizens not harm them.  [1] Kravets, David, 2011. “UN Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right”. Wired.com, 6 November 2011.

The internet as a threat to public safety.  The internet can be used as a tool to create an imminent threat to the public. If public officials had information that a massive protest is being organized, which could spiral into violence and endanger the safety of the public, it would be irresponsible for the government not to try to prevent such a protest. Governments are entrusted with protecting public safety and security, and not preventing such a treat would constitute a failure in the performance of their duties [1] . An example of this happening was the use first of Facebook and twitter and then of Blackberry messenger to organise and share information on the riots in London in the summer of 2011. [2]  [1] Wyatt, Edward, 2012. “FCC Asks for Guidance on Whether, and When to Cut Off Cellphone Service.” New York Times, 2 March 2012.  [2] Halliday, Josh, 2011. “London riots: how BlackBerry Messenger played a key role”. Guardian.co.uk, 8 August 2011.

Being able to witness atrocities from the field in real time does not change the international community’s capacity or political willingness to intervene in such situations. If anything, it has had the unfortunate side effect of desensitizing international public opinion to the horrors of war and conflicts, like the one in Syria where there have been thousands of videos showing the actions of the Syrian government but this has not resulted in action from the international community. [1] The onslaught of gruesome, graphic imagery has made people more used to witnessing such scenes from afar and less likely to be outraged and to ask their governments to intervene.  [1] Harding, Luke, 2012. “Syria’s video activists give revolution the upper hand in media war”. Guardian.co.uk, 1 August 2012.

Freedom of expression, assembly, and information are important rights, but restrictions can be placed on all of them if a greater good, like public safety, is at stake. For example, one cannot use her freedom of expression to incite violence towards others and many countries regard hate speech as a crime. [1] Therefore, if the internet is being used for such abuses of ones rights, the disruption of service, even to a large number of people, can be entirely warranted.  [1] Waldron, Jeremy, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 8 June 2012, p.8.

Disrupting internet service is a form of repression.  The organization of public protests is an invaluable right for citizens living under the rule of oppressive regimes. Like in the case of the Arab Spring, internet access gives them the tools to mobilize, make their message heard, and demand greater freedoms. In such cases, under the guise of concern for public safety, these governments disrupt internet service in an attempt to stamp out legitimate democratic protests and stamp out the dissatisfied voices of their citizens [1] They are concerned not for the safety of the public, but to preserve their own grasp on power. A good example of this are the actions of the government of Myanmar when in 2007 in response to large scale protests the government cut internet access to the whole country in order to prevent reports of the government’s crackdown getting out. [2] Establishing internet access as a fundamental right at international level would make it clear to such governments that they cannot simply cut access as a tactic to prevent legitimate protests against them.  [1] The Telegraph. “Egypt. Internet Service Disrupted Before Large Rally”. 28 January 2011.  [2] Tran, Mark, 2007. “Internet access cut off in Burma”. Guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2007.

The prevention of atrocities during war and unrest.  In the past, horrific crimes could be committed in war zones without anyone ever knowing about it, or with news of it reaching the international community with a significant time lag, when it was too late to intervene. But with the presence of internet connected mobile devices everywhere, capable of uploading live footage within seconds of an event occurring, the entire world can monitor and find out what is happening on the scene, in real time. It lets repressive regimes know the entire world is watching them, that they cannot simply massacre their people with impunity, and it creates evidence for potential prosecutions if they do. It, therefore, puts pressure on them to respect the rights of their citizens during such precarious times. To prevent governments from violently stamping out public political dissent without evidence, internet access must be preserved, especially in times of war or political unrest. [1]  [1] Bildt, Carl, 2012. “A Victory for The Internet”. New York Times. 5 July 2012.

The right to internet access as a fundamental right.  Internet access is a “facilitative right”, in that it facilitates access to the exercise of many other rights: like freedom of expression, information, and assembly. It is a “gateway right”. Possessing a right is only as valuable as your capacity to exercise it. A government cannot claim to protect freedom of speech or expression, and freedom of information, if it is taking away from its citizens the tools to access them. And that is exactly what the disruption of internet service does. Internet access needs to be a protected right so that all other rights which flow from it. [1]  The Internet is a tool of communication so it is important not just to individuals but also to communities. The internet becomes an outlet that can help to preserve groups’ culture or language [2] and so as an enabler of this groups’ culture access to the internet may also be seen as a group right – one which would be being infringed when the state cuts off access to large numbers of individuals.  [1] BBC, 2010. “Internet Access is ‘a Fundamental Right’".  [2] Jones, Peter, 2008. "Group Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Democratic change can come about in a variety of ways. Violent public protests are only one such way, and probably the least desirable one. And now, with access to social media nearly universally available, such protests can be organized faster, on a larger, more dangerous scale than ever before. It encourages opposition movements and leaders in such countries to turn away from incremental, but peaceful changes through political negotiations, and to appeal to mass protests instead, thus endangering the life or their supporters and that of the general public. Governments that respond to violence by cutting off access are not responding with repression but simply trying to reduce the violence. Cutting internet access is a peaceful means of preventing organized violence that potentially saves lives by preventing confrontation between violent groups and riot police.

Any country’s first duty is to its own citizens, and this includes countries that promote human rights and freedom abroad. It is difficult to see why pronouncements by a country should morally oblige it to act in a particular way. Rhetoric and high minded pronouncements are the bread and butter of politics, as is not living up to that rhetoric. These countries may act in response to the desire of their own people to act but this is then done not out of a duty to those in other country but to the electorate of their own.

Western democracies have a moral duty to aid the liberation of oppressed people where it can effectively do so  Western democracies make frequent declarations about the universality of certain rights, such as freedom of speech, or from arbitrary arrest, and that their system of government is the one that broadly speaking offers the most freedom for human development and respect for individuals. They make avowals in the United Nations and other organizations toward the improvement of rights in other countries and the need for reforms. Take for example Obama addressing the UN General assembly in 2012 where he said “we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. These are not simply American values or Western values; they are universal values.” [1]  By subverting internet censorship in these countries, Western countries take an action that is by and large not hugely costly to them while providing a major platform for the securing of the basic human rights, particularly freedom of speech and expression, they claim are so important. Some potential actions might include banning Western companies from aiding in the construction of surveillance networks, or preventing Western-owned internet service providers from kowtowing to repressive regimes’ censorship demands. [2] Few of these regimes would be able to build and maintain their own ISPs and all the equipment for monitoring and tracking they use. [3] Other actions might include providing software to dissidents that would shield their identities such as Tor. [4] All of these are fairly low cost endeavours. The West has an absolute duty to see these and other projects through so that their inaction ceases to be the tacit condolence of repression it currently is.  [1] Barak Obama, ‘President Obama’s 2012 address to U.N. General Assembly (Full text)’, Washington Post, 25 September 2012,   [2] Gunther, Marc, ‘Tech execs get grilled over China business’, Fortune, 16 February 2006,   [3] Elgin, Ben, and Silver, Vernon, ‘The Surveillance Market and Its Victims’, Bloomberg, 20 December 2011,   [4] Tor, Anonymity Online,

As with all messages this will not make a “clear and emphatic statement about free speech” rather it will be a message that is muddied by hypocrisy. Autocratic ‘repressive’ regimes are not the only states to enable some form of censorship on the internet. Britain has a blacklist that is not even run by the government but left to a charity called the Internet Watch Foundation, [1] Iceland is considering banning internet pornography, [2] and western European countries have bans on holocaust denial which apply online as well as offline. [3] The message is then anything but clear. States on the receiving end of such action will rightly accuse their antagonists of the hypocrisy of wanting to control their own internet while not allowing other that they deem to be ‘less free’ to do the same. As a result the statement is if anything one of aggression that may cause retrenchment or even a dangerous reaction.  [1] Davies, C.J., ‘The hidden censors of the internet’, WIRED, 20 May 2009,   [2] Associated Press, ‘Iceland seeks internet pornography ban’, guardian.co.uk, 25 February 2013,   [3] See the Debatabase debate ‘ This House would block access to websites that deny the holocaust ’

Repressive governments rely on internet censorship to stifle dissent and entrench their power  The internet has become the ultimate platform for dissent within repressive regimes. It breaks the government monopoly on information and communication. As the technology governments have to keep control of their people increases, with access to high-tech surveillance technology, CCTV, wiretaps, etc., the internet has become the only means of people to express their anger and to organize that is not entirely under state control. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator, Ben Ali, involved numerous internet tools to share information and coordinate their efforts. [1]  Yet in many countries the internet too is highly censored, with security services investigating online posters and bringing them in for their version of justice, denying access to parts of the internet through state censors, and even ordering internet service providers to abide by strict censorship rules. Yahoo, for example, has bent the knee to China’s severe censorship laws in order to maintain its lucrative market in the country. [2] All of these factors have compounded to make internet dissent risky, and much harder for inquisitive minds to get access to information that is critical of their governments. By dominating the flow of information states have the power to keep their people in check and prevent them from ever posing a threat to their repressive status quo. Only external help in alleviating this censorship could allow activists to organize effectively and perhaps to one day bring about genuine reform and justice to their societies.  [1] Zuckerman, Ethan, ‘The First Twitter Revolution?’, Foreign Policy, 14 January 2011,   [2] Gunther, Marc, ‘Tech execs get grilled over China business’, Fortune, 16 February 2006,

Internet censorship is a problem, but it is hardly the biggest one facing people in these countries. Internet access is often limited to only the more affluent segments of most poor countries, and it is thus not the best mode of building grass roots movement for reform. This means it is often not even the best platform for dissent, it is notable that the ‘twitter revolution’ may have had some of the organisation through the internet but it was action on the ground through protests that overthrew Ben Ali. [1] At best Western intervention in this case would simply prompt oppressive regimes to utilize more conventional, often more violent methods of quelling dissent.  [1] Ash, Timothy Garton, ‘Tunisia’s revolution isn’t a product of Twitter or WikiLeaks. But they do help’, The Guardian, 19 January 2011,

This would make a powerful statement in favour of freedom of expression and against repression  Western governments pursuing this policy serve to make a clear and emphatic statement about free speech in an arena it has significant power to influence. By taking this action it makes it clear to repressive regimes that their efforts to stifle all dissent will not be tolerated by the international community. [1] The power of regimes to enact their agendas often comes from Western unwillingness to put their money where their mouth is. By funding internet freedom Western countries do this, and in a way that is unambiguously positive in its advocacy of freedom of speech, and that cannot be imputed with alternative agendas by critics. Even repressive states usually claim officially to value freedom of speech, the People’s Republic of China for example in article 35 of its constitution states “Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.” [2] This separates this sort of action from sanctions, direct intervention, and virtually any other kind of international action that are so often condemned as being against a nations ‘sovereignty’. It is purely to enable the people on the ground to have more freedom of information and expression, which aids not only in their aim to free themselves from tyranny, but also abets the West’s efforts to portray itself publicly as a proponent of justice for all, not just those it favours. An example of this is Google’s choice to relocate its servers from mainland China to Hong Kong where there are fewer restrictions, which served as major totemic action in the fight against censorship in China. [3] The emphatic statement thus is an effective means of putting pressure on repressive regimes to reform their censorship policies to evade further international ridicule.  [1] Clinton, Hillary Rodham, ‘Conference on Internet Freedom, Remarks’, U.S. Department of State, 8 December 2011,   [2] Constitution of the People’s Republic of China’, HKHRM,   [3] Krazit, Tom, ‘Google moves Chinese search to Hong Kong’, Cnet, 22 March 2010,

Western companies must be governed by codes of ethics. These should not merely stop at the border of their home state. If they are to be ethical actors they must uphold the freedoms they claim to value. If this means not being able to profit massively in markets so be it. Western governments should have little sympathy for firms profiting from and aiding in the oppression of peoples.

Appeasement does not work to increase internet freedom. This has been shown time and time again with China. China has slowly been becoming more and more accepted into the international system; it gained Security Council membership in 1971, joined the WTO in 2000, and held the Olympics in 2008 to celebrate its new role on the world stage. Yet this has not meant they have relaxed internet censorship, far from it, it simply becomes more refined and difficult to detect. [1] Even China’s version of twitter is very fast at censoring posts, despite there being 70,000 messages per minute, almost a third of deletions are completed within 30 minutes. [2] Engagement simply shows that there is no cost to repressive regimes if they continue as they have been. It is therefore enabling them to continue their repression.  [1] Roberts, Eric, ‘Where Censorship in China is Headed’, International Trends concerning Freedom of Information on the Electronic Commons, 2008,   [2] Mozur, Paul, ‘Just How Fast Are China’s Internet Censors? Very.’ China Realtime Report, 8 March 2013,

Circumvention of internet censorship will galvanize more severe, physical repression to compensate its need for security  Oppressive regimes will not be any less oppressive just because Western states seek to undermine their ability to censor the internet. They still rely on fear and force to control and cow the population into submission, and have honed many means of doing so. Technology has aided in doing this, including things like advanced surveillance equipment. But they have always relied heavily on, and have their greatest expertise in, physical repression and the strength of the security services. Even if dissidents are able to access the internet more effectively, the security services will feel it all the more necessary to crack down by more conventional, far less sightly means. At the same time as cutting off the internet in Burma the authorities were engaged in brutal arrests in a crackdown that killed several hundred dissidents, it was this that was more important. [1] Western governments do very little in this policy to actually effect meaningful change, because they do nothing to address the underlying institutions of oppression. Sure the internet is an important tool for organizing protest and opposition to the government, but they will now have to contend with a government with a heightened sense of threat that can only serve to harm them.  [1] AP, ‘UK: Myanmar deaths ‘far greater’ than reported’, CNN, 28 September 2007,

It results in Western companies getting kicked out of the countries, damaging significant Western businesses  Western businesses have been seeking entry into external markets, some of which could well be classified as oppressive. These firms have invested significant time, money, and manpower into building up their businesses. By enforcing this policy they will face huge challenges in growth, and even maintaining their place in these countries at all. Internet service providers and other technology firms in particular will suffer. Google and Yahoo have claimed that their efforts in these countries, much like those of Western governments, have helped soften regimes, much more than not engaging at all at least. [1] As Western companies face more and more competition in international markets they, and the Western economies of which they are a part, cannot afford to undermine themselves for the sake of making a political statement, one that would ultimately not necessarily serve to further the cause of freedom anyway.  [1] Gunther, Marc, ‘Tech execs get grilled over China business’, Fortune, 16 February 2006,

This policy alienates the oppressive regimes and stifles the change that discourse and positive interaction can bring  When a repressive government sees its power directly attacked by Western democracies, and sees them actively trying to subvert their power by empowering dissidents they consider unlawful criminals, it will naturally react badly. These states will be less willing to engage with the West when it plays such an open hand that effectively declares their government, or at least its policies, illegitimate. The most effective way for Western countries to effect change is to engage with repressive regimes and to encourage them to reform their systems. By not directly antagonizing, but instead trading, talking, and generally building ties with countries, Western states can put to full use their massive economic power and political capital to use in nudging regimes toward reform. [1] Burma (Myanmar) faced sanctions for decades yet it was not western policies aimed at attacking the Burmese state that brought change rather it was engagement by ASEAN that brought about an opening up and rapid improvement in freedoms. [2]  Harsh attack begets rigid defence, so the opposite of the change that is desired. It may not be exciting to make deals with and seek to engender incremental change in regimes, but it is the only way to do so absent bloodshed or other significant human suffering. A policy of flouting national laws will demand a negative response from the regimes, leading them to curtail access to the internet for all. Again Burma is an example; The Burmese government cut off all access to the internet in order to prevent the flow of videos and pictures being sent to the outside world through blogs and social media. [3] Subverting government control just brought about a complete black out. Such actions when they occur a major blow to domestic dissidents who, even with heavy censorship, still rely on the internet to organize and share information. This action would serve simply to further impoverish the people of useful tools and knowledge.  [1] Larison, Daniel, ‘Engagement Is Not Appeasement’, The American Conservative, 17 December 2012,   [2] Riady, John, ‘How Asean Engagement Led to Burma Reform’, The Irrawaddy, 5 June 2012,   [3] Tran, Mark, ‘Internet access cut off in Burma’, guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2007,

There is only so much that governments can do to oppress their people. Even if this policy did embolden repressive states to ramp up their other means of control, the genie of the internet would be out of the bottle. Without it, dissident groups would find it impossible to ever successfully organize and rebel. It is not a trade-off of one form of oppression for another, but is rather a recognition that Western countries must accept that oppressive regimes will take nasty decisions in reprisal in the short term, while being unable to maintain their firm grip on the public once it is armed with the information and organizational power the internet provides.

Tax avoidance is not illegal, and it should not be treated as if it were by the prying media and would-be class-warriors. Even if one might think it unpleasant to look for loopholes to protect private wealth, it is really only natural for people to wish to pay no more than they have to in tax. Mitt Romney was simply using the skills that allowed him to be a great business success to keep his costs as low as possible. Trying to make a political issue out of these sorts of dealings only serves to obscure from the real policy issues, and to focus the debate on divisive and unhelpful issues of class war.

Financial dealings can indicate candidates’ willingness to circumvent the system/play by the rules  A lot of politicians come from positions of prestige and power before seeking public office. Many politicians have wealth in their own right, or a base of wealthy supporters. Understanding where that wealth came from and how they used their privileged position is very important to citizens when choosing their leaders. Access to candidates’ financial information allows good candidates to show their honesty and financial uprightness, and sometimes even to display their talent and acumen that allowed them to succeed. More importantly, it allows people to scrutinize the dealings of politicians who used their often privileged position to avoid paying high taxes and to shield their wealth from the public taking its legal due. What these insights provide is a valuable snapshot of what candidates are willing to do to promote their own interests versus those of the state and society. It shows if there is a propensity to engage in morally dubious practices, and such behavior could well be extrapolated to be a potential incentive to corrupt practice. While tax avoidance is not illegal, it can well be considered unjust when rigorously applied, especially considered that the special knowledge necessary to profit from it belongs only to those of wealth and privilege. The value of this knowledge was made particularly clear in the case of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. When Romney released his tax returns it became painfully clear that he was using the system to his advantage, at the expense of the taxpayer. [1] Citizens deserve to know to what lengths, if any, those who wish to represent them are willing to game the system they would be elected to lead.  [1] Drucker, J. “Romney Avoids Taxes Via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations”. Bloomberg. 29 October 2012,

Personal finances mean little when it comes to financial policy. Trying to glean any sort of financial acumen on the macro scale from private dealings is extremely misguided. Successful business leaders often make poor political leaders, as the world of business is very different from the horse-trading of politics. [1] In terms of leading others as one leads one’s own life, there is no reason to assume that a candidate who has used the system to his or her advantage would use the additional power of office to enrich themselves or their friends further. Mitt Romney was an effective governor of Massachusetts, and was willing to increase taxes that were personally costly to him.  [1] Jenkins, H. “Good Businessman, Bad President?”. Wall Street Journal. 23 October 2012,

Voters have a right to know the background of their would-be representatives, including financial background  In any society, no matter how liberal, rights of every kind have limitations. Rights are general statements of principles that are then caveated and curtailed to fit the public interest across a range of circumstances. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role they are applying for requires extra transparency. As the representative of the people, the politician is more than just the holder of a job appointed by the people, but is the elected servant, whose duty is to lead, including by example. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. This political power will often involve power over the public purse so it is essential for the public to know if the candidate is financially honest and not going to use his election for corrupt purposes. [1] Thus, when citizens place their political power in the hands of an elected representative, they gain the reciprocal right over that representative to have his or her life and character laid bare for their approval. This is done generally through political campaigns that focus on candidates’ character and life story. But often candidates prove reticent to share some details, particularly financial details. But if citizens are to make a good decision about what sort of person they wish to lead them, they require information about the financial background of their representatives, to see that they comport themselves in business in a way that is fitting to the character of a leader.  [1] Rossi, I., and Blackburn, T., “Why do financial disclosure systems matter for corruption?” blogs.worldbank.org, 8 November 2012,

So long as politicians do their duty by representing the interests of those that elected them, they are fulfilling their end of the covenant with the people. To demand the financial records of candidates will not offer more than crude snapshot of one aspect of their lives, not giving the desired insight into their character, while massively intruding on the politician’s personal life. As is often the case here the right to know conflicts with the candidates right to privacy. Of course it is right to know if a candidate pays his taxes, but do they need to know every expense he has incurred over the last few years or how much a candidate earned years ago?

This information offers valuable texture to the financial proposals candidates offer as potential policy  When candidates make proposals for public spending they often seek to use their own financial stories as evidence of their credibility. Without public knowledge of their actual financial record, besides what can be gleaned from secondary sources and their words, these claims cannot be evaluated fully by the voting public. Publishing their financial records allows the citizens to get a genuine grasp of their –would-be representatives abilities. More importantly, the proposals of candidates can be scrutinized in relation to how the candidate, and those of the same financial stratum as the candidate, would benefit from them. When Mitt Romney proposed new tax and spending reforms in the last US presidential election, it was clear that his policies inordinately favored the rich and increased the tax burden of the middle class. [1] Understanding Romney’s personal position of great wealth served confirm to the public their suspicions that his policies were designed to favor the financial elite of which he was a part. It is in the public’s interest to elect representatives who serve their interests, not those of moneyed elites.  [1] Dwyer, P. “Surprise! Romney Tax Plan Favors the Rich”. Bloomberg. 1 August 2012.

While elections should of course focus a great deal of attention on policy, it is also critical that voters understand who exactly it is they are voting for. That means looking beyond the manifesto and getting an understanding of the candidate’s character and private dealings. Having access to their private financial records can go a long way toward revealing this information, as they provide valuable insight into both the candidate’s financial abilities, and his or her attitude toward the state.

Privacy is a right but it is not sacrosanct, and certainly should not be for people who serve the public. Freedom of speech is considered sacred in a free society, but anyone reasonable would agree that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is not given such protection, showing that even the most treasured rights are curtailed in the public interest. Both the special position of politicians as the effective embodiment of the people’s will, and the special power they wield, which is far vaster than that of any private agent, demands a higher level of scrutiny into their backgrounds, which means looking into their financial records, which can divulge much about their competence and character.

Fixating on candidates’ financial records fuels the fire of class war  More and more the financial dealings of candidates are used against them in politics. In past decades, politicians in many countries were proud to run on the basis of their successes in the private sector. Today, however, that success has often become a liability. One only need look at the paradigmatic example of this occurrence, Mitt Romney. When running for governor in Massachusetts, his strong record in business was touted as a quality favoring him. Yet in the presidential election, Romney’s wealth was touted as an example of capitalist excess, of often ill-gotten gains. [1] The change in rhetoric has indicated marked shift in politics in a number of countries, most visibly the United States, but also places like France, where the development of wealth and success are deemed to be the marks of greed and unfairness. These trends would only be compounded with the release of candidates’ financial records. People with records of wealth and financial ability will be further demonized as being anti-poor. These sorts of political tactics obscure from the realities of politics and seeks to separate people along class, rather than political ideological, lines. Such divisions are exceptionally dangerous to the functioning of a democratic society, which demands buy-in and willing participation from all classes and groups in order to function.  [1] Erb, K. “Why Romney’s ‘Tax Avoidance’ Strategies Don’t Deserve Criticism”. Forbes. 30 October 2012.

The focus of elections should be on policy, not personal issues like financial records  Discussion of candidates’ personal finances serves only to obscure the real issues facing society. When the focus becomes on how much tax Candidate X paid and what loopholes he or she exploited, the media tends to latch onto it. It sells more newspapers and gets more hits online to make a salacious story about the financial “misdeeds” of a candidate than to actually discuss what he or she stands for. It fuels the growing tendency of the media to attach itself to petty commentary rather than real investigation and analysis. Ultimately, an examination of the personal finances of a candidate tells voters little about what he or she stands for on the issue of state finances. Throughout history, personal financial success has been shown to not necessarily correlate with political acumen. For example, William Pitt became the young, and one of the longest-serving Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, yet he was in extreme debt when he died. [1] Narrow attention paid to personal finances takes up people’s limited time available to consume useful information to direct their voting, and the news media have limited air time to discuss issues. It is best that both use their time to maximum effect, and not be sidetracked by distractions.  [1] Reilly, Robin (1978). Pitt the Younger 1759–1806. Cassell Publishers.

Individuals have a right to privacy, including to their own financial records  Privacy is a fundamental human right, one that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us. [1] What people do with their own finances is their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. Politicians don’t owe the electorate any special privileges like their financial history. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. His or her duty is not so special as to demand the handing over of all information on one of the most critical aspects of their private life. Financial affairs like income and taxes are a private matter, and should be treated as such by voters and governments. This is even more the case when it comes to financial history, much of which may have happened long before the individual decided to become a politician. Making politicians’ financial affairs fair game for reporters and others who would exploit the information only serves to undermine the rights that all citizens rightly enjoy.  [1] Privacy International. 2010. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 39(1): 58-68.

Firstly, personal wealth may not be indicative of political belief. Wealthy people can be advocates for higher taxes and workers’ rights. Secondly, maybe creating class awareness is not such a bad thing. The revelation of candidates’ personal finances will help show average voters what their leaders are actually like, that they have acquired great wealth and seek to protect it. Consciousness about these things can only help to galvanize political participation and to stoke real discourse about things like the proper distribution of wealth, issues that often fall foul of the political mainstream of party politics.

Certainly parents should help their children to make most of their time with the computer and their phone. However, monitoring children in order to do so is lazy, or more precisely a form of ‘remote-control parenting’. Parents abuse of their children’s inherent right to privacy and feel that they have satisfactorily fulfilled their parental role when instead they are just lazy and unwilling to talk to their child personally about being a responsible netizen. [1] How are children to develop a healthy relationship to sharing information and privacy protection if they are constantly being surveilled by their own parents? More effective parents would instead choose to personally and positively teach their children about time management.  [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.

Monitoring allows parents to correct children who are wasting their time.  Parents also need to monitor their children to ensure that they are properly using the time they have with the computer and the mobile phone. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation 40% of 8- to 18-year olds spend 54 minutes a day on social media sites.[1] and that “when alerted to a new social networking site activity, like a new tweet or Facebook message, users take 20 to 25 minutes on average to return to the original task” resulting to 20% lower grades. [2] Thus, parents must constantly monitor the digital activities of their children and see whether they have been maximizing the technology at their disposal in terms of researching for their homework, connecting with good friends and relatives, and many more.  [1] Foehr, Ulla G., Rideout, Victoria J., and Roberts, Donald F., “Generation M2 Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds”, The Kaiser Family Foundation, January 2010, p.21  [2] Gasser, Urs, and Palfrey, John, “Mastering Multitasking”, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, March 2009, p.17

Indeed it is important to consider that children do not receive or send sexually disturbing media. However, as proposition has already stated parents are much less likely to be digitally savvy than their children. Should they wish to learn children are likely to be able to penetrate any elaborate digital monitoring set by a parent. As it is, Defcon, one of the world’s largest hacker conventions, is already training 8- to 16-year olds to hack in a controlled environment. [1] That pornography is so widely available and so desirable is the product of a culture the glorifies sexuality and erotic human interaction. The effects on childrens well-being are by no means clear, indeed it can be argued that much of what parents are no able to communicate to their children in the way of sexual education is communicated to them through Internet pornography. While this brings with it all manner of problems, aside from the outrage of their parents there is little scientific data to suggest that mere exposure to pornography is causing wide-scale harm to children. Instead, it may be that many of the ‘objects’ of these debates on the rights of children are themselves quite a bit more mature than the debates would suggest..  [1] Finkle, Jim. “Exclusive: Forget Spy Kids, try kiddie hacker conference.” Reuters. Thomas Reuters. 23 Jun 2011. Web. May 2013.

Monitoring prevents cyberbullying.  Social approval is especially craved by teens because they are beginning to shift focus from family to peers. [1] Unfortunately, some teens may resort to cyberbullying others in order to gain erroneous respect from others and eliminate competitors in order to establish superficial friendships. Over the last few years a number of cyberbullying cases have caused the tragic suicides of Tyler Clementi (2010), Megan Meier who was bullied online by a non-existent Josh Evans whom she had feelings for (2006), and Ryan Halligan (2003) among others. [2] Responsible parents need to be one step ahead because at these relevant stages, cognitive abilities are advancing, but morals are lagging behind, meaning children are morally unequipped in making informed decisions in cyberspace. [1] One important way to make this guidance more effective would be if parents chose to monitor their children’s digital behavior by acquiring their passwords and paying close attention to their social network activity such as Facebook and chat rooms, even if it means skimming through their private messages. Applying the categorical imperative, if monitoring becomes universal, then cyberbullying will no longer be a problem in the cyberspace as the perpetrators would be quickly caught and disciplined.  [1] Bauman, Sheri. Cyberbullying: a Virtual Menace. University of Arizona, 2007. Web. May 2013.  [2] Littler, Chris. “8 Infamous Cases of Cyber-Bullying.” The Sixth Wall. Koldcast Entertainment Media. 7 Feb 2011. Web. May 2013 .

While cyberbullying is indeed a danger to children, it is not an excuse to invade their personal life-worlds. The UNCRC clearly states that “(1) No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation,” and that, “(2) The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack.” These ‘interferences’ or ‘attacks’ not only apply to third parties but to parents as well. [1] Moreover in less traditional ‘offline’ spaces children have far greater ability to choose which information they share with their parents and what they do not. As online spaces are not inherently more dangerous than those offline, it seems reasonable to suggest that similar limitations and restrictions on invasions of privacy that apply online should also apply offline. What a parent can do is to be there for their children and talk to them and support them. They should also spend time surfing the Internet together with them to discuss their issues and problems. But the child should always also have the opportunity to have his or her own protected and private space that is outside the every watchful surveilant eye of the parent..  [1] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.

While it is certainly beneficial for parents to immerse themselves in the digital world, it may not be good for them to be partially and informally educated by simple monitoring. Especially for parents who are not already familiar with the internet, monitoring may simply condition them to a culture of cyberstalking and being excessively in control of the digital behavior of their children. As it is, a number of children have abandoned Facebook because they feel that their parents are cyberstalking them. [1] Besides, there are other ways of educating oneself regarding ICT which include comprehensive online and video tutorials and library books that may cater to an unfamiliar parent’s questions about the digital world.  [1] “Kids Are Abandoning Facebook To Flee Their Cyber-Stalking Parents.” 2 Oceans Vibe News. 2 Oceans Vibe Media. 11 Mar 2013. Web. May 2013

Monitoring decreases children’s involvement with pornography.  A 2005 study by the London School of Economics found that “while 57 per cent of the over-nines had seen porn online, only 16 per cent of parents knew.” [1] That number is almost certain to have increased. In addition sexting has also become prevalent as research from the UK suggests “over a third (38%) [of] under 18’s have received an offensive or distressing sexual image via text or email.” [2] This is dangerous because this digital reality extends to the real world. [3] W.L. Marshall says that early exposure to pornography may incite children to act out sexually against other children and may shape their sexual attitudes negatively, manifesting as insensitivity towards women and undervaluing monogamy. Only with monitoring can parents have absolute certainy of what their children are doing on the Internet. It may not allow them to prevent children from viewing pornography completely, but regulating the digital use of their children in such a way does not have to limit their digital freedoms or human rights.  [1] Carey, Tanith. “Is YOUR child watching porn? The devastating effects of graphic images of sex on young minds”. Daily Mail. Daily Mail and General Trust. 25 April 2011. Web. May 2013.  [2] “Truth of Sexting Amongst UK Teens.” BeatBullying. Beatbullying. 4 Aug 2009. Web. May 2013.  [3] Hughes, Donna Rice. Kids Online: Protecting Your Children in Cyberspace. Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1998. ProtectKids. Web. May 2013.

Monitoring raises digital awareness among parents.  Parents who are willing to monitor their children’s digital communications also benefit themselves. By setting up the necessary software and apps to secure their children’s online growth, parents familiarize themselves with basic digital skills and keep up with the latest in social media. As it stands there is a need to raise digital awareness among most parents. Sonia Livingston and Magdalena Bober in their extensive survey of the cyber experience of UK children and their parents report that “among parents only 1 in 3 know how to set up an email account, and only a fifth or fewer are able to set up a filter, remove a virus, download music or fix a problem.” [1] Parents becoming more digitally involved as a result of their children provides the added benefit of increasing the number of mature netizens so encouraging norms of good behavior online.  [1] Livingstone, Sonia, and Magdalena Bober. “UK Children Go Online: Surveying the experiences of young people and their parents.” UK Children Go Online. Second Report (2004): 1-61.

While it is practical to use these parental controls, it is not always realistic to set such limited parameters to the digital freedom of children. Children need to understand that they have the capacity to breach their parents’ trust. [1] This not only allows a child to understand how to interact sensibly with the internet, but to experience taking an initiative to actually obey parents in surfing only safe sites. Selectively restricting a child’s digital freedom does not help in this case. Thus, monitoring is the only way for children to experience digital freedom in such a way that they too are both closely guided and free to do as they wish. Moreover, this is also self-contradictory because opposition claimed that children are capable of circumvention which children would be much more likely to do when blocked from accessing websites than simply monitored.  [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.

The individual right to privacy must certainly encompass the digital realm as proposition says. It is also undeniable that individual privacy enhances individuality and independence. However, this privacy can and should be regulated lest parents leave children ‘abandoned’ to their rights. [1] “One cannot compare reading a child’s journal to accessing his or her conversations online or through text messages,” says Betsy Landers, the president of the National Parent-Teacher Association of the US and explains, “It’s simply modern involvement.” [2] Thus, Hillary Clinton argues, “children should be granted rights, but in a stage-by-stage manner that accords with and pays attention to their physical and mental development and capacities.” [1] Applying this principle, children should be given digital privacy to an equitable extent and regulated whereby both conditions depend upon the maturity of the child.  [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.  [2] Landers, Betty. “It’s Modern Parental Involvement.” New York Times. 28 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.

Monitoring is lazy parenting.  The proposition substitutes the good, old-fashioned way of teaching children how to be responsible, with invasions of their privacy, so violating an inherent rights [1]. Such parenting is called remote-control parenting. Parents who monitor their children’s digital behavior feel that they satisfactorily fulfil their parental role when in fact they are being lazy and uninvolved in the growth of their child. Children, especially the youngest, are “dependent upon their parents and require an intense and intimate relationship with their parents to satisfy their physical and emotional needs.” This is called a psychological attachment theory. Responsible parents would instead spend more time with their children teaching them about information management, when to and when not to disclose information, and interaction management, when to and when not to interact with others. [2] That parents have the ability to track their children is true, but doing so is not necessarily likely to make them better adults [3]. The key is for parents and children to talk regularly about the experiences of the child online. This is a process that cannot be substituted by parental monitoring.  [1] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.  [2] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.  [3] “You Can Track Your Kids. But Should You?” New York Times. 27 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.

Monitoring is a hindrance to forming relationships both outside and inside the family.  If children are being monitored, or if it seems to children that they are being monitored, they would immediately lose trust in their parents. As trust is reciprocal, children will also learn not to trust others. This will result in their difficulty in forging human connections, thereby straining their psychosocial growth. For them to learn how to trust therefore, children must know that they can break their parents’ trust (as said by the proposition before). This will allow them to understand, obey, and respect their parents on their own initiative, allowing them to respect others in the same manner as well. [1] This growth would only be possible if parents refuse this proposition and instead choose to educate their children how to be responsible beforehand.  [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.

Other parental controls are more practical and reasonable to administer.  Monitoring would be extremely tedious and time-consuming. Many teens send over 100 texts a day, it would clearly be very time consuming to read them all along with all other digital communication.[1] By contrast content filtering, contact management, and privacy protection parental controls, which can be used to block all incoming and outgoing information, require only minimal supervision. Parents who meanwhile deem their children immature when it comes to social networking and gaming can instead impose user restrictions on the relevant websites and devices. [2] Administering these alternative parental controls leave for more quality time with children. In this case, only when children acquire sufficient digital maturity and responsibility can these controls be lifted. As they have learnt to be mature in the digital environment the children would most likely continue to surf safely even when the parental controls are lifted.  [1] Goldberg, Stephanie, “Many teens send 100-plus texts a day, survey says”, CNN, 21 April 2010  [2] Burt, David. “Parental Controls Product Guide.” 2010 Edition. n.d. PDF File. Web. May 2013.

This proposal is simply an invasion of privacy.  Children have as much right to privacy as any adult. Unfortunately there is yet to be a provision on the protection of privacy in either the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights, though the Supreme Court states that the concept of privacy rooted within the framework of the Constitution. [1] This ambiguity causes confusion among parents regarding the concept of child privacy. Many maintain that privacy should be administered to a child as a privilege, not a right. [2] Fortunately, the UNCRC clearly states that “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation,” [3] making child privacy an automatic right. Just as children should receive privacy in the real world, so too should they in the digital world. Individual rights, including right to privacy, shape intrafamilial relationships because they initiate individuality and independence. [1]  [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013. P.764  [2] Brenner, Susan. “The Privacy Privilege.” CYB3RCRIM3. Blogspot. 3 April 2009. May 2013.  [3] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.

It is true that trust is a cornerstone of relationships. Admittedly, the act of monitoring may initially stimulate feelings of distrust which are particularly destructive in relationships. But nonetheless, trust is earned, not granted. The only proactive way to gauge how much trust and responsibility to give a child in the digital world is monitoring. By monitoring a child, parents come to assess the initial capability of the child in digital responsibility and ultimately the level of trust and the level of responsibility he or she deserves and to be assigned subsequently. Ideally, the initial level of monitoring and follow-through should be maximum in order to make clear to the child that he is being guided. Only when a child proves himself and grows in digital maturity can monitoring and follow-through be gradually minimized and finally lifted. [1]  [1] Bodenhamer, Gregory. Parents in Control. New York: Simon &amp; Schuster, 1995 Inc. Web. May 2013.

Opposition claims that monitoring is ‘laziness’. Admittedly, monitoring makes digital parenting more efficient and comprehensive. But, such technology makes parenting practical, not ‘lazy’. As it is, many people blame technology for their own shortcomings. [1] Thus, parents need to know that monitoring will not do all the work for them. It is not lazy to monitor your children, it is clearly essential that children are monitored when involved in activities such as sports. The internet is a dangerous environment just as the sports field is and should have similar adult supervision.  [1] Bradley, Tony. “Blaming Technology for Human Error: Trying To Fix Social Problems With Technical Tools.” About. About. 30 Mar 2005.

These arrangements are so onerous that they will serve as a very real disincentive to universities taking public funding. Universities are rational in their decision-making, and they will be less likely to approve or participate in research projects that end up being of no long term benefit to them. The profit motive, even in the vaunted halls of academia, should be something to harnessed, not fought against. Furthermore, much public funding is used for the purpose of funding teaching hours anyway, and not into profitable research pursuits, which tend to be more amenable to other investors. The state’s role should only to be fund research when the private sector won’t, otherwise its funding should be ensuring the education of the country’s citizens.

Research produced with public funding is too important to be left in the hands of universities alone  The creators and producers of novel work, literary, scientific, other research, etc. enjoy large and sweeping protections due to the intellectual property rights enshrined in law in all developed countries. These laws restrict public use of these researches, which can only occur with the express permission of the owners of these works. But the research that is deemed worthy of state funding must pass a test of importance, and must be of enough social significance to make it worth doling out limited research and development money. Universities, as the important and vibrant centres of learning and research in the world, are a critical part of states’ efforts to remain relevant and competitive in a world of rapid technological change. States fund many universities, in much of Europe accounting for the vast majority of university funding as a whole, across the EU almost 85% of funding is from public sources, [1] and they currently do not get their money’s worth. Even when states gain partial ownership of the products of research and the patents that arise from state funding to university scientists and researchers they do not serve their full duty to the people they represent. Rather, the state should be ensuring that the information produced is made fully available to the people for their use and for the real benefit of all, not just the profit of a few institutions.  Universities are as aggressively protective of their patents and discoveries as much as any profit-seeking private firm, but the state should instead seek to minimize these urges by altering the sorts of arrangements it makes with universities. Research into new theories, medicines, technologies, etc. are all important to society and should be fostered with public funding where necessary. The state best ensures the benefit of society by making sure that when it agrees to fund a research program it guarantees that the information produced will be fully available to all citizens to enjoy and benefit from. More than just attaining a result, the state needs to give its funding maximum exposure so it can be maximally utilized.  [1] Vught, F., et al. (2010) “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente.

Universities that could build valuable technologies and explore new avenues of academic research and development are faced with a disincentive to accept public funding, and to pursue unprofitable research that might be dependent on state support. Universities are a critical part of a nation’s research infrastructure, and by harnessing the profit motives of those institutions, not spurning them, it can use its money to most effectively promote broader development. It should be remembered that profits made by universities will simply be ploughed back into education and more research, which is all to the benefit of society.

Academic work produced by means of public funds belongs to the public  Everyone benefits from the public spreading of knowledge and information. Universities are central loci of the pursuit of knowledge and exploration of science, technology, history, the arts, and all many and varied forms of intellectual enquiry. When the state opts to fund research and development in the university setting, it becomes a part-owner of the ideas and creation that springs forth from that funding, just as it belongs to the researchers who directly produce it. State funding is given to universities not simply to further the bounds of human discovery for its own sake, but so that those boundaries can be pushed for the benefit of the citizens of the polity. This is because the state is fundamentally a servant of the people, using the people’s money to further the society’s aims, such as better health and a more productive workforce. Ultimately the purpose of the state in all its functions is to provide safety and services so that people can all avail of what they consider to be the good life. In order to serve this obligation to the people, the state ensures that the research it funds is publicly available. By conditioning all of its research funding to universities on their agreeing to make all of their work publicly available the state can effectively serve the people and guarantee that the citizenry gets the full benefit of their money spent on those researches. This obligation of states has been echoed in new laws passed in Australia, Canada, and other countries that now seek to expand public access to state funded research, particularly academic research produced in universities and other dedicated research organizations. [1] The ultimate purpose of the state is to serve the public interest, and it is remiss in that duty when it fails to have the products of its monetary investments serve benefit the public. Universities are the great repositories and breeding grounds of knowledge, and the state must ensure that that knowledge, when it is produced because of the state’s largesse, is available for all to enjoy and benefit from.  [1] Anon. (2006). “Worldwide Momentum for Public Access to Publicly Funded Research” Alliance for Taxpayer Access.

As an investor in university research, the state may claim some ownership over the revenues that might arise from that research. But that is not the same as an entitlement to strip all ownership from the originators of the research and throwing it wholesale into the public arena. That is an overbalancing in the extreme that reduces universities ability to benefit from their researches and efforts.

The opening up of information to the public encourages further research and development  By making publicly funded academic work freely available to society, the state throws open the door to far more long term progress and invention that has been so long shut by the jealous hoarding of information and research. The arenas of science, literature, critical theory, and all other fields of academic pursuit, benefit most from a proliferation of voices and opinions, this is why the peer review system exists. This is much as how crowdsourcing and openness helps with software development, there are more eyeballs to spot mistakes, as a result research, particularly of large data capture projects is increasingly being crowdsourced itself. [1] By expanding the range of people able to utilize the information produced, more new and interesting things can be developed from it. The state funds important work, work that might never be able to attract private investment but is still important to the public interest. But this funding must then be available so that it may be best used in that public interest. And oftentimes it is only after an unprofitable, academic pursuit is explored with state support that someone else finds a profitable new use for it. That new endeavour can only be realised if academic work is made available to the public. In 2011 universities in the United States earned $1.8 billion in royalties from research. [2] Rather than simply being allowed to profit on their own, the inventions and developments of state-funded academic work should be made freely available to the public.  [1] Dunning, A., (29 July 2011) “Is crowdsourcing dumbing down research?” Guardian Professional.   [2] Blumenstyk, G. (2012) “Universities Report $1.8 Billion in Earnings on Inventions in 2011”. The Chronicle.

The expansion of knowledge that throwing all information generated in universities with state-funded research into the public domain would precipitate a vastly more influential effect on the process of research and development. Far from stifling innovation, more people would be able to examine and build upon research, magnifying the value of the initial work. What is lost from the disincentives of some institutions from taking public funding will be more than made up for by the vast knowledge base of the whole of society that now has the ability to generate derivative works for everyone’s further benefit.

Publicly funded research is not the sole property of researchers, indeed Universities demand to keep the rights not the individual researchers so the individual inventor or researcher is not benefiting at all from any profits. [1] When the state chooses to fund an area of academic work it is doing so for the benefit for all of society, not just for the profit of a single researcher, group, or university organisation. The only way for the state to fully do its duty in providing for its citizens is for it to demand that the products of its funding be made available to the public who pay for its development.  [1] Anon. (28 July 2005) “Guidelines on the Ownership of Data University of Louisville”, University of Lousiville.

It reduces the ability of universities to be self-sufficient and to fund other less potentially profitable pursuits  Universities often use the revenues from their more profitable researches to fund the less financially valuable intellectual fields. This often takes the forms of patent revenues from science and engineering departments going to pay for philosophy and English departments. While there is always a chance a new development in polymers or chemicals will generate some future profit, this is rarely the case for experts in medieval history. Yet universities, as the centres of learning and knowledge in society, value all avenues of academic exploration. State funding tends to go toward the development of new technology and other “hard” disciplines, as they can be explained to voters as valuable investments in society’s future. It is easy for them to sell investment in engineering projects. It is much harder for a politician to explain the need for funding a study in 19th century feminist critical theory. The result of this policy is to create a serious depletion of universities’ resources for cross-discipline funding, meaning that the study of the humanities and arts becomes less tenable. It is essential that universities retain the freedom to invest in all aspects of human knowledge, not merely those that might provide economic benefits. The quality of the human experience cannot be measured in euros or dollars alone, but must account for the understanding of things like the human condition. Only by allowing universities to keep the well-earned fruits of their researches can society hope to be able to explore all fields of human understanding.

The disincentive to take public funding will stifle advancement in valuable fields that rely on the university infrastructure  Research and development relies on the profit motive to spur it on, even in the hallowed halls of academia. Without the guarantee of ownership over the products of state-funded research the desire to engage in such activities is significantly blunted. This is a major blow to the intellectual development of society because it serves as a breaker between two institutions that work best when their interests are aligned, the state and the university. Universities are the great bastions of learning, institutions that bring together the best and brightest to dedicate themselves to the furtherance of human understanding. The state has the resources of a nation to deploy in the public interest. By funding academic research in universities, the state can get more valuable information more cheaply it can through setting up its own research institutions. The universities have the expertise and the basic infrastructure that the state is best served not duplicating unnecessarily. But partnerships between universities and the state are only possible when the universities and their researchers are guaranteed the protections necessary to merit their own investment and attention to the state-funded project. Thus the best system is one that harnesses the brain power and financial incentives of the universities and channels their efforts to the public interest.  While Universities and the State cooperate on most research the State is often unwilling to fully fund research with for example many federal agencies in the United States demanding cost sharing when sponsoring projects. [1] This means that the university still needs to find funding either from foundations or other private sources. These third parties, particularly if they are institutions that desire profits, will strongly object to not being able to realise any profit from the research and are therefore much less likely to engage in joining such research. When universities retain full ownership rights while the information they create may not be freely available, at least it comes into existence in the first place and can then be put to profitable and socially valuable work by the universities.  [1] Anon. (November 2010), “Research &amp; Sponsored Projects”, University of Michigan.

A publicly-funded inventor or researcher still deserves to profit from their efforts  The developer of a new idea, theory, technology, invention, etc. has a fundamental intellectual property right. Academics in universities, through deliberate effort create new things and ideas, and those efforts demand huge amounts of personal sacrifice and invention in order to bear fruit. State funding is often given to pioneering researchers who eschew traditional roads in pursuit of new frontiers. Often there are no obvious profits to be immediately had, and it is only because of the desire of these individuals to expand the canon of human knowledge that these boundaries are ever pushed. It is a matter of principle that these academics be able to benefit from the fruits of their hard-won laurels. [1] The state stripping people of these rights is certainly a kind of theft. Certainly no amount of public funding to an institution can alter the fundamental relationship that exists between creator and the product of their endeavour. The state-funded University of Illinois, for example, has led the way in many technologies, such as fast charging batteries, and has spawned dozens of high-tech start-ups that have profited the university and society generally. [2] The state can easily gain a return on its investments in universities by adopting things like licensing agreements that can provide the state with revenue without taking away the benefits from the developers of research. Furthermore, this policy strips control of researchers’ control over their works’ use. State funding should obviously come with some requirements in terms of some sharing of revenues, etc., but it is also important to consider the extent of the impact work may offer the world. For example, the team that produced the atomic bomb at the University of Chicago became extremely worried after seeing what their invention could wreak, yet the power over their invention was taken over entirely by the state. [3] Certainly that is an extreme example, but it highlights the risks of stripping originators of control over what they produce.  [1] Sellenthin, M. (2004). “Who Should Own University Research?”. Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies.   [2] Blumenstyk, G. (2012) “Universities Report $1.8 Billion in Earnings on Inventions in 2011”. The Chronicle.   [3] Rosen, R. (2011). “’I’ve Created a Monster!’ On the Regrets of Inventors”. The Atlantic.

If universities want to invest in pursuits that will not have any tangible benefit for society then they are welcome to do so. But they should not expect to be able to do that on the government dime. If people want to study the humanities they can pay the tuition fees needed, and universities should be able to prioritize its funding as they prefer. The state acts best when it serves the public interest. By making the research and work of academics who receive state funding available to the public it does its job by freeing people to use vast amounts of information to the betterment of all. If that means a few less books about Marxist-Feminist literary theory, then that is a cost the state should be willing to pay.

To use such websites governments already need to be committed to democracy. Promoting democracy in already-democratic countries is irrelevant. Countries that are not democratic, and seek to maintain autocratic rule will not be impacted by the availability of those resources and harness the internet only for continued repression 1.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010

Websites can strengthen democratic institutions.  The promotion of democracy is not only about forming new democracies; strengthening existing democratic institutions around the globe. To do so, transparency and government-citizen communication is necessary. Britain has set up two websites that achieve exactly that. Writetothem.com is a website where people can figure out who their parliamentary representatives are, and write to them about their problems in an effort to create a stronger relationship, and channels of communication between MPs and their constituents1. 130,000 people were using the website in 2009. Theyworkforyou.com is another website where people can find out who their representatives are, and then read about their recent actions in parliament. This site receives between 200,000 and 300,000 hits per month2. Elections are also strengthened by the internet. Voting can be conducted online which makes the process easier and can reduce intimidation at the polls. Now that politicians have websites, their policy platforms can be more easily accessed and understood by voters. Increasing information and communication between leaders and their constituents contributes to a more transparent system and therefore a healthier democracy. The internet is not only useful for promoting movements for democratic reforms in authoritarian countries, but also for making democracy more effective in democratic countries.  What about civil society and alternative media action sites within ‘official’ democracies that aim to bring about greater democratization through their protests and information for example-  .  1. Escher, Tobias, Analysis of users and usage for UK Citizens Online Democracy, mysociety.org, May 2011  2. Escher, Tobias, WriteToThem.com, mysociety.org, May 2011

The internet is only a place for coordination and cannot replace real-life action so if people are not willing to take to the streets, then the internet is not going to help—and even without the internet, disgruntled masses can still make their points known, as in the French Revolution1. Egypt shut down internet and phone service during part of the revolution, yet it continued indicating that this movement is not based online2. Therefore the internet is not necessarily the force that propels people towards change. SMS has been a very important part of the organization of these protests, which is entirely separate from the internet3. Close to 5 billion people use cell phones and SMS, therefore the impact of the cell phone cannot be distinguished from the internet so it is inaccurate to say that the internet is contributing to democratization when it is very possibly thanks to mobile phones4.  1. Wikipedia, French Revolution  2. BBC, “Egypt’s opposition pushes demands as protests continue”, 2011  3. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: The Power of Mobile Phones, 2010  4. Melanson, David, “UN: worldwide internet users hit two billion, cellphone subscribers top five billion”, 2011.

The internet promotes the free flow of information both in and out of a country, which is essential for a truly free democracy.  Media can be one of the most important factors in democratic development. If governments successfully control the media, they can direct information towards their constituents that casts the regime in an undeniably good light. They can prevent news of faked elections, protests, violence, repression, and arrest from ever reaching the people subject to those violations 1. Without external sources of information people do not question government propaganda, which decreases the likelihood that they advocate for their civil liberties and democracy. The internet promotes the free flow of information that leads to social consciousness and enhances democracy. News of political corruption and scandal in China can go viral in a matter of minutes among its 540 million internet users 2. Even when the government blocks certain websites, and makes avid use of firewalls for censorship, uploading videos to Facebook and YouTube, and posts to Twitter can allow information to be disseminated within the country. Once information is accessible it is almost impossible for the government to continue to censor the internet. For example, in the most recent Egyptian protests, as information leaked out of the country via social networking sites, cell phone pictures and videos were shown on international news broadcasts, making it difficult for the government to spin the situation in a positive light 3. The internet provides a place to find information, and also a place to discuss and debate it with others. The latter is the essential step to truly shifting views. The internet promotes free media which is essential to both creating and maintaining a functioning democracy as it promotes government transparency.  1. Reporters Without Borders, "Press Freedom Index 2010" 2010,  2. Economy, Elizabeth and Mondschein, Jared, "China: The New Virtual Political System", Council on Foreign Relations 2011  3.  "&gt;Richard Waters. "Web firms aim to benefit from role in uprising" Financial Times, February 13, 2011,

overnments still successfully censor information. Take China for example. Often the government shuts down Facebook and Twitter, arrests bloggers, and takes down content. Terms like ‘Tiananmen Square’ and ‘Inner Mongolia’ provide no search results because of the protests that have gone on there1 Governments’ ability to censor information is advancing. Therefore the idea that the internet promotes the flow of unbiased information is not necessarily true, which counters the claim that the internet promotes democracy. Further, the internet is not always used for access to Western news sources, but instead, over 500 million sites in the indexes of search engines are pornographic. In 2003 25% of internet use was for accessing porn. Five of the twenty most visited internet sites are download sites for video games and porn 2. The internet is not largely used for access to information, but instead other forbidden resources, and therefore cannot be directly linked to democratic development.  1. Shirong, Chen, "China Tightens Internet Censorship Controls", BBC, 2011  2. Change.org, "Petition to Unsubscribe America from Internet Porn", 2011,

For many countries, communication with outside actors does not make any difference. Iran has some internet freedom and access to outside information, yet president Ahmadinejad casts the West as a great evil trying to destroy Iran's culture1 . The government remains a theocracy and while there have been some protests, there are many that still support the system of governance2 . Additionally, China may have made reforms, but it is not a democracy even though they have extensive contact with the West3 . Therefore, contact does not necessarily indicate that values will be adopted. When it comes to information flowing out of oppressive countries, the international community might make matters worse. When the West gets involved in local movements, often it can make leaders hold a tighter grip on their power, and turn the blame for the situation on the West leading to violence, and hindering democratic development. This is similar to the situation in Libya4.  1 CNN Wire Staff, 'The West is to blame for regional unrest, Ahmadinejad says', CNN Worl, 18 April 2011  2 Wolverson, Roya, 'How Iran Sees Egypt's Protests', Council on Foreign Relations, 10 February 2010  3 Kurlantzick, Joshua, 'Beijing has bought itself a respite from middle class revolt', The National, 7 March 2011  4 Zenko, Micah, 'Think Again: Libya', Foreign Policy, 28 April 2011

The internet allows political dissidents to communicate, organize, and grow a grassroots movement.  Another extremely important requirement for successful opposition movements advocating democratic reform is the ability to organize mass numbers of people. It is one thing if you hate your government, but don’t think anyone else does. It is entirely different if you can access the thoughts of thousands of others and realize that you are in fact not alone 1. Proportionally the number of people benefiting from repressive authoritative regimes is very small in comparison to the people who are suffering. Therefore, if the people who are hurt by the regimes realize the numbers that they have, it spells trouble for the governments. The internet has 2 billion users, and 950 million people have mobile broadband 2. Mobile phones with pay-as-you-go access plans are more available and affordable than ever before. Protesters do not need to own a computer: they can access social networking and news sites from their phones. The internet means that opposition groups don’t have to be organized under a particular leader, as there can now be many leaders and various causes that fit under the same umbrella and band together. These loose connections, as in Egypt, strengthen the movement 3. The internet also reduces the cost of organization, which can be the difference between success and failure 4. In the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia which called for democracy, the internet was first used to create events on Facebook to increase the number of people aware of and attending protests 5. Then the videos, photographs, and twitter posts that became available on the internet increased the support for the movement as citizens became aware of the violence the government was subjecting the country to. The internet allows users to communicate, then organize demonstrations, and then grow the movement. All of these functions of the internet are essential factors of a grassroots push for democratic reforms.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010, pp. 101-118  2. Melanson, Donald, 'UN: worldwide internet users hit two billion, cellphone subscriptions top five billion', engadget, 28 January 2011  3. BBC, "Egypt's opposition pushes demands as protests continue", 2011  4. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies. 2010  5. Alexander, Anne (2011), "Internet Role in Egypt Protests", British Broadcasting Company,

The internet enhances communication between countries.  The internet does not only make information available to oppressed people within a country, but also communicates that situation to the rest of the world. People also learn about other authoritarian—and democratic—governments around the world. For example, the internet allowed information about Tunisia’s revolution to reach Egypt, which made it clear that overthrowing a government was entirely possible1. Information about the actions of other countries, and their governments can lead to a push for democratic reforms around the world. In addition, as information flows out of a country it becomes more difficult for the globe’s powers to ignore the events that are ensuing, and makes it more likely that they will take action. This action can create the internal and external pressure necessary for democratic reform as was seen in both the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia2. Contact between countries can also have a more subtle impact as well. It enhances communication between open and closed societies particularly in the form of business, which can bring about an exchange of values. Thanks in part to the internet; Western firms increasingly own large shares of Middle Eastern and East Asian businesses, putting pressure on governments to remove their economic protectionism measures and to allow greater transparency. For example, while China is not a democracy it has made some government and economic reforms that are on the right track3.  1. Jerome, Deborah (2011), “Understand Tunisia’s Tremors”, Council on Foreign Relations, [Accessed June 22, 2011].  2. Wikipedia, “International reactions to the revolution in Egypt”, [Accessed June 24, 2011].  3. Wikipedia, “Chinese Economic Reforms”, [Accessed June 24, 2011]

With any tool there are going to be people who misuse it, yet cases of misuse do not outweigh times when the internet has proven to be an important force for democracy. Internet and SMS have helped to organize almost every uprising in the Middle East and the Orange Revolution in Georgia1. Cases of citizen misuse are few and far between in comparison to the change that has been made partially thanks to the internet. Further, the internet provides tools to successfully catch the abusers and prevent continued undemocratic actions through tracking IP addresses and other tactics. The same goes for targeting terrorist networks.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies. 2010

The quantity of information on the internet, and the number of talented computer users makes it very difficult for the government to fully censor information. The more information there is, the harder it becomes for the government to control it. The US is investing $19 million into researching how to break the firewalls of China and Iran1. There is plenty of easy to use software to evade firewalls2. Internet censorship can be evaded. Therefore, regimes cannot entirely maintain control over information, and any external information can be considered good information.  Furthermore, regimes like China and Iran are not the only countries to “watching” their populations. Many democracies including the US and most of Western European use digital surveillance to safeguard their population- watch out for possible activity that may be harmful to the state.  1. Gaouette, Nicole, 'U.S. Launches New Effort to Evade China's Internet Firewalls', Bloomberg.com, 11 May 2011  2. Irish Times, 'Bunnies Hop the Great Firewall', 2 February 2011

The digital divide leaves the same people in places of influence and power.  The internet doesn’t necessarily put power in the hands of the vulnerable; in many places it strengthens the influence of the traditional elite. In low-income countries the cost of broadband is 900% of average monthly income1. Most people simply cannot afford to have internet access. Internet penetration is not up to par in low income, developing, and traditionally non-democratic countries. For example, Africa has 15% of the world’s population and only 5% of its internet users. There are only about 100 million internet users on the continent, which accounts for only 11% of its population2. As the lower income members of society remain unable to afford internet access, the power that the internet boasts remains with those who can afford it. The traditional elites are the ones that maintain the ability to access the internet, and they can use it for their own purposes and to strengthen their position and power – i.e. the internet may actually increase inequalities on the ground, against democracy. The internet could play a positive role in society, but until it is affordable, the oppressed who long for democracy will not have the tools to advocate for it.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010  2. Internet World Stats. “Internet Usage in Africa", 2011

The internet can be used to quash democratic movements.  The internet makes it much easier for states to target and locate dissidents. They can be located by their IP addresses or records kept by internet cafes. It is almost impossible by today’s standards to remain anonymous on the internet1. Surveillance used to be the only technique for governments to track down dissidents, however the internet has made governments’ task of quashing opposition easier. Since 2003, 202 bloggers have been arrested around the world and 162 of the arrests were for political reasons. The government doesn’t need a true reason because only 37 of the cases were tried in the judicial system. Political parties, ethnic and religious groups, civil rights movements, and leaders can all be targeted through government internet surveillance2. When the government can find the names of political dissidents and arrest them, it makes it more difficult for successful movements to occur, because they lack leaders and potential participants are intimidated. The internet can also be used to reverse democratic momentum  1. Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies.  2. Digital Activism Decoded: New Casualties: Prisons and Persecution.

Citizens often use the internet in ways that detract from democracy.  The idea that the internet promotes democracy also operates under the assumption that the people with internet access will use the tool for ‘good’. Yet, this is also not the case. The internet is the primary medium of coordination for Jihadist groups looking to undermine the few Middle-Eastern states which are in the process of transition to democracy. In April 2007, groups of hackers (allegedly backed by the Russian government) attacked the websites of key politicians, ministries and utilities in Estonia in retaliation for the removal of a Soviet war memorial. Hackers can block access, destroy content, and organize in malicious activity as in the case of terrorism and the Estonian ‘hactivists’ 1. Information can also be misused.In the US, neo-Nazism has always been an issue of contention and use the internet to further promote their viewpoints.For example, UK animal rights activists post information about people they feel to be targets, which can lead to intimidation. The internet can often be hijacked for less-than-ideal purposes and therefore does not directly promote democracy, but can be used by the people to counter reform 2.  Moreover, there are questions over the limits on democratic freedoms due to the ‘corporate colonization’ o f the internet. For a start, a lot of the ‘trusted’ news sites that users frequent for their information simply reproduce the views of Western media corporations. And corporate social network platforms like Facebook claim to provide for democratic interaction while undertaking surveillance of their user information so as to produce profiles to sell advertising, profiles that could also be used by governments.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: The Double Edged Sword of Digital Tactics. 2010  2. Ibid

The internet can be successfully censored so that it only promotes pro-regime propaganda.  The internet is said to promote democracy based on the claim that it leads to the free flow of information. Unfortunately, this is false in many parts of the world. 40 countries around the globe actively censor the internet, and 25 have blocked Google over the past few years1. This gives their governments a false legitimacy by removing material critical of anti-democratic policies and as acting as a psychological bulwark against discontent and dissent. The government retains the ability to control the information that its citizens have access to and can use this power to promote pro-regime information and prevent anti-regime, pro-democratic content from ever seeing the light of day. The internet is a new tool, but governments can become more sophisticated as well and harness the internet to repress dissent2. For example, China has almost no internet freedom and the terms “Tiananmen Square” and “Inner-Mongolia” provides no search results because protests occurred there3. Google in 2010 refused to uphold their firewalls and were therefore no longer allowed to operate in the country. The internet can be used by authoritarian government for enhanced media repression.  Even more concerning is corporate surveillance for marketing purposes, which means that people are pushed certain information from certain sources, meaning that not all voices are equally heard online. Democracy in the online world is not about having your voice published, but about it being seen and heard. As a result some players can gain a lot more attention than other, even if everyone with access can publish.  1. Hernandez, Javier C., 'Google Calls for Action on Web Limits', The New York Times , 24 March 2010  2. Joyce, Mary (Editor). “Digital Activism Decoded: New Mechanics of Change”. International Debate Education Association, New York: 2010.  3. Shirong, Chen, "China Tightens Internet Censorship Controls", BBC, 2011

Governments cannot always get away with the targeting of internet dissidents. Bloggers are often famous and followed intently by many people. If a popular blogger all of a sudden disappears it is more likely to generate increased support for the blogger and the cause than lead supporters to defect to the government1. Further, the government cannot arrest everyone, and the internet provides a tool for social movements to be poly-centric2—they have many leaders and anyone can step in.  1. Digital Activism Decoded: New Casualties: Prisons and Persecution.  2. Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies.

There are ways to make the internet affordable. Internet cafes and purchasing multiple SIM cards and pay as you go plans for cell phones can address the need to have a computer and therefore decrease the cost of internet use1. Further, the internet is a jumping off point. Not every low-income person needs to have internet access but if a handful do, then they can be part of the organization of protests and movements by taking the information available online and disseminating it through networks of people through SMS, calls, and word of mouth. Tunisia was not a rich country; in fact, people were protesting the pervasive poverty. Even so, they were able to successfully organize a revolution, with the help of the internet2.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: The Power of Mobile Phones, 2010  2. Jerome, Deborah, 'Understanding Tunisia's Tremors', Council on Foreign Relations, 14 January 2011

Hate speech will happen regardless. A significant amount of online hate speech is made through accounts under the real life name of the speaker. It is notable that Facebook has required its users to use their real names since 2011, [1] but has still had significant issues with hate speech long after that. [2] The fact is that an enormous amount of hate speakers see what they are saying as entirely legitimate, and are therefore not afraid of having it connected to their real life identities. The fact is that 'hate speech' is localised and culture-dependent. Since the Internet brings many cultures together, hate speech will happen almost inadvertently.  Additionally, online hate speech is very difficult to prosecute even when connected to real life identities, [3] so this policy is unlikely to be effective at making those who now would be identified see any more consequences than before. In the Korean example the law was simply avoided by resorting to foreign sites. [4] The similar lack of consequences is likely to lead to a similar lack of disincentive to posting that kind of material.  [1] ‘Twitter rife with hate speech, terror activity’. Jewish Journal. URL:   [2] ‘Facebook Admits It Failed On Hate Speech Following #FBrape Twitter Campaign And Advertiser Boycott’. International Business Times. URL:   [3] ‘Racists, Bigots and the Internet’. Anti-Defamation League. URL:   [4] ‘Law on real name use on Internet ruled illegal’, JoonAng Daily,

Reducing hate speech.  Openly racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments made through public forums are much more likely when made anonymously, as people feel they are unlikely to see any consequences for voicing their hateful opinions. [1] This leads firstly to a propagation of these views in others, and a higher likelihood of attacks based on this hate, as seeing a particular view more often makes people feel it is more legitimate. [2] More importantly, it causes people from the targeted groups to feel alienated or unwelcome in particular places due to facets of their identity that are out of their control, and all people have a right not to be discriminated against for reasons such as these.  The proposed policy would enormously reduce the amount of online hate speech posted as people would be too afraid to do it. Although not exactly the same a study of abusive and slanderous posts on Korean forums in the six months following the introduction of their ban on anonymity found that such abusive postings dropped 20%. [3] Additionally it would allow governments to pursue that which is posted under the same laws that all other speech is subject to in their country.  [1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL:   [2] ‘John Gorenfield, Moon the Messiah, and the Media Echo Chamber’. Daily Kos. URL:   [3] ‘Real Name Verification Law on the Internet: A Poison or Cure for Privacy?’, Carnegie Melon University,

Moves illegal activity in harder to monitor areas. Those partaking in planning illegal activity will not continue to do so if hiding their identities is not possible. Instead, they will return to using more private means of communication, such as meeting in person, or using any online services that do guarantee anonymity such as TOR. While this may make planning illegal activity more difficult, it also makes it more difficult for law enforcement officials to monitor this behaviour, and come anywhere near stopping it: at least under the status quo they have some idea of where and how it is happening, and can use that as a starting point. Forcing criminals further underground may not be desirable. The authorities in cooperation with websites are usually able to find out who users are despite the veil of anonymity for example in the UK the police have arrested people for rape threats made against a campaigner for there to be a woman on UK banknotes.1  1 Masters, Sam, 'Twitter threats: Man arrested over rape-threat tweets against campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez', The Independent, 28, July, 2013,

Reducing cyberbullying.  When internet anonymity is used for bullying, it can make the situation much worse. Firstly, perpetrators are much less likely to hold back or be cautious as they are less concerned with the possibility of being caught. This means the bullying is likely to be more intense than when it is done in real life. [1] Additionally, for victims of cyberbullying, being unable to tell who your harasser is, or even how many there are can be particularly distressing. [2]  Anonymous posting being significantly less available takes away the particularly damaging anonymous potential of cyberbullying, and allows cyberbullying to be more effectively dealt with.  [1] ‘Traditional Bullying v. Cyberbullying’. CyberBullying, Google Sites. URL:   ‘The Problem of Cyberbullies’ Anonymity’. Leo Burke Academy. URL:   [2] ‘Cyberbullying’. Netsafe. URL:

Stopping anonymity does not meaningfully prevent bullying. Internet anonymity is not essentially to bullying: it can be done through a nearly infinite number of media. Importantly, it is not even essential to anonymous bullying. For example, it is quite simple to send anonymous text messages: all that is required is access to a phone that the victim does not have the number of. It is similarly easy to simply write notes or letters, and leave them in places where the victim will find them. Anonymous posting on the internet is far from the only place where these kinds of anonymous attacks are possible.  All this policy does is shifts the bullying into areas where they may be more difficult to monitor. Rather than sending messages online that can be, albeit with some difficulty, traced back to the perpetrator, or at least used as some kind of evidence, bullies are likely to return to covert classroom bullying that can be much more difficult to identify.

Similar prevention can be achieved through raising internet awareness. In the case of children, parents taking a more pro-active role in monitoring and controlling their children’s online activities is likely to be more effective than the measures of this policy. Indeed, signalling that they do need to monitor their children can actually put their children in more danger, as there are considerable risks to children online even without anonymous posting.  Other kinds of fraud can be similarly avoided by raising awareness: people should be made to realise that sending money or bank details to people you don’t know is a bad idea. In fact, the removal of internet aliases may even encourage people to trust people they don’t know, but do know the real names of, even though that is no more advisable.

Reducing currently illegal activity.  Internet anonymity is very useful for planning and organising illegal activity, mostly buying and selling illegal goods, such as drugs, firearms, stolen goods, or child pornography, but also, in more extreme cases, for terrorism or assassinations. This is because it can be useful in making plans and advertisements public, thus enabling wider recruitment and assistance, while at the same time preventing these plans from being easily traced back to specific individuals. [1] For example, the website Silk Road openly offers users the opportunity to buy and sell illegal drugs. Sales on this site alone have double over the course of six months, hitting $1.7million per month. [2]  This policy makes it easier for the police to track down the people responsible for these public messages, should they continue. If anonymity is still used, it will be significantly easier to put legal pressure on the website and its users, possibly even denying access to it. If anonymity is not used, obviously it is very easy to trace illegal activity back to perpetrators. In the more likely event that they do not continue, it at least makes organising criminal activities considerably more difficult, and less likely to happen. This means the rule of law will be better upheld, and citizens will be kept safer. [3]  [1] Williams, Phil, ‘Organized Crime and Cyber-Crime: Implications for Business’, CERT, 2002,  ‎ p.2  [2] ‘Silk Road: the online drug marketplace that officials seem powerless to stop.’ The Guardian. URL:   [3] ‘Do dark networks aid cyberthieves and abusers?’ BBC News. URL:

Reducing fraud using fake identities.  Anonymous posting can be used to make people believe you are someone who you are not. This can be done in order to acquire money from victims either by establishing a dishonest relationship or offering fraudulent business opportunities. [1] It is also a frequently used tool in child abduction cases, where the perpetrator will pretend to be a child or even classmate to gain enough access to a child in order to make abduction viable. It is estimated that nearly 90% of all sexual solicitations of youth are made in online anonymous chat rooms. Additionally, in the UK alone over 200 cases of meeting a child following online grooming, usually via anonymous sites are recorded. [2]  These are enormous harms that can be easily avoided with the removal of anonymous posting online.  [1] ‘Online Fraud’. Action Fraud. URL:   [2] ‘Online child grooming: a literature review on the misuse of social networking sites for grooming children for sexual offences’. Australian Institute of Criminology. URL:

Protest of this kind is less meaningful. When an organisation such as this is criticised only by anonymous individuals, who are likely to be difficult to contact or learn more about, it is less likely to lead to any kind of long-term meaningful resistance. In the case of Anonymous and the Church of Scientology, there have been no notable acts of resistance to the Church of Scientology other than Anonymous.  Anonymous resistance makes other kinds of resistance less likely to happen, and rarely leads to significant change or action.

Freedom from consequences is not a necessary component of freedom of speech. If someone is free from legal restraints surrounding their ability to speak, they are free to speak. Freedom of speech does not entitle an individual to absolute freedom of consequences of any kind, including social consequences to their speech. While someone should certainly be free to state their opinion, there is no reason why they should be entitled to not be challenged for holding that opinion.

Limiting ability of oppressed individuals to seek out help and community.  Anonymous posting means people who are made to feel ashamed of themselves, or their identities within their local communities can seek out help and/or like-minded people. For example, a gay teenager in a fiercely homophobic community could find cyber communities that are considerably more tolerant, and even face the same issues as them. This can make an enormous difference to self-acceptance, as people are no longer subjected to a singular, negative view of themselves. [1] Banning anonymous posting removes this ability.  [1] ‘In the Middle East, Marginalized LGBT Youth Find Supportive Communities Online’ Tech President. URL:   ‘Online Identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important?’ The Guardian. URL:

Limiting ability to experiment with identity.  The ability to post anonymously on the internet means that people can create a new identity for themselves where they will not be judged in terms of what they have done before. This can be particularly useful for people who are attempting to make significant positive reformations to their lives, such as recovering addicts, thereby facilitating self-improvement. Banning anonymous posting reduces individual’s abilities to better themselves in this way. [1]  [1] ‘Online Identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important?’ The Guardian. URL:

Reducing the extent to which large and powerful organisations can be criticised.  Organisations with lots of wealth and legal power can be difficult to criticise when one’s name and personal information is attached to all attempts at protest and/or criticism. Internet anonymity means that individuals can criticise these groups without fear of unfair reprisal, and their actions are, as a result, held up to higher levels of scrutiny. For example, internet anonymity were instrumental in the first meaningful and damaging protests against the Church of Scientology by internet group Anonymous. [1] Similarly anonymity has been essential in the model for WikiLeaks and other similar efforts like the New Yorker’s Strongbox. [2]  [1] ‘John Sweeney: Why Church of Scientology’s greatest threat is ‘net’. The Register. URL:   ‘Anonymous vs. Scientology’. Ex-Scientology Kids. URL:   [2] Davidson, Amy, ‘Introducing Strongbox’, The New Yorker, 15 May 2013,

Damaging to freedom of speech.  People are only truly free to say what they wish when they do not have to worry about being personally persecuted, either by peers, strangers, or their government, for what they are saying. [1] Removing the right to post anonymously increases the pressures people feel to post in a particular way, and thus limits the extent to which they can speak freely.  [1] ‘Anonymity’. Electric Frontier Foundation. URL:

Self-improvement through an alias or false identity is unlikely to lead to genuine self-improvement. When individuals have multiple identities, they may think of them as distinct from one another, and are thus unlikely to transfer self-improvement from one to another. For example, a recovering addict may only have a renewed attitude in their online identity, and not in real life where it is more important. This is unlikely to be beneficial, and may be actively harmful in terms of limiting the improvement of real life identities.

Small reduction in ability to seek out help and community outweighed by a large reduction in hate speech. Anonymity is not essential to seeking out help and community. The internet is a large and expansive place, meaning that if an individual posts on an obscure site, people that they know in real life are very likely to see it. Even having your real name attached is unlikely to single you out unless you have a particularly distinctive name. Anonymity adds very little to their ability to seek out this help and community.  Additionally, anonymity is frequently used as a tool to spread hate speech, [1] which the people this point is concerned with are the primary victims of. Even if a lack of anonymity means a marginal reduction in their ability to seek out a supportive community, this is a worthwhile sacrifice for a significant reduction in the amount of hatred directed at them.  [1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL:

Providing such mechanisms does not help activists and can even harm them. These activists will have few guarantees that the technology will work. Previous technologies meant to give anonymity have often not worked or else the governments will come up with ways to break them. Haystack is a good example of a technology meant to help dissidents that could have ended up causing more harm than the good it did.

Providing secure channels is the easiest way to help dissidents and democracy activists  If democracies are to provide money to help dissidents then this option of funding research into and distributing software to defeat censors is the easiest way in which to help these dissidents. Those who are trying to exercise their freedom of speech do not want help in the form of military intervention or diplomatic representations rather they want to have the space and capacity to exercise those freedoms. The internet means that for the first time it is possible for external actors to provide that platform for freedom of speech without having to take those who wish to exercise these freedoms outside of the country that is violating those freedoms.  The internet is very important in the economies of many authoritarian regimes. In China for example there are 145 million online shoppers and the e-commerce market is worth almost $100 billion and could be worth over $300 billion by 2015. [1] As a result authoritarian regimes can’t easily just turn off the internet and ignore it so long as they want their economy to operate. As a result except in extreme cases such as North Korea or for particularly prominent dissidents who are locked up physical access to the internet is unlikely to be denied.  So long as there is physical access to the internet it will be possible to help by providing ways to avoid firewalls so that they can access information their state has banned and express opinions to both the outside world and their compatriots. It is equally important to provide ways for these people to avoid being tracked by the authorities so as to prevent retaliation against them for evading censorship. While Haystack was a failure there have been other projects that are receiving state department funding that may be more successful such as ‘InTheClear’ which provides a “panic button” app for smart phones allowing contents to be quickly erased and prewritten texts sent so having the dual effect of making it more difficult for those making the arrest to find out what the user was doing and raising the alarm that this person has been arrested. [2] This technology helps meet a clear need; Egyptian democracy activists when asked what kind of technology they needed most said they wanted safer cellphones. [3]  [1] The Economist, ‘An internet with Chinese characteristics’, 20 July 2011.  [2] Burkeman, Oliver, ‘Inside Washington’s high risk mission to beat web censors’, guardian.co.uk, 15 April 2012.  [3] McManus, Doyle, ‘Technology that protects protesters’, Los Angeles Times, 18 September 2011.

Funding such technologies is unlikely to result in large benefits or will result in escalating costs. China has billions invested in its online censorship activities. Any attempt to fund ways to counter this censorship would likely become involved in an online arms race if it wanted to do more than temporary good. This could end up being a costly on-going operation with very few benefits. The money would be better spent helping the truly needy from hunger than allowing the global middle classes to exercise their freedom of speech.

We all have an obligation to help maintain freedom of speech.  Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights defines freedom of speech as “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” [1] It is something innate in humans to have opinions and to want to express them to others and within a few limits governments have a duty to allow this freedom of expression. Where governments are not allowing this freedom of information this affects not only those whose opinions are being suppressed but those who cannot hear their opinions. The right to the freedom to receive and seek this information is just as important as the right to voice these opinions. Moreover as stated in Article 19 this is “regardless of frontiers”; those outside a country have just as much right to hear these opinions as those inside.  Government aid programs from democracies in Western Europe and America are already concerned with promoting human rights including freedom of speech. Australia’s aid program for example has a Human Rights Fund of $6.5 million per year that provides grants to among other things “educate and/or train human rights victims, workers or defenders”. [2] Enabling victims of human rights abuse to get around their government’s censorship is the obvious next step.  The concept of the ‘responsibility to protect’ introduced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001 provided that when governments were unable or unwilling to protect their own citizens then that responsibility devolves to the international community and may ultimately lead to military action for particularly gross violations. This responsibility to react should be “with appropriate measures” [3] and for the breach of the human right of freedom of expression providing a method to enable those whose freedom of expression/speech is being violated to exercise this right is the most appropriate and proportional response.  [1] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘Article 19’, 1946.  [2] AusAID, ‘Human rights and Australia’s aid program’, Australian Government, 22 February 2012.  [3] Evans, Garath and Mohamed Sahnoun Chair’s, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, International Development Research Center, December 2001, p.XI.

That there is a right to freedom of speech does not mean that we have an obligation to make sure that everyone around the world has freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and expression is indeed a human right in the universal declaration of human rights however this is something that it is obligated for governments to uphold for their own people rather than for other countries to enforce. If governments are infringing on the freedoms of their people the correct way to counter this is through international diplomacy rather than seeking to undermine that state.  The responsibility to protect, itself controversial, was only ever meant to apply to the very worst human rights violations - such as the genocide in Rwanda. If there are massacres of civilians and all other options have failed then there may be a need to intervene to prevent more killing. However violations of freedom of speech are not something that is time dependent. Diplomacy may often take a long time but can eventually work, as is being shown in Burma's opening up

Funding technologies to evade censorship could have immense benefits for very little cost  Most government aid budgets are small and have numerous other important calls on their resources such as development aid. Between 2008 and 2011 the United States Congress funded the effort against internet censorship with $76 million. [1] While this may sound like a lot compared to the $168 million of aid to Liberia and $152 million to UNICEF in 2011 it is not a large commitment. [2] Yet due to the nature of the internet small investments can have immense benefits. Money spent on food aid will buy enough food to feed a limited amount of people yet if a technology is developed that allows internet users to get around censors and not be tracked then hundreds of millions would benefit. It would at the same time have the incalculable benefit of making it more difficult for authorities to track and crack down on those who are breaking the authorities’ censorship.  [1] Burkeman, Oliver, ‘Inside Washington’s high risk mission to beat web censors’, guardian.co.uk, 15 April 2012.  [2] USAID, ‘Where does USAID’s Money Go?’ 30 September 2011.

While most of the population may not be enraged enough by censorship to attempt to get around it this does not mean they would not benefit from having the capability to do so. Governments often intrude into social discussion, music and even games by banning them and taking down discussions. These people would be much freer if they had complete freedom of choice rather than a government controlled set of boundaries on the internet.

Far from being a violation of sovereignty it should be considered that the internet is a global commons that needs to be defended against the encroachment of sovereignty. As Hillary Clinton has argued “The internet has become the public space of the 21st century – the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub. We all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us and counting.” [1] This means that national sovereignty cannot be considered to apply to the internet. If one part of the internet becomes fenced off then it affects the rest of the internet as well.  [1] Clinton, Hillary, ‘Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Speech on Internet Freedom *updated*’, Secretaryclinton, 15 February 2011.

Funds could be better spent on helping development  Access to the internet is not the most pressing concern that foreign aid should be used to solve. Instead aid should help the 1.4billion who live on less than a dollar a day, [1] the 216 million people infected with malaria every year, [2] or the 42 million people who have been uprooted by conflict and natural disaster. [3] Internet access while it has expanded immensely is still something that only the relatively rich have access to, not the kind of people that aid money should be spent on.  Finally if money is to be spent on the internet it should not be on the issue of evading censorship but focusing on the potential economic benefits of increasing internet penetration to the poorest.  [1] World Bank Updates Poverty Estimates for the Developing world’, World Bank, 26 August 2008.  [2] Malaria, World Health Organisation, Fact Sheet no. 94, April 2012.  [3] ‘UNHCR annual report shows 42 million people uprooted worldwide’, UNHCR, 16 June 2009.

This will needlessly antagonise non-democratic countries  The relationships which democratic countries have with non-democratic countries are much too important to jeopradise with such interference. Democracies and non-democracies need to be able to live peacefully with each other and engage in economic contact. Having democracies supporting segments in a non-democracy’s population that is seen to be undermining the state not only sours relations but provides a direct point of contention that could potentially lead to conflict.  Democracies already show that they are aware of the conflict they create through their promotion of human rights by toning down their rhetoric in relation to the most powerful non-democratic countries. The British Council has for example invited Liu Binjie, China’s censor in chief, to lead a delegation to the London Book Fair which is celebrating Chinese Literature. [1] It is double standards to be lauding autocrats in public and yet seeking to undermine their countries through helping dissidents.  [1] Jian, Ma, ‘Britain’s Cultural Kowtow’, Project Syndicate, 12 April 2012.

Evading censorship is already possible and censorship does not prevent the use of the internet.  Proposition itself concedes that authoritarian states in the vast majority of cases are unlikely to cut off access to the internet for their population entirely. For many people the internet is not about free speech but about economic benefits. Most don’t want to protest but rather carry on inane social discussions, play computer games and listen to music. Things that even authoritarian governments are happy to occur. This money is therefore not aimed at addressing the concerns of the vast majority of netizens.  Those few who are concerned are already able to find ways around censorship for example proxies can be used to access external sites. China’s censorship system may be vast but it is only 40,000 attempting to watch hundreds of millions. Even China’s censors sometimes work at cross purposes as for example where weibo censored the official Xinhua news bulletin that Bo Xilai, former party chief in Chongqing, had been stripped of his party posts. [1] During this same event for the first time the weight of discussion has shown that the censors can fail to keep up and where the mass of the public really is interested in discussing something they can. [2]  [1] MacKinnon, Rebecca, ‘The Not-So-Great Firewall of China’, ForeignPolicy, 17 April 2012.  [2] Pei, Minxin, ‘The Paranoid Style in Chinese Politics’, Project Syndicate, 17 April 2012.

Violation of Sovereignty  Sovereignty is the exercise of the fullest possible rights over a piece of territory; the state is ‘supreme authority within a territory’. [1] The sovereignty of nations has been recognised by all nations in article 2 of the UN charter. [2] Funding attempts by citizens of a nation to avoid its own government’s censorship efforts is clearly infringing upon matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of individual states and is as such a violation of sovereignty. It is also clear that when it comes to enforcement of human rights there is a general rule should be followed that states should have the chance to solve their own internal problems domestically before there is international interference. [3]  Censorship by governments can be there for the good of society; for example South Korea censors information about North Korea and forces internet users to use id cards and real names when posting on forums and blogs making them easy to trace. [4] This does not however mean that democracies should be helping South Koreans to bypass this system, South Korea as a nation has decided to place some restrictions on the use of the internet and that should be respected by other nations.  It is simply unfair and unequal to apply one set of standards to one set of nations and different standards to another. If democracies have the right to decide how their internet should operate so should non democracies. The fundamental principle of non-interference should apply to all states.  [1] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, p.333  [2] Charter of the United Nations, ‘Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles’, 1945.  [3] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, p.202  [4] The Economist, ‘Game over: A liberal, free-market democracy has some curious rules and regulations’, 14 April 2011.

This implies that without efforts by democracies to ‘undermine’ non democratic regimes the internet would be nice and peaceful and everyone could get on with what they like doing on the internet. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is already a significant amount of conflict on the internet both in the form of insulting each other on forums and criminal activity. There have been numerous attempts, particularly originating from authoritarian countries, to attack the internet presence of other countries firms or governments or to hack and steal state secrets. This kind of behaviour is much more likely to cause conflict than any funding of research towards bypassing censors.

Money will be spent on development anyway. However trade is often the best way to encourage growth and reductions in poverty. These technologies by making communication easier will make doing business in that country easier. Breaking through communication barriers on the internet could have much more impact than 'development' aid.

Governments have, prima facie, a different relationship with their own citizens than they have with those of other countries. In addition, as with the previous argument, extending the right of access does not, per se, require total access. The approach is also simply impractical as it would require every nation on the planet to take the same approach and to have comparable standards in terms of record keeping and data management. At present most states publish some data but the upper and lower thresholds of what is made public vary between them. To abolish the upper limit (ministerial briefing, security briefings, military contractors, etc.) would require everyone to do it, otherwise it would be deeply unsafe for any one state to act alone. The likelihood of persuading some of the world’s more unsavory or corrupt regimes to play ball seems pretty unlikely. The first of those is improbable, the latter is impossible.

Compelling public bodies to publish information ensures that non-citizens, minors, foreign nationals and others have access to information that affects them.  Genuine transparency and accountability of government action is not only in the interests of those who also have the right to vote for that government or who support it through the payment of taxes. The functioning of immigration services would seem to be a prime example. Maximising access to information relating to government decisions by dint of its automatic publication of information relating to those decisions ensures that all those affected will have recourse to the facts behind any decision.  If, for example, a nation’s aid budget is cut or redirected, why should the citizens of the affected nation not have a right to know why [i] ? If, as is frequently the case, it has happened because of an action or inaction by their own government, then it is important that they know. Equally if such a decision were taken for electoral gain, they at least have the right to know that there is nothing they or their government could do about it.  [i] Publish What You Fund: The Global Campaign For Aid Transparency. Website Introduction.

The idea that, presented with a vast mass of frequently complex data, everyone would be able to access, process and act on it in the same way is fantasy. Equally the issue of ‘who guards the guards’ that Proposition raises is a misnomer; exactly the groups mentioned are already those with the primary role of scrutinizing government actions because they have the time, interest and skills to do so. Giving a right to access would give them greater opportunities to continue with that in a way that deluging them with information would not.

If public bodies do not have an obligation to publish information, there will always be a temptation to find any available excuses to avoid transparency.  The primary advantage of putting the duty on government to publish, rather than on citizens to enquire is that it does not require the citizen to know what they need to know before they know it. Publication en masse allows researchers to investigate areas they think are likely to produce results, specialists to follow decisions relevant to their field and, also, raises the possibility of discovering things by chance. The experience of Wikipedia suggests that even very large quantities of data are relatively easy to mine as long as all the related documentation is available to the researcher – the frustration, by contrast, comes when one has only a single datum with no way of contextualising it. Any other situation, at the very least, panders to the interests of government to find any available excuse for not publishing anything that it is likely to find embarrassing and, virtually by definition, would be of most interest to the active citizen.  Knowing that accounts of discussions, records of payments, agreements with commercial bodies or other areas that might be of interest to citizens will be published with no recourse to ‘national security’ or ‘commercial sensitivity’ is likely to prevent abuses before they happen but will certainly ensure that they are discovered after the event [i] .  The publication of documents, in both Washington and London, relating to the build-up to war in Iraq is a prime example of where both governments used every available excuse to cover up the fact that that the advice they had been given showed that either they were misguided or had been deliberately lying [ii] . A presumption of publication would have prevented either of those from determining a matter of vital interest to the peoples of the UK, the US and, of course, Iraq. All three of those groups would have had access to the information were there a presumption of publication.  [i] The Public’s Right To Know. Article 19 Global Campaign for Freedom of Expression.  [ii] Whatreallyhappened.com has an overview of this an example of how politicians were misguided – wilfully or otherwise can be found in: Defector admits to lies that triggered the Iraq War. Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd. The Guardian. 15 February 2011.

Relying on a right of access would also have addressed the concerns set out by Proposition but would do so in a way that would not endanger actual concerns of national security by allowing citizens the right to challenge such decisions. An independent review could determine where the motivation is genuinely one of national security and those where it is really political expediency. The right to information for citizens is important but should not jeopardize the right to life of combat troops.

It seems unlikely that total publication would save much in the way of time or money. If the data was not indexed in some way it would be absurdly difficult to navigate - and that takes time and money.  There are advantages to building a delay into systems such as this, if a piece of information genuinely justifies a news story, then it will do so at any time. If it’s only of interest in the middle of a media feeding frenzy, then it seems unlikely that it was all that important.

Even the most liberal FoI regime tends to pander to certain groups in society full disclosure levels that playing field  People have many different interests in the accountability of governments; different areas of concern, differing levels of skill in pursuing those interests and so on. They deserve, however, an equal degree of transparency from governments in relation to those decisions that affect them. Relying on a right to access is almost certainly most likely to favour those who already have the greatest access either through their profession, their skills or their social capital. The use of freedom of information requests in those countries where they are available shows this to be the case, as they have overwhelmingly been used by journalists, with a smattering of representation from researchers, other politicians and lawyers and so on. In the UK between 2005 and 2010 the total number registered by all ‘ordinary’ members of the public is just ahead of journalists, the next largest group. The public are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the listed professional groups [i] .  Required publication, by contrast, presents an even playing field to all parties. Rather than allowing legislators to determine how and to whom – and for what – they should be accountable, a presumption in favour of publication makes them accountable to all. As a result, it is the only truly effective way of ensuring one of the key aims set out in favour of any freedom of information process.  [i] Who Makes FOI Requests? BBC Open Secrets Website. 14 January 2011.

A faster, cheaper and simpler process  There are cost concerned with processing FoI requests both in terms of time and cash terms. [i] To take one example Britain’s largest local authority, Birmingham, spends £800,000 a year dealing with FoI requests. [ii] There is also a delay from the point of view of the applicant. Such a delay is more than an irritant in the case of, for example, immigration appeals or journalistic investigations. Governments know that journalists usually have to operate within a window of time while a story is still ‘hot’. As a result all they have to do is wait it out until the attention of the media turns elsewhere to ensure that if evidence of misconduct or culpability were found, it would probably be buried as a minor story if not lost altogether. As journalism remains the primary method most societies have of holding government to account, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that the methodology for releasing data should, at least in part, reflect the reality of how journalism works as an industry.  [i] Independent Review of the Impact of the Freedom of Information Act. Frontier Economics. October 2006.  [ii] Dunton, Jim, ‘Cost of FoI requests rises to £34m’, Local Government Chronicle, 16 September 2010,

There are, of course some costs to having a truly open and accountable government, but an effective right of access would allow much of that information to be made available. After all what the public sector bodies are paying in commercial transactions is of great interest to the public. If public bodies are getting a particularly good rate from suppliers, it might well raise the question of “Why?” For example, are they failing to enforce regulations on a particular supplier in return for a good price. In that instance, their other customers and their competitors would seem to have every right to know.

Although it would be time-consuming to approach so much information, it is not impossible to manage it effectively. As Wikileaks has demonstrated, given access to large quantities of information, it is a relatively straightforward process to start with records that are likely to prove interesting and then follow particular routes from there. In addition, governments, like all organisations, have information management systems, there would be no reason not to use the same model.  Additionally, the very skill of journalism is going beyond the executive summary to find the embarrassing fact buried away in appendix nineteen. That would still be the case under this model, it would just be easier.

Public bodies require the ability to discuss proposals freely away from public scrutiny  Knowing that everything is likely to be recorded and then published is likely to be counter-productive. It seems probable that anything sensitive – such as advice given to ministers by senior officials – would either not be recorded or it would be done in a way so opaque as to make it effectively meaningless [i] .  By contrast knowing that such conversations, to focus on one particularly example, are recorded and can be subjected to public scrutiny when there is a proven need to do so ensures that genuine accountability – rather than prurience or curiosity, is likely to be both the goal and the outcome.  None of us would like the process of how we reached decisions made public as it often involves getting things wrong a few times first. However, there are some instances where it is important to know how a particular decision was reached and whether those responsible for that decision were aware of certain facts at the time – notably when public figures are claiming that they were not aware of something and others are insisting that they were. In such an instance the right to access is useful and relevant; having records of every brainstorming session in every public body is not. As the Leveson inquiry is discovering, an extraordinary amount of decisions in government seem to be made informally, by text message or chats at parties. Presumably that would become evermore the case if every formal discussion were to be published [ii] .  [i] The Pitfalls of Britain’s Confidential Civil Service. Samuel Brittan. Financial Time 5 March 2010.  [ii] This is nothing very new, see: Downing Street: Informal Style. BBC website. 14 July 2004.

It is reasonable that people have access to information that effects them personally but not information that relates to their neighbours’, employers’, former-partners’ or other citizens who maythose who work for public bodies.  The right to access allows people to see information that affects them personally or where there is reasonable suspicion of harm or nefarious practices. It doesn’t allow them to invade the privacy of other citizens who just happen to work for public bodies or have some other association [i] .  Unless there is reason to suspect corruption, why should law-abiding citizens who sell goods and services to public bodies have the full details of their negotiations made public for their other buyers, who may have got a worse deal, to see? Why should the memo sent by an otherwise competent official on a bad day be made available for her neighbours to read over? A presumption in favour of publication would ensure that all of these things, and others, would be made a reality with the force of law behind them.  This would place additional burdens on government in terms of recruitment and negotiations with private firms – not to mention negotiations with other governments with less transparent systems. Let’s assume for the moment that the British government introduced a system, it is quite easy imagine a sense of “For God’s sake don’t tell the British” spreading around the capitals of the world fairly quickly.  [i] Section 40 0(A) od the FOIA. See also Freedom of Information Act Environmental Information Regulations. When Should Salaries be Disclosed? Information Commissioner’s Office.

Considering the amount of data governments produce, compelling them to publish all of it would be counterproductive as citizens would be swamped.  It is a misnomer in many things that more is necessarily better but that is, perhaps, more true of information than of most things. Public bodies produce vast quantities of data and are often have a greater tendency to maintain copious records than their private sector equivalents. US government agencies will create data that would require “20 million four-drawer filing cabinets filled with text,” over the next two years. [i] Simply dumping this en masse would be a fairly effective way of masking any information that a public body wanted kept hidden. Deliberately poor referencing would achieve the same result. This ‘burying’ of bad news at a time when everyone is looking somewhere else is one of the oldest tricks in press management. For example Jo Moore, an aide to then Transport Secretary Stephen Byers suggested that September 11 2001 was “a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.” Suggesting burying a u turn on councillors’ expenses. [ii]  For it to genuinely help with the transparency and accountability of public agencies it would require inordinately detailed and precise cataloguing and indexing – a process that would be likely to be both time consuming and expensive. The choice would, therefore, be between a mostly useless set of data that would require complex mining by those citizens who were keen to use it or the great expense of effectively cataloguing it in advance. Even this latter option would defeat the objective of greater accountability because whoever had responsibility for the cataloguing would have far greater control of what would be likely to come to light.  Instead ensuring a right of access for citizens ensures that they can have a reasonable access to exactly the piece of information they are seeking [iii] .  [i] Eddy, Nathan, ‘Big Data Still a Big Challenge for Government IT’, eweek, 8th May 2012,   [ii] Sparrow, Andrew, ‘September 11: ‘a good day to bury bad news’’, The Telegraph, 10 October 2001,   [iii] Freedom of Information as an Internationally Protected Human Right. Toby Mendel, Head of Law at Article 19.

It is frequently useful to see the general approach of a public organisation as reflected in routine discussions. Opposition is wrong to suggest that such information would only cast a light on ideas that were never pursued anyway so they don’t matter. It would also highlight ideas that agencies wanted to pursue but felt they couldn’t because of the likely impact of public opinion, knowing such information gives useful insight into the intentions of the public agency in question.

The state is rarely an efficient service provider. Conventionally, it provides a shoddy service when it faces no competition, and when it charges low prices it is usually at the expense of the infrastructure and quality of service. When free of market forces, the state is even more likely to rest on its position of monopoly and provide insufficient service. But even with a state service, prices cannot be guaranteed to be kept low, but rather states can well overcharge and exploit their privileged position.

It would provide an efficient service for everyone  A single, universal provider of broadband would allow the government to rationalize the management and development of the service. Multiple private service-providers ultimately end up causing three serious problems. The first two are straightforward, that private firms competing in the same area waste money creating multiple distribution channels that are unnecessary for the number of consumers, and that when they opt not to compete they end up dividing up territory into effective utility monopolies. The third problem is especially salient to the state when it is attempting to provide for everyone: many areas are too sparsely populated or economically underdeveloped that private firms are unwilling to invest in them; these areas are entirely dependent on state intervention to allow them to get broadband access. Thus for example, in the United States 19 million people in the United States still have no broadband access. [1] Much like electrical and water utilities, a single provider can create the most efficient outcome for consumers, and when that provider is the state it can guarantee affordable prices and commit to not price-gouging as private firms are wont to do. [2] Broadband should be treated as a utility, and the state has always proven to be the best purveyor of public utilities.  [1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012,   [2] Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Public Utility." Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. 2013

Broadband is a necessary evolution of internet technology that firms would be wise to avail of if they wish to remain competitive. But it is this very desirability that makes the provision of broadband a lucrative business in which many firms participate. Business on a large scale is rarely organised in diffuse patterns, but clustered in major population centres. Economic development can be furnished by the private sector investing in broadband where there is a market. Growth will not be slowed just because some farmers in Nebraska have slower internet. Singapore is an aberrant example, as it is so small and its population so dense that it would be impossible to compare its provision of broadband access to most other countries.

The information age demands a right to broadband access  As information technology has come more and more to pervade people’s lives, it has become abundantly clear that a new set of positive rights must be considered. In the forefront of this consideration stands broadband. Broadband allows for far more rapid access to the internet, and thus access to the world of information the internet represents. Today, a citizen of a free society must be able to access the internet if he or she is to be able to fully realise their potential. This is because the ability to access the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and civic and social participation are now contingent upon ready access to the internet. Thus access to the internet has itself become a right of citizens, and their access should be guaranteed by the state. This right has been enshrined by several countries, such as France, Finland, Greece, and Spain, thus leading the way toward a more general recognition of this service as a right in the same way other public services are guaranteed. [1] It is a right derived from the evolution of society in the same fashion that the right to healthcare has grown out of countries’ social and economic development.  [1] Lucchi, N. “Access to Network Services and Protection of Constitutional Rights: Recognizing the Essential Role of Internet Access for the Freedom of Expression”. Cardozo J. of Int’L &amp; Comp. Law, Vol.19, 2011,

Internet access is not a fundamental right. It is a useful enabler of rights. But that is not reason to guarantee it to all, any more than states owed every citizen access to a printing press a few centuries ago. Even were it a right, internet access could be provided far more efficiently and effectively through the private, rather than the public, sector.

States can develop new power-grids without needing to furnish all citizens with broadband in order to avail of the smart grid. The cost of developing these technologies and implementing them across the board are woefully high, and the inefficient nature of government services means they would only be more costly to the taxpayer. A better solution would be to liberalize the energy markets in order to encourage private firms to invest in the development of the smart grid.

Broad-based access to broadband is essential for countries to be competitive and to excel  Information technology is critical to the success of contemporary economies, with even the simplest business ventures. Uneven or non-existent penetration of broadband is a major drag on economic progress. [1] The private sector has been unable to effectively adapt with a holistic approach to the provision of data space and internet speed. The state providing these services would guarantee a high quality of service, and penetration across the country, linking all citizens to the network. For a country to compete internationally it needs broadband, and the surest way to provide it, since the private sector has resolutely failed to do so, and where it does provide services, it tends to overcharge. [2] As the Western world is left behind by the internet speeds of erstwhile developing states like Singapore, which has almost total penetration of high quality, state-sponsored broadband, it needs to refocus on what can reverse the trend. [3] Broadband is one of the steps toward the solution.  [1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012,   [2] ibid  [3] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010.

Universal broadband is a necessary prerequisite to developing more efficient and effective power-grids  Advanced infrastructure technology often relies on the existence of broadband technology universally installed across the grid. Countries like South Korea and Japan have succeeded in expanding their power grids by means of “smart grids”, power-grids that are far more efficient than existing structures in previously leading states like the United States, that make use of the broadband network in the provision of power. The US government has since committed to creating its own new grid, one that would increase efficiency, supply and management, and lower costs of energy provision to its citizens. [1] Such grids depend on the reliable and advanced broadband networks. The incentive for states to employ broadband across their territory is tremendous, beyond mere access to fast internet. This is why private firms will never be sufficient in efficient provision of broadband, because they do not reap all the benefits directly of the smart grid that can arise from its development. The state providing broadband is an essential part of upgrading energy provision for advanced countries in the 21st century.  [1] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010.

If the state overstepped in its regulation, no doubt private competitors would be able to fill the void. But such an eventuality is rather unlikely given the robustness of civil institutions in free societies and the willingness of people to come out in arms against attacks on their freedoms. The state is not a bogey-man. Rather, it is the best outlet by which to deliver inexpensive, efficient broadband service.

State firms do not necessarily crowd out private firms. Rather, they can furnish services in areas that private firms consider unprofitable, and can coordinate infrastructural process on a wider area, allowing for gains in economies of scale. Eircom provides an example of this too as its reduction in investment in broadband post privatisation meant that the government had to begin reinvesting in broadband itself. [1] Private firms will still have incentives to develop new technologies because there will still be profits to be made. But absent private firms, innovation will still exist. State investment in innovation and new technology can be very effective, as was the case with the Space Race.  [1] Palcic, D., and Reeves, E., “Privatisation and productivity performance in Ireland”,  P.200

The state can work more effectively through the private sector  If the state is worried about provision of broadband in areas too sparsely populated or disadvantaged, they can provide subsidies to private firms to develop the areas that are not profitable without needing to develop full government-operated companies. Just because the state is not providing the service does not mean that there cannot be compulsory to provide access to everywhere, many countries post offices for example are obliged to deliver to every address. [1] Government employees tend to be overpaid and underworked, leading to chronic inefficiencies that would be absent in a private firm, even one backed with government money.  Furthermore, the cost to the state is prohibitively expensive to go it alone, because state contracts have a marked tendency to go over budget, ultimately harming the taxpayers. These overruns are a standard part of government projects, but they can be ruinous to large scale information technology projects. Indeed, one-third of all IT projects end with premature cancellation as the direct result of overruns. [2] The future of countries’ economic prosperity cannot be entrusted to an organization that will stack the odds toward failure. This policy does not make sense when it is an area in which the private sector is willing to make substantial contributions to the cost. The only way to guarantee a decent level of service and an appropriate level of cost is to allow the private sector to take the lead, and to supplement it with incentives to build more and better systems. In the United States encouraging private investment in broadbrand infrastructure has led to a total of $1.2trillion ploughed into broadband access while Europe’s more state investment approach is falling behind. [3]  [1] United States Postal Service, “Postal Facts”, 2012,  Royal Mail Group, “Universal Service Obligation”,

It would give undue power to the government over access to the internet  Monopoly, or near-monopoly, power over broadband is far too great a tool to give to governments. States have a long history of abusing rules to curtail access to information and to limit freedom of speech. Domination of broadband effectively gives the state complete control of what information citizens can or cannot consume online. ISPs function generally under the principle of Net Neutrality, in which they are expected to allow the free transit of information online. If they are the sole gatekeepers of knowledge, people may well be kept from information deemed against the public interest. It is harder for opponents of government regulations to voice their opinions online when they have no viable alternative to the state-controlled network. The internet is a place of almost limitless expression and it has empowered more people to take action to change their societies. That great tool of the people must be protected from any and all threats, and most particularly the state that could so profit from the curtailment of internet freedom.

State intervention would crowd out private firms  The imposition of a powerful state firm dominating the broadband market would serve to reduce the ability of private providers to compete. The greater resources of the state would be able to give it the power to dictate the market, making it less attractive to private investment. Creating a monopolistic provider would be very dangerous considering that this is a sector upon which much of future national development relies. [1] Crowding out private firms will make them less inclined to invest in new technologies, while the state provider is unlikely to fill the gap, as traditionally state utilities rely upon their power of incumbency and size rather than seeking novel services. An example of this is Eircom which, when it was the state utility, provided broadband of a lower quality and at higher price than most private providers. The end result of state dominance and reduction of private competitors is a loss of innovation, a loss of price competition, and an erosion of customer service.  [1] Atkinson, R. “The Role of Competition in a National Broadband Policy”. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 7. 2009,

The private sector will never be able to meet the demands governments would make in order to build a working broadband network and the subsequent smart grid because their profit motives cannot internalize the social benefits of the new grids and technology. Unfortunately the private sector will only build the infrastructure in profitable densely populated areas neglecting rural areas. The state must therefore fill the gap, either by subsidizing private firms to provide service to unprofitable areas, or to service them itself. Furthermore, it can provide the service more freely and more fairly in order to guarantee that citizens get the services they deserve and need to succeed in the 21st century.

Collaboration in editing does not encourage democratic principles, but merely privileges the loudest voice, or in this case, the most regular user. As such, creating knowledge by consensus is inherently flawed. A fact is not true simply because lots of people think so. Traditional encyclopaedias are written and edited by academics and professional experts, whose reputation is put on the line by the articles they produce. They have the credentials and expertise that give them the authority to write without requiring widespread communal feedback. However, anyone can write a Wikipedia article, regardless of how much or how little knowledge he or she has of the subject. Worse yet, because contributors are effectively anonymous, it is impossible to assess the quality of an article on an unfamiliar topic by assessing the credentials of those who have produced it. Collaboration, therefore, becomes a barrier to the provision of reliable, accurate and up-to-date information.

Collaboration in editing encourages democratic principles  The process of collaboration required to create and maintain an up-to-date, factual source of information encourages democratic practices and principles. Wikipedia seeks to achieve its democratic goal of the spread of free, open material by democratic means. As an open-source project it relies upon the collaboration of tens of thousands of people who constantly add, check and edit articles. Disagreements and disputes are sent up the line to moderators, who oversee the editing process. This “socialisation of expertise” as David Weinberger puts it [1] ensures that errors and omissions are rapidly identified and corrected and that the site is constantly and accurately updated. No traditional encyclopaedia can match this scrutiny. Indeed, “Wikipedia has the potential to be the greatest effort in collaborative knowledge gathering the world has ever known, and it may well be the greatest effort in voluntary collaboration of any kind.” [2] Not only do such democratic processes encourage democracy more generally, but they are an effective means to create a user-friendly product, as illustrated by open source software such as Firefox and Linux.  [1] The Economist. (2006, April 20). The wiki principle. Retrieved 16 May 2012, from The Economist.  [2] Poe, M. (2006, September). The hive. Retrieved May 11, 2012, from The Atlantic.

Wikipedia is a common starting point for enquiries, but not because it is excellent; it has become a standard source of reference because it is free and easy to access. Wikipedia, through its popularity, is often the first search result found when using public search engines like Google, which draws users to its information regardless of the reliability that other sources may offer. Many of its users are students, with too little experience to ascertain the quality of an article but anxious to find the quickest and ostensibly most efficient path to the information they require. Overdependence on Wikipedia means that students in particular never develop proper research skills and increasingly accept that an approximately right answer is good enough. [1] , [2] Middlebury College’s history department even banned students from citing Wikipedia in papers, [3] and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself has asserted that changes to Wikipedia are necessary to make it a suitable resource for college students. [4] , [5]  [1] Graham, L., &amp; Metaxas, P. T. (2003, May). “Of course it’s true; I saw it on the Internet!” Critical thinking in the Internet era.Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 71-75.  [2] Frean, A. (2008, January 14). White bread for young minds, says University of Brighton professor. The Times. Retrieved June 9, 2008.  [3] Jaschik, S. (2007, January 26). A stand against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 4, 2008.  [4] Young, J. R. (2006, June 12).Wikipedia founder discourages academic use of his creation. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 4, 2008  [5] Young, J. R. (2008, May 16). A ‘frozen’ Wikipedia could be better for college, founder says. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 4,

Wikipedia models, in an accessible form, the process of knowledge creation through writing.  hrough the process by which its articles are constructed, Wikipedia supports “notions of revision, collaboration, and authority” that many academics value and helps to make visible the knowledge-making process. [1] With its Discussion and History pages, Wikipedia illustrates the peer review process academic writing goes through as well as the iterative, recursive nature of public writing. Thus, it can disabuse students of the notion that good writing happens in isolation in one sitting. Therefore, Wikipedia can be an excellent teaching tool. [2] [3]  [1] Purdy, J. P. (2009). When the tenets of composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia.” College Composition and Communication 61(2), W351-W373. Retrieved May 9, 2012.  [2] Wilson, M. A. (2008, April 1). Professors should embrace Wikipedia. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from Inside Higher Ed.  [3] Lundin, R. W. (2008). Teaching with wikis: Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers and Composition 25(4) (2008) 432–448.

Wikipedia provides free, open access to knowledge  Wikipedia exists to provide free, open and easy access to information and knowledge. Its goal is to ‘distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language, and to an astonishing degree (it) is succeeding’. [1] It already has over 3.5 million articles in English alone. [2] This is more than ten times those of Encyclopaedia Britannica, its nearest printed rival. Traditionally, reference works were very expensive, which meant previously that knowledge was restricted to the wealthy, or those with access to well-funded public libraries. Wikipedia liberates that knowledge and provides volumes of online information to anyone with access to a computer, or even a smartphone, and the internet. Its impact is only restrained by the reach of internet providers and the desire of people to learn. Users do not need to be able to afford particular print objects but can access contents of Wikipedia from any location with Internet connectivity.  [1] Schiff, S. (2006, July 31). Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer it all? Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The New Yorker  [2] Asrianti, T. (2011, April 27). Writing culture on the web: Are we still better at talking? Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Jakarta Post

Wikipedia does not provide free, open access to knowledge, for it only applies to those who already have access to both a computer and internet access. Furthermore, since very few computer retailers or internet service providers are willing to provide their services free of charge, to declare Wikipedia free is disingenuous; there are substantial charges before Wikipedia can be utilized. Moreover while Wikipedia may provide free open access to knowledge this is mostly for those who speak English. Those who need this resource are those who speak much smaller languages but as yet Wikipedia is not a good resource in these languages. The Punjabi Wikipedia only has 3,000 articles [1] despite it being a language with more than sixty million speakers. [2] . Lastly, whilst Wikipedia has advantages over traditional print encyclopaedias, tangible objects have the advantage of never going offline and therefore being able to provide their information constantly.  [1] Wikimedia. (2012). List of Wikipedias, Retrieved May 16, 2012, from meta.wikimedia.org.  [2] Ethnologue. (2000). Languages of Pakistan, Retrieved May 16, 2012, from ethnologue.org.

Wikipedia may document the process of creation of encyclopaedia articles, but it does not illustrate the kind of research-writing we should be teaching students. Academic peer review is limited to expert readers. While expert readers can participate in Wikipedia, their voices are often drowned out by the less knowledgeable masses. Moreover, Wikipedia discourages appropriate source use and citation practices. Not only do students frequently plagiarize from Wikipedia, [1] but they also plagiarize in contributing to it. [2]  [1] Nagel, D. (2011, November 3). Wikipedia tops list of plagiarized sources. Retrieved May 9, 2012, from THE Journal.  [2] Sormunen, E., &amp; Lehtio, L. (2011, December). Authoring Wikipedia articles as an information literacy assignment: Copy-pasting or expressing new understanding in one’s own words. Information Research 16(4). Retrieved April 27, 2012.

No organisation can succeed in being completely neutral and unbiased as is shown by the number of complaints the BBC, which is obliged to be impartial in political matters, [1] gets about bias on issues ranging from politics, [2] [3] to Israel, [4] [5] to climate change. [6] Similarly Wikipedia can be criticised for its inbuilt bias, intolerant of dissenting views. Even Wikipedians themselves acknowledge that its topic coverage is slanted. [7] Religious conservatives object to the secular liberal approach its editors consistently take and have found that their attempts to add balance to entries are swiftly rejected. This bias even extends to the censorship of facts which raise questions about the theory of evolution. Some conservatives are so worried about the widespread use of Wikipedia to promote a liberal agenda in education that they have set up Conservapedia as a rival source of information. [8]  [1] BBC. (2012). BBC Charter and Agreement. Retrieved May 16 2012, from the BBC.  [2] Helm, Toby. (2011, December 31). Labour turns on BBC over ‘pro-coalition coverage’. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from The Observer.  [3] Johnson, Boris. (2012, May 14). The statist, defeatist and biased BBC is on the wrong wavelength. Retrieved May 16, 2012 from The Telegraph.  [4] PNN. (2012, May 16), Protest Outside the BBC: End Your Silence on Palestine. Retrieved May 16, 2012 from Palestine News Network.  [5] Paul, Jonny. (2010, April 28). Watchdog: BBC biased against Israel. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from The Jerusalem Post.  [6] Black, Richard. (2009, October 13). Biases, U-turns, and the BBC’s climate coverage. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from the BBC.  [7] Why Wikipedia is not so great. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from Wikipedia.  [8] Jane, E. (2011, January 11). A parallel online universe. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Australian

Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for enquiries  Wikipedia pools information that previously was spread far and wide in cyberspace into one readily accessible location. Enquiries will not and should not end at Wikipedia, but it provides accessible background information as well as links to additional research and publication on a topic and is, therefore, an obvious starting point. [1] Nobody at Wikipedia has claimed that it is a definitive account of human knowledge or a replacement for in-depth research. But it gives a quick guide to an unknown subject and points the enquirer on to more specialist sources. It is used to good effect by students, teachers, journalists and even judges, among many others – showing it is a valued reference source. Experienced users can quickly assess the quality of an article from its written quality and the thoroughness of its references, so they need not accept its content out of hand. Nothing on the internet should ever be accepted uncritically, but Wikipedia has earned its reputation as a valuable starting resource.  [1] Purdy, J. P. (2010). Wikipedia is good for you!? In C. Lowe and P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Writing spaces: Readings on writing, Vol. 1 (pp. 205-224). Fort Collins, CO and West Lafayette, IN: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.

Wikipedia enshrines the principle of freedom of information  A key principle for Wikipedia is to present information as neutrally as possible. This has led to Wikipedia being banned in China, after Jimmy Wales refused to censor articles to make the site acceptable to the Chinese government. [1] Wikipedia, thus, epitomizes the principle that all should have access to the necessary information required not just to live, but also enjoy and cherish our lives. As such, Wikipedia is not threatened by variants and rivals that also seek to promote freedom of knowledge because it views them as partners to a mutual goal, not rivals. Its founder, Jimmy Wales, readily acknowledges it will eventually be superseded by another way of sharing knowledge on a mass level. [2]  [1] Revill, D. S. (2006, September 10). Wikipedia defies China's censors. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Observer  [2] Barnett, E. (2009, November 17). Jimmy Wales interview: Wikipedia is focusing on accuracy. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Telegraph.

Wikipedia does offer a better service, not necessarily in terms of the quality of information, but in terms of the depth, breadth and accessibility of information. Enquiries will not and should not end at Wikipedia, but it provides accessible background information as well as links to additional research and publication on a topic and is, therefore, an obvious starting point. [1] Nobody at Wikipedia has claimed that it is a definitive account of human knowledge or a replacement for in-depth research. But it gives a quick guide to an unknown subject and points the enquirer on to more specialist sources. It is used to good effect by students, teachers, journalists and even judges, among many others – showing it is a valued reference source. Experienced users can quickly assess the quality of an article from its written quality and the thoroughness of its references, so they need not accept its content out of hand. Nothing on the internet should ever be accepted uncritically, but Wikipedia has earned its reputation as a valuable starting resource.  [1] Purdy, J. P. (2010). Wikipedia is good for you!? In C. Lowe and P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Writing spaces: Readings on writing, Vol. 1 (pp. 205-224). Fort Collins, CO and West Lafayette, IN: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Retrieved May 9, 2010.

Studies indicate that the information on Wikipedia is, in fact, accurate.  The only systematic comparison of Wikipedia’s quality against its leading traditional rival, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, showed Wikipedia to be of similar accuracy. A survey in the leading journal Nature compared 42 pairs of articles on a wide range of science subjects. [1] Experts in each topic found that Wikipedia’s user-contributed articles had only 30% more errors and omissions overall than Britannica, despite the latter’s much vaunted pride in its expert authors and editors. And as Wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress, these faults were quickly corrected, whereas a traditional publication like Britannica will only revise articles at intervals of years, if not decades, if they ever do. So, over time, errors in traditional encyclopaedias persist longer than in Wikipedia.  [1] Giles, J. (2005, December 15). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Nature

Entries are too easily manipulated  Wikipedia entries are far too easily manipulated due to the ease at which they can be edited and the lack of official or authoritative oversight. Wikipedia is therefore subject to the worst qualities of humanity – as is shown by a number of scandals affecting the site. Entries can be deliberately vandalised for comic effect (as happens every April Fool’s Day), for commercial gain, or for more insidious purposes of libel or insult. Some of these deliberate errors are picked up and corrected quickly, but others exist on the site for long periods. Notoriously, respected journalist John Siegenthaler was libelled in an almost solely fictitious addition to an article that was was not detected for months. [1] Recently one very senior editor was exposed as a college drop-out, rather than the distinguished professor of theology he had claimed to be. [2] Such examples seem to confirm the doubts of Larry Sanger, the original project coordinator for Wikipedia. He has since left Wikipedia and written a number of warning articles about how open to abuse the online encyclopaedia is. [3] Without a more stringent, hierarchical editing process, such abuses can never be prevented, and the trustworthiness of Wikipedia’s information will always be questionable.  [1] Siegenthaler, J. (2005, November 29). A false Wikipedia 'biography'. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from USA Today  [2] Elsworth, C. (2007, March 7). Wikipedia professor is 24-year-old college dropout. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Telegraph  [3] Sanger, L. (2008, January 23). How the Internet Is Changing What We (Think We) Know. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Larry Sanger Blog

Wikipedia threatens the academic enterprise.  If Wikipedia is taken to be an accurate resource, then the academic expertise is threatened because anyone can produce “correct” knowledge. Though academics can continue to participate in this work, they are not essential. Normal, ordinary people can do as good a job. Not only does relying on Wikipedia (incorrectly) make academics seem unnecessary, it proliferates the misinformation that academic work seeks to combat. Overdependence on Wikipedia means that students never develop proper research skills and come to believe that an approximately right answer is good enough. [1] Free, open access to huge swathes of information is a threat to both good research and the teaching of good research-writing skills. [2] Middlebury College’s history department even felt so strongly about Wikipedia’s negative influence that in 2007 it banned students from citing Wikipedia in papers. [3]  [1] Graham, L., &amp; Metaxas, P. T. (2003, May). “Of course it’s true; I saw it on the Internet!” Critical thinking in the Internet era.Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 71-75.  [2] McClure, R. (2011.) Googlepedia: Turning information behavior into research skills. In Vol. 2 of Writing spaces: Readings on writing, edited by Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky, 221–41. Fort Collins, CO and West Lafayette, IN: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.  [3] Jaschik, Scott. (2007, January 26). A stand against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 4, 2008.

Wikipedia lacks the necessary coverage  One of the major problems with Wikipedia is that it has very patchy coverage. Traditional reference sources provide consistent coverage over the whole field of knowledge, with priority given to the most important topics in terms of space and thoroughness of treatment. By contrast, Wikipedia has very detailed coverage of topics in which its main contributors are interested, but weak material on other, much more important issues. [1] Thus, there is, for example, much more on the imaginary language of Klingon than there is on the life and philosophy of John Locke.  [1] Why Wikipedia is not so great. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is driving high-quality encyclopaedias out of business, without offering a better service.  By providing its articles for “free,” Wikipedia will drive traditional, high-quality encyclopaedias out of business by destroying their business model. Indeed the traditional print version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica has already been discontinued with the focus changing to the online version after sales had declined from 120,000 in 1990 to only 8000 in 2010. [1] Wikipedia may make articles available for nothing to those with access to the internet (still only a minority of people in the world), but many of these articles are not worth reading. The cost of a traditional encyclopaedia may be high, but it pays for articles written, checked and edited by experts and professionals. Even on the internet there is no such thing as a free lunch: people have to pay for internet access and computers. If Wikipedia makes it harder for ordinary people to access reliable information, then the world will be a poorer place.  [1] Bosman, Julie, (2012, March 13). After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses. Retrieved May 14, 2011, from The New York Times Media Decoder blog.

“If we see the ongoing evolution of information in public spheres as a part of scholarly work . . . Wikipedia can enrich, extend, and enliven, rather than threaten, the scholarly enterprise.” [1] Wikipedia encourages more people, including students, to participate in scholarly work by asking them to edit and respond to its articles. In this way, it makes scholarly work more visible and accessible. Wikipedia integrates research and writing in productive ways in the service of knowledge production, which educators can exploit to teach students. [2] Wikipedia transforms people from passive users of web content to active producers of it. [3]  [1] Purdy, J. P. (2009). When the tenets of composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia.” College Composition and Communication, 61(2), W351-W373. Retrieved May 9, 2012.  [2] Purdy, J. P. (2010). The changing space of research: Web 2.0 and the integration of research and writing environments. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 48-58.  [3] Bruns, Axel. (2009). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

The information is not accurate and sometimes undermined by poor writing  Wikipedia has become a standard source of reference because it is free and easy to access, not because it provides quality, accurate information. While a 2005 Nature comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica found that the online and print encyclopaedias were both inaccurate, [1] the Nature study itself was badly skewed, and Britannica disputed nearly half the errors or omissions for which it was criticised. [2] On this basis, Wikipedia is not just 30% less accurate than Britannica; it would be two and a half times less reliable. Comedian Stephen Colbert has even publicly skewered Wikipedia for its inaccuracy. [3] In addition, the Nature study took no account of the written quality of the submissions under comparison. All of Britannica’s entries are edited carefully to ensure they are readable, clear and an appropriate length. Much of Wikipedia’s material is a cobbled together from different contributions and lacks clarity. [4] This can mean that even where Wikipedia is accurate readers do not get the wrong information from it. Furthermore, many of its users are students, with too little experience to weigh up the quality of an article.  [1] Orlowski, A. (2005, December 16). Wikipedia science 31% more cronky than Britannica's. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Register.  [2] Fatally flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. (2006, March). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved December 12, 2010.  [3] Colbert, Stephen. (2006, July 31). The word—Wikiality. The Colbert Report. Comedy Central TV Network.  [4] Schiff, S. (2006, July 31). Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer it all? Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The New Yorker

Wikipedia is a service that offers information where it is felt most necessary. If there is more information on the imaginary language of Klingon than the works of John Locke, for example, that is because more people want to read and learn about Klingon or are unable to find the information they desire elsewhere. In this way, Wikipedia is responsive to audience desires and needs. As such, there are few shortcomings in Wikipedia’s coverage. If Locke was to come into vogue, then undoubtedly his page would soon expand to meet that demand.

Entries are not easily or wantonly manipulated. Wikipedia harnesses the best qualities of humanity – trust and cooperation in pursuit of an unselfish goal. Sceptics essentially take a negative view of society, unable to understand why people would club together to produce something so valuable without any financial incentive. [1] Wikipedia is not naïvely trusting. The majority of entries are written by a close online community of a few hundred people who value their reputations. Examples of abuse have led Wikipedia to tighten up its rules so that cyber vandals can easily be detected and editing of controversial topics restricted to the most trusted editors. Overall, Wikipedia is a tremendous human success story, which should be celebrated rather than criticised.  [1] Ciffolilli, A. (2003). Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia. First Monday 8(12). Retrieved April 27, 2005.

Inefficient or not, artists should have the right to retain control of their creations. Even if they are not making any money out of it, they still have the right, and often the desire, to maintain control of the way their art is used. If artists do not desire such control, they can opt to release their works into the public domain, while allowing those who do not wish to do so to protect their work.

Lengthy copyright protection is extremely inefficient for the dissemination of works  Only a tiny fraction of copyrighted works ever become massive successes, breeding the riches of a JK Rowling or the like. Far more often, artists only make modest profits from their artistic works. In fact, almost all income from copyright comes immediately after publication of a work. [1] Ultimately, copyright serves to protect a work from being used, while at the same time that work does little to benefit the original artist. Freeing up availability of artistic works much faster would serve to benefit consumers in the extreme, who could now enjoy the works for free and engage in the dissemination and reexamination of the works. If artists care about having their work seen and appreciated, they should realize that they are best served by reduced copyright. Ultimately, long copyrights tend only to benefit corporations that buy up large quantities of work, and exploit it after artists’ deaths. Notably when the United States has a system that required a renewal of copyright after 28 years only 15% of copyrights were actually renewed. [2] It would be far better for everyone that copyright be shortened and to increase appreciation of works.  [1] Gapper, J. “Shorten Copyright and Make it Stick”. Financial Times. 1 July 2010   [2] Center for the Study of the Public Domain, “What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2012?”, Duke University, 2012,

The problems associated with “orphan works” can be sorted out separate from limiting copyright length. It simply demands a closer attention from executors and legal professionals to sort these issues out. In terms of availability, it must be up to the artist to release the work as he or she sees fit. Encouraging artists and their successors to release their works into the public domain could go a long way to solving this problem without recourse to adulterating existing protections.

Overlong copyright protection stifles the creativity and saps the time of artists  In some instances, when artists achieve success they face the enervating impulse that their achievement brings. They become satisfied and complacent with what they have, robbing them of their demiurgic drive. Worse, and more frequently, successful artists become embroiled in defending their work from pirates, downloaders, and other denizens of the internet. The result is artists wasting time in court, fighting lawsuits that sap them of time to actually focus on creating new works. Artists should be incentivized to look forward, not spend their time clinging to what they have already made. Obviously, they have a right to profit from their work to an extent, which is why a certain, reduced length of copyright is still important. But clearly the current length is far too great as artists retain their copyright until their death and many years after. Moreover once the artist has died it is difficult to see how copyright can be considered to be enhancing or even rewarding creativity; it simply becomes a negative weight on others creativity.

The artistic drive to create is rarely stifled by having been successful. Individuals deserve to profit from their success and to retain control of what they create in their lifetime, as much as the founder of a company deserves to own what he or she creates until actively deciding to part with it. However, even patents, novel creations in themselves, have far less protection than copyright. While most patents offer protection for a total of twenty years, copyright extends far beyond the life of its creator, a gross overstretch of the right of use. [1]  [1] Posner, Richard A., “Patent Trolls Be Gone”, Slate, 15 October 2012,

While there is value in other artists exploring their own creativity by means of others’ work, it does not give them an overriding right. Rather, artists should have a meaningful control over how their art is disseminated and viewed in the world, as it is ultimately their creation. Furthermore, the protections copyright affords means that the responses that do arise must be more creative and novel in and of themselves, and not simply hackneyed riffing on existing work. This helps to benefit the arts by ensuring that there is regular innovation and change.

Long copyrights serve to severely limit access by the public to creative works  Because copyrights are so long, they often result in severely limiting access to some works by anyone. Many “orphan works”, whose copyright holders are unknown, cannot be made available online or in other free format due to copyright protection. This is a major problem, considering that 40% of all books fall into this category. [1] A mix of confusion over copyright ownership and unwillingness of owners to release their works, often because it would not be commercially viable to do so, means that only 2% of all works currently protected by copyright are commercially available. [2] The public is robbed of a vast quantity of artistic work, often simply because no one can or is willing to publish it even in a commercial context. Reducing copyright length would go a long way to freeing this work for public consumption.  [1] Keegan, V. “Shorter Copyright Would Free Creativity”. The Guardian. 7 October 2009,   [2] ibid

Long copyright stifles creative responses to and re-workings of the original work  Artistic creations, be they books, films, paintings, etc. serve as a spark for others to explore their own creativity. Much of the great works of art of the 20th century, like Disney films reworking ancient fairy tales, were reexaminations of existing works. [1] That is the nature of artistic endeavor, and cutting it off by putting a fence around works of art serves to cut off many avenues of response and expression. When copyright is too long, the work passes beyond the present into a new status quo other than that in which it was made. This means contemporary responses and riffs on works are very difficult, or even impossible. In the United States tough copyright law has prevented the creation of a DJ/remix industry because the costs of such remixing is prohibitive. [2] While a certain length of copyright is important, it is also critical for the expression of art to develop that it occur within a not overlong time. Furthermore, it is valuable for artists to experience the responses to their own work, and to thus be able to become a part of the discourse that develops, rather than simply be dead, and thus voiceless.  [1] Keegan, V. “Shorter Copyright Would Free Creativity”. The Guardian. 7 October 2009,   [2] Jordan, Jim, and Teller, Paul, “RSC Policy Brief: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it” The Republican Study Committee, 16 November 2012,

The vast majority of artistic output results in having little lifelong, let alone postmortem economic value. Most artists glean all they are going to get out of their art within a couple years of its production, and the idea that it will sustain their families is silly. In the small number of cases of phenomenally successful artists, they usually make enough to sustain themselves and family, but even still, the benefits accrued to outliers should not be sufficient reason to significantly slow the pace of artistic progress and cross-pollination of ideas. Besides, in any other situation in which wealth is bequeathed, that money must have been earned already. Copyright is a bizarre construct that allows for the passing on of the right to accrue future wealth.

Copyright would still exist, and the artist is able to profit from it, even if the length of copyright is reduced. People deserve recompense, but the stifling force of current laws make for negative outcomes. It would be better to strike a more appropriate balance, allowing artists to profit while they can, which in practice is only during the first few years after their work’s release, and at the same time allowing the art to reach the public sphere and to interact with it in fuller fashion.

Control of an artistic work and its interaction in the public sphere is the just province of the creator and his or her designated successors  The creator of a piece of copyrighted material has brought forth a novel concept and product of the human mind. That artist thus should have a power over that work’s use. Art is the expression of its creator’s sense of understanding of the world, and thus that expression will always have special meaning to him or her. How that work is then used thus remains an active issue for the artist, who should, as a matter of justice be able to retain a control over its dissemination. That control can extend, as with the bequeathing of tangible assets, to designated successors, be the trusts, family, or firms. In carrying out the wishes of the artist, these successors can safeguard that legacy in their honor. Many artists care about their legacies and the future of their artistic works, and should thus have this protection furnished by the state through the protection of lengthy copyrights.

The promise of copyright protection galvanizes people to develop creative endeavors  The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people’s intellectual endeavours. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s artistic work, the incentive to invest in its creation is significantly diminished. Within a robust copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the fruits of their efforts will be theirs to reap. [1] With these protections the marginal cases, like people afraid to put time into actually writing a novel rather than doing more hours at their job, will take the opportunity. Even if the number of true successes is very small in the whole of artistic output, the chance of riches and fame can be enough for people to make the gamble. If their work were to quickly leave their control, they would be less inclined to do so. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas.  [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007,

Artists often rely on copyright protection to support dependents and family after, including after they are dead  Artists may rely on their creative output to support themselves. This is certainly no crime, and existing copyright laws recognize this fact. Artists rarely have pensions of the sort that people in other professions have as they are rarely employed by anyone for more than a short period. [1] As a result artists who depend on their creations for their wherewithal look to their art and copyright as a guaranteed pension, a financial protection they can rely on even if they are too old to continue artistic or other productive work for their upkeep. They also recognize the need of artists to be able to support their dependents, many of whom too rely on the artist’s output. In the same way financial assets like stocks can be bequeathed to people for them to profit, so too must copyright be. Copyright is a very real asset and financial protection that should be sustained for the sake of artists’ financial wellbeing and that of their loved ones.  [1] The Economist, “Art for money’s sake”, 27 May 2004,

Artists deserve to profit from their work and copyright provides just recompense  Artists generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, be it a new song, painting, film, etc. have a property right over those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone’s head that he or she does not act upon, and an artistic creation brought forth into the world. Developing new inventions, songs, and brands are all very intensive endeavours, taking time, energy, and often a considerable amount of financial investment, if only from earnings forgone in the time necessary to produce the work. Artists deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. [1] For this reason, robbing individuals of lifelong and transferable copyright is tantamount to stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. Copyright is the only real scheme that can provide the necessary protection for artists to allow them to enjoy the fruits of their very real labours.  [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007,

Artists generally desire to create, and will do so whether there is financial incentive or not. Besides, many artists live and die in relative poverty, [1] yet their experience seems to not have put off people from pursuing art as a profession and passion. The loss of a few marginal cases must be weighed against the massive losses to art in general, such as the huge curtailment of exploration of and response to existing works, which are often artistically meritorious in their own right, and also the rendering unavailable of much of the artistic output of the world.  [1] The Economist, “Art for money’s sake”, 27 May 2004,

Once a piece of art enters the public sphere, it takes on a character of its own as it is consumed, absorbed, and assimilated by other artists. It is important that art as a whole be able to thrive in society, but this is only possible when artists are able to make use of, and actively reinterpret and utilize existing works. This can only be furthered by a significant reduction in length of copyright protections. It is also disingenuous to suggest that the artist’s work is not itself the product of exposure to other artists’ work. All art is a response, even if only laterally, to the previous traditions. While those who gain a copyright get it because of a ‘novel concept’ it is open to question just how novel this has to be. A painter who paints a new painting in a style never seen before may well still be using oil and canvas just as thousands of artists have in the past.

Western states, like all states, owe their primary responsibility to their own citizens, not those in a distant land claiming to be striving for common notions of rights. It is difficult for Western states to ascertain the actual motivations of the body of risers in any given scenario, let alone the motivations of specific individuals utilizing the technology. The West is not necessarily aiding seekers after freedom by providing this technology, but may rather be abetting crimes and violence worse than the regime being challenged. The nature of the technology is that it would have to be indiscriminate, making it unsuited to the task of aiding in the liberation of oppressed peoples.

Western states have a duty to aid those striving for the ideals they cherish  The West stands as the symbol of liberal democracy to which many political dissidents aspire in emulation. It is also, as a broad group, the primary expounder, propagator, and establisher of concepts and practices pertaining to human rights, both within and without their borders. The generation and dissemination of anonymity software into countries that are in the midst of, or are moving toward, uprising and revolution is critical to allowing those endeavours to succeed. This obligation still attains even when the technology does not yet exist, in the same way that the West often feels obligated to fund research into developing vaccines and other treatments for specifically external use, thus in 2001 the United States spent $133million on AIDS research through the National institutes of Health. 1 The West thus has a clear duty to make some provision for getting that software to the people that need it, because it can secure the primary platform needed to build the groundswell to fight for their basic rights by ensuring its security and reliability. 2 To not act in this way serves as a tacit condolence of the status quo of misery and brutality that sparks grassroots uprisings. If the West cares about civil liberties and human rights as true values that should be spread worldwide and not just political talking points, then it must adopt this policy.  1 Alagiri, P. Et al., “Global Spending on HIV/AIDS Tackling Public and Private Investments in AIDS Prevention, Care, and Research”, July 2001.  p.5  2 Paul, I. and Zlutnick, D. “Networking Rebellion: Digital Policing and Revolt in the Arab Uprisings”. The Abolitionist. 29 August 2012.

All software can be hacked, even with cruder hardware and software. The ability of Chinese hackers to undermine businesses’ advanced firewalls in the United States, having demonstrated a potent ability to penetrate several major media companies. 1 Products made in the West with government subsidy will just have a bloated price tag thanks to the extra costs of production in the West, and the tendency to overrun costs that tends to occur when government is involved. The incentive may not even be enough to persuade many software companies to work on such a project, as they will wish to maintain their markets in authorotarian states such as China which such an innitiative would annoy. China in particular has a history of blacklisting and retaliating against companies that are involved in activities that it sees as being against its national interests.  1 Pakzad, X. “Depth of Cyber Attacks from Chinese Hackers on American News Outlets”. IVN. 9 February 2013.

Anonymity software helps to guarantee protection for people involved in uprisings  The past few years have been marked by an explosion of uprisings around the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Arab world generally. These uprisings have all been marked by the extensive and pervasive use of social media and social networking tools, like Twitter, BlackBerry Mobile, and other platforms. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, for example, wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator has even been called the Twitter Revolution after the huge number of people using that platform to lead and chronicle the successful uprising. 1 It was the sophistication of physical surveillance technology and the resourcefulness of the security forces that forced dissenters onto the internet, which quickly became, prior to the start of large scale demonstrations, the primary mode of expressing discontent with governments. But the internet is no safe haven, and technology has caught up, allowing governments to crack down on individuals who engage in dissent online. Anyone using the internet to coordinate demonstrations therefore faces the threat of being tracked and arrested as a result. This was the case in Iran after the failed Green Revolution, dissenters were rounded up and punished for challenging the government. 2 Without anonymity, participants in uprisings are liable to face reprisals. Only external help from the technologically advanced West can these freedom fighters maintain their safety and still be able to fight for what they believe in.  1 Zuckerman, E. “The First Twitter Revolution?”. Foreign Policy. 14 January 2011.   2 Flock, E., “Iran Gets Back E-mail Access, But Other Sites Remain Blacked Out Ahead of Protest”. Washington Post. 13 February 2012.

First it is wrong to simply assume that this will guarantee protection for people involved in uprisings. Previous attempts at providing software to help dissenters have had security vulnerabilities that could have allowed the regime to expose its users identities. This was the case with Haystack a tool that was meant to keep users anonymous during the failed green revolution in Iran. 1  Second providing anonymity and thus snubbing the regimes that survive uprisings means those states will be less willing to envision working with the West toward reforms. When an uprising occurs clearly something needs to change. But when the West is putting such undue pressure on a government, it will not react in a way that would benefit the civil rights of the people. Operating from a position of weakness, it will seek to retrench its strength, through force if necessary. Anonymity means little in this scenario, as governments can simply round up all participants in protests and enact harsh punishments to deter future acts.  1 Zetter, K., “Privacy Tool for Iranian Activists Disabled After Security Holes Exposed”, WIRED, 14 September 2010.

Whether the West thinks it is being clever by hiding behind the intermediary of private companies and acting as if the software they are creating is not for use in destabilizing undemocratic, or perhaps just unfriendly, regimes, that story will not fly on the ground. If the west wants to support uprisings then it is better for it to do so in the open. Without open western support authoritarian regimes will feel they are enabled to crack down on uprisings when they occur. When such crackdowns occur democratic states can either stay silent and so tacitly endorse the regime or condemn it so supporting the uprising.

Incentives are the best way to produce effective, affordable software  The West has clear reasons to seek to provide the software necessary for anonymity to people involved in uprisings, and it has the means. Western countries are the most advanced technologically and have been the leaders in creating and developing the internet and thus they are best suited to producing and disseminating this technology. Firstly, as they are more advanced in software development, the products they distribute will be much more difficult for the target regimes’ to hack or subvert to their own advantage, or at least significantly more difficult to than were it produced in any other locale. 1 Secondly, the efficient production of software requires special industry clusters. These exist almost exclusively in the West. Silicon Valley, for example is the high tech capital of the world, and were companies there incentivized to produce software for the participants of uprisings it would be a simple matter of efficient distribution, which these firms are best in the world at doing. The need for subsidy is also clear. People involved in uprisings tend not to have huge amounts of disposable income, so to date there has been little market for the production of these sorts of software devices. With a subsidy from Western governments the incentive is created and a top quality product that will save lives and make the uprising more likely to succeed is born.  1 Paul, I. and Zlutnick, D. “Networking Rebellion: Digital Policing and Revolt in the Arab Uprisings”. The Abolitionist. 29 August 2012.

It is a means of vocalizing support for uprisings and liberty at a remove, preventing the backlash of direct intervention  By enacting this subsidy, the West makes a tacit public statement in favour of those involved in uprisings without coming out and publicly taking a side. This is a shrewd position to take as it blunts many of the fall-backs opposed regimes rely upon, such as blaming Western provocateurs for instigating the uprising. Rather than making a judgment call involving force or sanction, the simple provision of anonymity means the people involved in the uprisings can do it themselves while knowing they have some protections to fall back on that the West alone could provide. This is a purely enabling policy, giving activists on the group access to the freedom of information and expression, which aids not only in their aim to free themselves from tyranny, but also abets the West’s efforts to portray itself publicly as a proponent of justice for all, not just those it happens to favour as a geopolitical ally. In essence, the policy is a public statement of support for the ideas behind uprisings absent the specific taking of sides in a particular conflict. It throws some advantages to those seeking to rise up without undermining their cause through overbearing Western intervention. And that statement is a valuable one for Western states to make, because democracies tend to be more stable, more able to grow economically and socially in the long term, and are more amenable to trade and discourse with the West. By enacting this policy the West can succeed in this geopolitical aim without making the risers seem to be Western pawns.

In an uprising the government is going to try to level lots of accusations. Some will stick, some will not. In this case the government has a touch more ammunition on the anti-Western front, but this is entirely overwhelmed by the boon of protecting the leaders and organizers, who are at greatest risk using the social media needed to coordinate the uprising, and are the most essential to a successful outcome. The benefits of providing anonymity clearly outweigh the tangential costs of giving a bit more mud to the government to sling.

Regimes will paint everyone as looters and disturbers of order irrespective of anonymity. This software changes that status quo by offering the political dissidents, the real people regimes will be trying to root out during and in the aftermath of uprisings, a means of not falling immediately foul of the state security forces. They are the people that need protection in this scenario because it is on them that the success of the uprising and its ideals rest.

Clandestine aid to dissidents will serve to alienate and close off discourse on policy  Reform in oppressive regimes, or ones that have less than stellar democratic and human rights records that might precipitate an uprising, is often slow in coming, and external pressures are generally looked upon with suspicion. The most effective way for Western countries to effect change is to engage with repressive regimes and to encourage them to reform their systems. By not directly antagonizing, but instead trading, talking, and generally building ties with countries, Western states can put to full use their massive economic power and political capital to good use in coaxing governments toward reform. 1 Peaceful evolution toward democracy results in far less bloodshed and instability, and should thus be the priority for Western governments seeking to change the behaviour of states. Militant action invariably begets militant response. And providing a mechanism for armed and violent resistance to better evade the detection of the state could well be considered a militant action.  The only outcome that would arise from this policy is a regime that is far less well disposed to the ideas of the West. This is because those ideas now carry the weight of foreign governments seeking actively to destabilize and abet the overthrow of their regimes, which, unsurprisingly, they consider to be wholly legitimate. A policy of flouting national laws will demand a negative response from the regimes, leading them to take harsh measures, such as curtailing access to the internet at all in times of uprising, which would be a major blow to domestic dissidents who, even with heavy censorship, still rely on the internet to organize and share information. This action would serve simply to further impoverish the people of useful tools for organization and uprising, such as occurred in Russia when the government ejected American NGOs they perceived as trying to undermine the regime. 2  1 Larison, D. 2012. “Engagement is Not Appeasement”. The American Conservative. Available:   2 Brunwasser, M. “Russia Boots USAID in a Big Blow to Obama’s ‘Reset’ Policy”. September 2012.

Western businesses will be forced out of lucrative markets  The Western firms being incentivized to produce and distribute this software will require at least some market penetration to be able to reach these dissidents. This means they have business interests in these countries that may well be important to their own bottom line and to jobs back home. Putting these relationships and long-standing business arrangements at risk through a risky gamble like software specifically to help rebels is foolhardy. When regimes that are the target of these efforts get wind of these efforts, they will no doubt sever ties, damaging long term business interests, which is particularly damaging considering it is in authoritarian regimes like China and Vietnam that technology companies see the greatest room for growth. 1 The illusory benefits of catalysing regime change are far outweighed by the huge potential business costs. Furthermore, the ability of businesses to help effect change in these countries is hampered by this policy. It is the business interests linked directly into these economies that generate the most sharing of ideas and principles. It is through these channels that eventual reforms shall flow. It is best not to cut the tap for an all-or-nothing play.  1 The Star Online. “Intel Upbeat on South-East Asia, Sees Double-Digit Growth for Processor Manufacture Next Year”. 12 November 2012.

Aiding of the agents of chaos will allow the government to discredit the uprisings as being instigated and abetted by the West  The fact that dissidents can be conflated with other rioters gives real power to the government to discredit the uprising. Firstly, they can report the rioting and looting in tandem with the uprising, as they hide behind anonymity, making it difficult to ascertain specific agents and their directives. Secondly, the regime can identify the West as the instigator of the unrest. This is what Iran’s leaders did during the Green Revolution, when it blamed the foreign tools of dissent like Twitter and other social media for aiding in the rebel protests. 1 This two-pronged attack can be used to drive a wedge between the general public and the leaders and primary agents of dissent seeking to build a broad base of support, a necessary prerequisite for an uprising to succeed. While anonymity gives some ability for individual leaders to hide themselves in the crowd, they lose their moral authority and impact when they can be easily construed as cowardly Western-backed agénts provocateur.  1 Flock, E., “Iran Gets Back E-mail Access, But Other Sites Remain Blacked Out Ahead of Protest”. Washington Post. 13 February 2012.

Justice demands that those who seek actual political redress be sorted from opportunistic marauders  The technology of anonymity can have the effect of providing needed security to dissidents seeking to make their country a better place, but it is just as likely to provide cover for the violent opportunists that arise in the midst of the chaos. When the state is unable to locate the culprits, and even to sort between those who are dissidents from those who are mere criminals, everyone involved gets blamed for the worst excesses of the chaos, discrediting the people with legitimate claims. Anonymity is a dangerous tool to give anyone, but particularly so in the context of violent uprising where it can be taken up by anyone. All governments, even authoritarian ones, have a right to defend their citizens from violent criminals capitalizing on mayhem. Western governments only make the cause of justice, often a tenuous one in these countries, all the more likely to go undefended, as governments are forced to clamp down on everyone, and find excuse in the looters to discredit the entirety of uprising with the same brush of destruction. Worse still is the possibility that the technology could fall into the hands of dangerous groups such as terrorists and militants who might use the greater safety of anonymity to increase their reach and scope of violence so turning the software against its creators.

Engagement will still occur. The software exists to aid in uprisings, which is the endpoint of the regime, or at least a signal of its imminent change. It is a play that Western governments should back on a human as well as political level. The subsidies and incentives, furthermore, can be sufficient to compensate companies if things do indeed go sour. This would be expected, in fact, since the companies, acting rationally will have to be coaxed into producing and supplying this technology.

It is often not enough simply to encourage gradual change, many states when given such encouragement simply take what the west offers and ignores what the west asks. This indeed was the case with Mubarak's Egypt for three decades, it took billions in aid from the United States yet did not reform, the U.S. even strengthened the regime by respecting restrictions on which NGOs could get funding. 1 If people are able to act and organize with more limited government reprisal, their chance of success is significantly increased. The incentive of the West should be to bet on the dissidents when they rise up and to take the gamble so that they can welcome a new, freer regime into the congress of nations.  1 Bery, S., “Roots of Discontent: Egypt's Call for Freedom”, Harvard Kennedy School Review, 2011.

By creating celebrities in the first place the media is often creating artificial demand for such stories; it is too simplistic to suggest that such stories are what the public wants in light of this. There will, however, always be a fascination in learning intimate details about the lives of the powerful and famous, but this should not be a reason to deny public figures the right to privacy that the rest of us enjoy. The media likes to portray itself as an important pillar in society and democracy, and while in some respects it is, by undermining the law by disregarding the right to privacy the newspapers are in fact damaging their own justification for their existence. The argument that many celebrities have courted the media for their fame is a misnomer, it can often be a bi-product of their career, why should their lives be necessarily punished via having their private lives scrutinized by the public just because it’s what the public may want?

It’s what the public want to know about  Newspapers are simply publishing the kind of stories the public want to read, it is no accident that the best-selling newspapers in the UK are the tabloids which regularly publish stories into the private lives of celebrities and that some of the highest rating news shows in the US are loaded with celebrity gossip. The News of the World, which pushed the boundaries of intrusion right up to its closure in 2011, was consistently Britain’s most-read newspaper. [1] When you enter a career which is in the public domain, in particular those such as acting, which often requires courting the media to gain publicity, it is well known that intrusion into your private life may occur. It could even be argued that by entering such a profession you agree to forfeit your right to privacy as a condition of entry. Thereafter, when success has been gained via manipulating the press it is hypocritical to complain of “press intrusion”. Celebrities should not bemoan the media for simply providing information that the public wish to read.  [1] Audit Bureau of Circulations. (2011) National Sunday newspaper circulation June 2011. [online][accessed 14 May 2013]

Much media reporting of private lives is not being done under a watchdog mandate but rather to simply titillate the audience with gossip which is unnecessary for the public to know. Having distinct rules as to what can and cannot be reported is important to protect the lives of public figures who are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Such firm distinctions between what is public and private and what can and cannot be reported will of course on occasion limit the press from unveiling a story which may be very important for the world to know about. However, on the whole, what such regulation would do is ensure that the vast majority of reporting which is of no use to the public and is being published at the detriment of someone’s private life is severely restricted, if not eliminated. This is the ethical thing to do as it ensures that the right to privacy is universal.

Those in power need to be held to account  All people that are considered public figures have, to one degree or another, the power to affect society; be it in an overt way via politics or economics or more subtly via changing peoples’ perceptions of the world. These people need to held to account and the media is the most effective way of doing this as normal people do not have the time or resources to scrutinize everything pubic figures are doing whereas the media can. If the private lives of public figures are conflicting with their actual public persona it is in the wider interest to reveal this. For example, in 2009 during the UK’s “MPs expenses scandal” it was revealed that some MPs, whose responsibility it is to create and review laws, were breaking their own tax laws in their private lives. This clearly demonstrates a misuse of their position and deserves to be known. [1] Another such example can be seen with golfer Tiger Woods who was seen to represent excellence and determination in sport and most importantly was presented as an ideal clean-cut role model. However this image was found to be a sham when stories into his private life revealed he was unfaithful to his wife and he subsequently admitted to numerous affairs. This came to light as a direct result of media reporting into his turbulent private life and it is in the public interest to know such information due to both the power he and others wield as public icons and the money generated from their public image.  [1] Prince, R. (2009) MPs Breaking Tax Laws, Chief Inspector Says.” [online] [accessed 14th July 2011]

Of course people need to be held to account and in some cases the publication of the private affairs of public figures can be justified. However, on the whole, most reporting into the private lives of public figures is simply gossip which the public has no need to know and is holding no-one to account. Instead it is often simply being used to sell media products. There are hundreds of examples which could be cited of such intrusion, often involving actors/actresses and models which offer no real justification at all as to why they were printed. Printing stories about celebrities on holiday for example is not holding them to account or benefiting society in an actively positive way.  This can also extend to those in more traditional power roles. Is it in the public interest to know all the details about the private lives of politicians and CEOs if what is being reported does not have a direct effect on their role? For example Max Mosley, the now ex-president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), a group which not only represents the interests of motoring organizations but is also the governing body for Formula One, was exposed in 2008 by the now defunct News of the World newspaper as being involved in a sadomasochistic sex act which involved several female prostitutes. The reporting of this was unnecessary as the event did not have a direct effect on his running of the FIA and was therefore not in the public interest. Mosley took the case to the UK High Court claiming infringement of his private life and the court found in his favor. [1]  [1] BBC (2008) Mosley Wins Court Case Over Orgy. [online] [accessed 14th July 2011]

No clear dividing line between public and private can be made.  No clear dividing line can be drawn between public and private behavior; drawing up rules would be arbitrary and would prevent some corrupt, dubious or dishonest behavior from being exposed. For example, President Mitterrand of France hid his cancer from the French electorate for years. Was this a public or a private matter? He also had a mistress and illegitimate daughter, who were secretly taken on some of his foreign visits at state expense. [1] Again, is this a private or a public matter? The creation of solid distinctions would undermine the power of the press to carry out its watchdog role because in a scenario where such strict rules existed something in the public interest could be transpiring in the private lives of public figures and the media powerless to report it.  [1] Allen-Mills, T. (2009) From The Archive: Mitterrand’s Illegitimate Daughter is Revealed. [online] [accessed 14th July 2011](paywall)

As previously stated upon entering a profession which involves being in the public limelight one should expect to be put under such stresses. If you are publicly known, there will be a demand for information about you and the media is simply obtaining stories which their readership wish to consume. The Diana example was, as the opposition argument expresses, an extraordinary case; one which is extremely rare and from which lessons have been learnt. However there are codes of ethics which all journalists sign up to which contain caveats to ensure that physical and mental harm is kept to a minimum if in existence at all. While on occasion a journalist can fail to live up-to these ethics they are, on the whole, well adhered to and in those instances when not, professional sanctions often take place to minimize such an issue from occurring again.

Whether or not a public figure has chosen to be a role model, once they become one then they have a moral duty to society to ensure they represent all the things a good role model should. While a footballer may just want to be a footballer and simply reach the highest level in the game, they have to accept that people at the top of the sport are necessarily role models and it comes with the territory. In addition to this, many sporting personalities and others in different fields go on to promote organizations, either for charitable reasons or huge fees. If their behavior contradicts the message they are promoting the public has a right to know this as it is a case of deceiving the public. Being a public figure in any of its guises should be seen as a special exception to the privacy law as their success is founded on communicating though the media in one sense or another.

Unrestricted scrutiny into private lives could be a detriment to democracy  Continual probing into the private lives of public figures actually harms the functioning of democracy. Very few potential political candidates, for example, will have entirely spotless private lives, free from embarrassing indiscretions committed while young and irresponsible. The prospect of fierce and unforgiving press scrutiny will thus deter many from seeking public office and deny their talents to the public good. Those who do present themselves for election will therefore tend to be rather unrepresentative individuals of a puritanical nature, whose views on sex, family life, drugs to name but a few may be skewed and intolerant as a result. The sex scandals of Elliott Spitzer and Anthony Weiner, to use just New York politicians, are not therefore representative of New York as a whole, but rather a system that is only attractive to those who believe in their own invincibility and potentially lack the necessary humility to truly represent their constituents.

The media could be endangering peoples’ mental and physical health.  Pursuing stories regarding the lives of public figures could be putting the health of the person being pursued and their families lives in danger. The most extreme and infamous case of this would most arguably be the events which are said to have contributed to the untimely death of Princess Diana, whereby her car crashed into the wall of a tunnel having been pursued by tabloid journalists and paparazzi seeking an ultimately trivial story. While this was an extraordinary event it does show the extent to which journalists have been known to pursue public figures for a story which undoubtedly places stress on the targets and their families lives which could leave to both health issues and psychological distress. [1]  [1] Balakrishnan, A. (2008) Chauffeur and paparazzi to blame for Diana death, jury finds. [online][accessed 14 May 2013]

Those in public positions deserve the same privacy rights as the general public  Many public figures achieve celebrity status largely by mistake; it is a by-product of their pursuit of success in their particular field. For example, most professional footballers when young simply wanted to become the best player they could be, at the highest level they could reach. As Tottenham Hotspur Football Club defender Benoit Assou-Ekotto has stated, he had no desire to end up in an office job he wasn’t suited to so football became the means to ensure he could live out his life comfortably. Expelled from school, he assumed the profession he was naturally good at, just as a natural mathematician goes into engineering. [1] They do not wish to be “role models” and claim no special moral status, so why should their private lives be subjected to such public scrutiny? Individuals who happen to be public figures still deserve the same rights to privacy as the rest of us; simply because they may have a degree of fame does not make them fair-game.  [1] Hytner, D. (2010). Benoit Assou-Ekotto: ‘I play for the money. Football’s not my passion’. [accessed July 19 2011]

Many politicians in their campaigns make an explicit or implicit point out of emphasizing their family values and other aspects of their “private” life, for example by being photographed with their loyal family and through taking a stance on such issues as divorce, single mothers, sex education or drugs. If the public image such people seek to create is at variance with their own practices, such hypocrisy deserves to be exposed. This would not be to the detriment of democracy but in fact may improve it as it would encourage future politicians to ensure that they live by what they preach, rather than cynically trying to manipulate the media into creating a false image of who they are only for it to be fatally undermined by their own actions.

The marketing programmes and collations have over time become far more sophisticated and textured in allocating ad space. While some people feel it a bit disconcerting that their computer seems to know what might interest them, many others have found that the targeted advertising has made the seeking out of desired goods and services far easier. And even if people feel it is a bit alienating, it does not necessarily stop them from availing of the marketed services. Nor does some people disliking it provide a good reason for banning the practice.

Consumers tend to find these strategies alienating  Internet users have come to understand the nature of demographic and personal marketing, and have generally rejected it. This is because they consider the whole process invasive, with their personal details exploited to the profit of third party businesses seeking to peddle their wares. This has resulted in a substantial backlash against these forms of marketing, and built up prejudicial attitudes toward the companies that use these schemes, and the internet services that facilitate them. The facts of these attitudes have been borne out in a number of research studies, showing that as much as 66% of Americans do not want their personal information used to tailor advertising to them. [1] This has led to less than the desired outcome for marketers who rather than experiencing their sales increased efficiently through more targeted marketing alienate their potential customers. More than just invasive, this form of marketing tends toward stereotypes, using programmes that favour broad brushstrokes in their marketing, resulting in stereotyped services on the basis of apparent gender and race. A recent example of this sort of racial profiling took place in 2013 when it was revealed that having a stereotypical “black” name brought up ads for criminal records checks 25% more often than for users with other names. [2] This was, to say the least, considered exceptionally alienating by many users. This and other incidents have compounded the sense of alienation from these forms of marketing among consumers.  [1] Pinsent Masons. “US Web Users Reject Behavioural Advertising, Study Finds”. Out-Law. 30 September 2009.   [2] Gayle, D. “Google Accused of Racism After Black Names are 25% More Likely to Bring Up Adverts for Criminal Records Checks”. The Daily Mail.5 February 2013.

The extent to which the online experience is altered by targeted marketing is extremely limited. Certainly they are less influential on how people interact with the internet than are search engines’ own choices in search priorities. The user of Bing has a much more differentiated experience from the Google user, than do individuals targeted by demographic-based marketing strategies. Ultimately, it does not matter overmuch if people have somewhat differentiated experiences anyway as long as those different experiences make the online experience better.

This advertising strategy undermines people’s right to personal privacy  Targeted advertising based on profiles and demographic details is the product of information acquired in a fashion that is fundamentally invasive of individuals’ privacy. When individuals go online they act as private parties, often enjoying anonymity in their personal activities. Yet online services collate information and seek to use it to market products and services that are specifically tailored to those individuals. This means that individuals’ activities online are in fact susceptible to someone else’s interference and oversight, stealing from them the privacy and security the internet has striven to provide. At the most basic level, the invasion of privacy that collating and using private data gleaned from online behaviour is unacceptable. [1] There is a very real risk of the information being misused, as the data can be held, Facebook for example keeps all information ever entered to the social network, [2] and even resold to third parties that the internet users might not want to come into possession of their personal details. People should always be given the option of consent to the use of their data by any party, as is the case in many jurisdictions, such as the European Union has done in implementing its 'cookie law'. [3] This can lead to serious abuses of individuals’ private information by corporations, or indeed other agents that might have less savoury uses for the information.  [1] The Canadian Press. “Academics Want Watchdog to Probe Online Profiling”. CTV News. 28 July 2008.   [2] Lewis, J., “Facebook faces EU curbs on selling users’ interests to advertisers”, The Telegraph, 26 November 2011,   [3] European Union, “Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council”, Official Journal of the European Union, L 337/11, 18 December 2009,

The data that is used in targeted marketing is freely available online and can be protected in many ways. The programmes that target marketing often do not ever gain real access to individuals’ identities, but rather collate their search details. It is highly unlikely that any of this information could be used to identify actual individuals. Furthermore, the information in question is put into the public sphere by individuals availing of online services and not guaranteed any form of special protection. They exist and are revealed in the public sphere, and belong there. It is therefore wrong to say that privacy is being undermined by targeted advertising.

Demographic/profile-based advertising fundamentally alters the experience of the internet for people of different backgrounds  When the experience of the internet differs between people because of their backgrounds and past activities, the position of the online experience as one free of informational prejudice is undermined. It is important that the internet and the sites and services that float around it be as free from external prejudicing that contemporary targeted marketing creates. This marketing shapes at the most basic level the internet experience people interact with, and as it differs between people the quality of the universal service is diminished in a way. [1] This is particularly problematic when that internet experience is designed to differentiate between people of differing demographic backgrounds, which serve only to heighten divisions between these groups. The internet should remain a neutral space.  [1] Cartagena, R. “Online Tracking, Profiling and Targeting – Behavioural Advertisers Beware”. eCommerce Times. 19 December 2011,

The benefit to small firms is far outweighed by the loss of privacy, something that the size of firms involved potentially makes worse. Smaller companies are unlikely to have the sophisticated data security that larger businesses do making it more likely that the information will fall into the hands of individuals who wish to misuse it. Moreover if targeted advertising alienates consumers then those small firms who are able to use such advertising may not be getting the full benefit. While individuals may well enjoy the various smaller or niche services being offered, they often do not like having it shoved in their faces. Being put off can detract customers from these markets, preventing the flourishing of niche market businesses desired. The strategy is just too invasive and disconcerting. Furthermore, far from successfully hitting their markets all the time, the programmes used to collate data rely on stereotypes and broad characterizations of users to try to reach their markets. This lack of sophistication leads to further alienation by users.

Even if the services advertised are effective in providing services that may interest them, the fundamental violation of privacy entailed in compiling personal search data is too serious a danger to people than the fleeting benefits that this sort of advertising might furnish. But this form of advertising is often not as effective, since its reliance on programmes that stereotype demographics can often result in misallocation of advertising. Furthermore, the discomfort people feel at this advertising means they do not like experiencing it, useful or not.

The sort of information being used in this advertising is legitimate for firms to utilize  The information trail left online through cookies etc. is a public statement, put into the public sphere. Provided the individual's identity is not revealed the information is usable through the impermeable intermediary of security settings, etc. Thus firms get information about users without ever being able to ascertain the actual identity of those individuals, protecting their individual privacy. [1] For this reason it cannot be said that there is any true violation of privacy. Furthermore, this sort of targeted advertising, while focusing on general demographics and programmes, does succeed in hitting its mark most of the time. Thus there is a value in having the programming, and it is absent stereotype. All of this advertising is simply the continuation of firms’ age-old effort to better understand their clients and to cater for their needs and should not be considered any differently to adverts being placed as a result of working out what programs are watched by what demographic. TV is also moving towards targeting ads to individuals through information such as household income and purchasing history, this is information that is not private and online usage should be considered the same way. [2] Advertising is difficult business, given media saturation, and it is only right that this system exist to better serve the customers, given it is the natural outgrowth of past efforts.  [1] Story, L. “AOL Brings Out the Penguins to Explain Ad Targeting”. New York Times. 9 March 2008.   [2] Deloitte, “Targeted television advertisements miss the point”, 2012,

This advertising strategy benefits companies by making marketing more efficient and allows smaller markets to develop  Targeted advertising using the wealth of personal information left for collection and collation online makes business far more efficient for advertisers. Until recently advertisers were forced to use ads that went into the world basically at random, hitting everyone and not necessarily reaching the desired audience. This meant that producers could rarely target small markets, and thus advertising and mass media products all focused on large groups. [1] Thus small producers have been crowded out from the mainstream. With the advent of targeted marketing, producers can now afford to compete for business and to advertise their services to the groups that actually want what they have to sell. Thus businesses have been able to flourish that once would have languished without access to a proper market. An example of this is the targeting by niche fashion boutiques targeting the diffuse but expansive “hipster” market. [2] This has led to a more efficient business world, with lots of producers that can compete with the larger mainstream quite effectively.  [1] Columbus Metropolitan Library. “Using Demographics to Target Your Market”. 2012.   [2] Fleur, B. “New Meaning for the Term ‘Niche Market’”. New York Times. 29 September 2006,

This form of marketing makes for better advertising that benefits consumers  By targeting demographics and personal profiles, businesses are able to put forward the services that are statistically likely to pique their target’s interest. In the past, because advertisers had limited budgets and no sophisticated means of reaching their target audience, they had to settle for broad demographics and to cater to majority tastes and interests. This led to a reduction in the breadth of goods and services to niche markets. Targeted advertising helps to alleviate this issue by allowing customers of eclectic tastes to actually find services they are interested in outside the mainstream, enriching their own lives in the process. The internet is vast, and it is often difficult to sift out things that might be interesting to the individual consumer from all the information available. Targeted advertising is one of the most effective ways of providing this information to people. [1] The data compiled to create an individual profile is easily able to divine a broad brushstrokes outline of a person’s likely interests. This creates a better experience for internet users because it provides a far easier means of finding goods and services that would interest them, often from sources they might not have otherwise been aware. When Facebook furnishes this service to advertisers, users are shown ads that fit their profiles, ones they might find interesting. [2] Given that there is only finite ad space, it is far better for the consumer to see ads for things they care about while using the service rather than just ignoring pointless things.  [1] Columbus Metropolitan Library. “Using Demographics to Target Your Market”. 2012.   [2] Lewis, J., “Facebook faces EU curbs on selling users’ interests to advertisers”, The Telegraph, 26 November 2011,

The anonymity of this information is far from guaranteed and firms’ data collection can indeed serve as a serious threat to people’s privacy and identity on the internet. The technology in use is extremely difficult to police, and the data, once collected, can wander off to less reputable places. It is not enough to claim this as a natural evolution of advertising when it is accepted that there are personal boundaries advertisers cannot cross, such as into the home. This advertising strategy carries too many risks to be permitted.

The internet is a flourishing place for discourse because it is absolutely free to all, and everyone accepts and experiences the fruit of that freedom. When the government abandons its stance of neutrality and begins censoring materials, even if it begins only with the nastiest examples, it compromises the copper-fastened liberties that the internet was created to furnish. Many people will abuse that tool, but thankfully people can evade the hate sites easily and never have to experience them without compromising their own freedoms by censoring their opponents.

Holocaust denial sites are an attack on group identities  The internet is the center of discourse and public life in the 21st century. With the advent of social networks, people around the world live more and more online. Unlike any other kind of hateful speech that might flourish on the internet, Holocaust denial stands apart. This is due firstly to the particular mark that the Holocaust has made on the collective consciousness of western civilization as the ultimate act of human evil and depravity. The Holocaust is now a defining part of Jewish identity, denying it attacks all those who suffered and their decedents. Allowing Holocaust denial websites is allowing the rejection of groups’ very identity. Thus its apologists do far more harm than any troll, misogynist, or even apologist of other atrocities. For this reason, the government can justifiably censor sites promoting these absolutely offensive beliefs while not falling down any sort of slippery slope. The second reason Holocaust denial stands apart from other sorts of internet abuse is that these sites are often flashpoints for violence materializing in the real world. More than just talk, neo-Nazis seek dangerous action, and thus the state should be doubly ready to remove this threat from the internet. [1] Accepting that Holocaust deniers have a point that should be articulated across the internet would be helping these neo-nazi groups gain a foothold. The particularly grievous nature of the Holocaust demands the protection of history to the utmost.  [1] BBC. “Germany’s Neo-Nazi Underground”. BBC News. 7 December 2011,

While it is true that Holocaust deniers spread misinformation and seek to undermine and bend the systems of discourse to be as favorable as possible, they are a tiny fringe minority of opinion, and the number of sites debunking their pseudo-history is far greater than that of the actual deniers. Even young people are able to surf the web with great skill, and can easily see that the Holocaust denial position is fringe in the extreme.

Governments should not allow forums for hate speech to flourish  Denial of the Holocaust is fundamentally hate speech. It is the duty of the government to deny these offensive beliefs a platform of any kind. [1] By blocking these sites, the government denies a certain freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the market place of ideas. Many people, often Jews, but also members of other discriminated against minorities like Roma, suffer directly from the speech, feeling not only offended, but physically threatened by such denials. Holocaust denial however goes beyond hate speech because it is not only offensive but factually wrong. The attempt to rewrite history and to sow lies causes a threat to the truth and an ability to co-opt the participation of gullible individuals to their cause that mere insults and demagoguery could not. It represents a threat to education by undermining the value of facts and evidence. For this reason, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring the sites denying the Holocaust.  [1] Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Free Press, 1993.

Denying Holocaust-denier their right to speak is a threat to everyone’s freedom of speech. It is essential in a free society that people be able to express their views without fear of reprisal. As Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. As the facts are against the Holocaust deniers their opponents should have no fear of engaging them in open discussion as they will be able to demonstrate how erroneous their opponents are.

Holocaust deniers will always find ways to organize, be it in smaller pockets of face-to-face contact, clandestine social networking, or untraceable black sites online that governments cannot shut down because they cannot find them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push their proponents further underground and to make them take less public strategies on board. Ultimately, it is a cosmetic, not substantive solution.

The freedom of Holocaust deniers to use to the internet legitimizes their organization and message in eyes of consumers  When the internet places no moral judgments on content, and the gatekeepers let all information through on equal footing, it lends an air of legitimacy that these beliefs have a voice, and that they are held by reasonable people. This legitimacy is enhanced by the anonymity of the internet where deniers can pose as experts and downplay their opponents’ credentials. While the internet is a wonderful tool for spreading knowledge, it can also be subverted to disseminate misinformation. Holocaust deniers have been able to use the internet to a remarkable extent in promoting pseudoscience and pseudo-history that have the surface appearance of credibility. [1] Compounding this further, the administrators of these sites are able to choke of things like dissenting commenters, giving the illusion that their view is difficult, or even impossible to reasonably challenge. They thus create an echo chamber for their ideas that allows them to spread and to affect people, particularly young people susceptible to such manipulation. By denying these people a platform on the internet, the government is able to not only make a moral stance that is unequivocal, but also to choke off access to new members who can be saved by never seeing the negative messages.  [1] Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Free Press, 1993.

A ban would stop Holocaust deniers from engaging in effective real world actions  The greatest fear with hate groups is not just their hateful rhetoric online, but also their ability to take harmful action in the real world. When Holocaust deniers are able to set up standard websites, they have the ability to mobilize action on the ground. This means coordinating rallies, as well as acts of hooliganism and violence. One need only look at the sort of organization the Golden Dawn, a neo-fascist Greek party, has been able to develop in part through active use of social media and websites. [1] By capitalizing on the tools of the 21st century these thugs have succeeded in bringing sympathizers to their cause, often geographically diffuse, into a tight-knit community capable of action and disruption that harms all citizens, but particularly the minority groups they are presently fixated upon. By utilizing social media and websites Holocaust deniers have gained a new lease on life. The government can significantly hamper these organizations from taking meaningful actions, and from coalescing in the first place by denying them their favored and most effective platform.  [1] Savaricas, Nathalie, “Greece’s neo-fascists are on the rise... and now they’re going into schools: How Golden Dawn is nurturing the next generation”, The Independent, 2 February 2013,

While some people might be enticed by the mystique of Holocaust deniers as transgressors, far more people will be put off by the firm hand of the state denying them a powerful platform from which to speak. Even if some are enticed these individuals will find it much more difficult to access the information they seek and so only the most determined will ultimately be influenced. Some Holocaust deniers will always lurk in the shadows, but society should show no quarter in the battle for truth.

Freedom of speech certainly may be curtailed when there is a real harm manifested from it. Holocaust denial, in its refusal to acknowledge one of the most barbaric acts in human history and attempt to justify terrible crimes, is an incredibly dehumanizing force, one that many people suffer from, even if they do not need to read it themselves. We may have the freedom to express ourselves but that does not mean we have the freedom to make up our own facts. The threat Holocaust deniers represent to free society demands that their right to speech online be curtailed.

The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality  The internet is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted to the whole of the online community and then put to criticism and judgment. In the same way irrational beliefs like Creationism first found purchase on the internet only to be undermined and discredited by the efforts of online activists, so too have Holocaust deniers been forced by their presence on the web to justify their beliefs and submit evidence for scrutiny. In so doing the online community has systematically discredited the deniers and undermined their efforts at recruitment. By taking on a stance of net neutrality in the provision of internet and the blocking of sites, governments allow this process to play out and for the free exchange of ideas on which liberal democratic society is built upon to show its strength. [1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the state, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided.  [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007,

The organizers will go underground  A major risk with any extremist organization is that its members, when put under significant legal pressure, will go underground. For example The Pirate Bay, a major bittorrent file sharing website, simply moved to cloud hosting providers around the world to prevent it being shut down. [1] The power of the state to actually stop the development of neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier networks is extremely limited, as they will be able still to organize in secret, or even semi-publicly, via social networks and hidden websites. While their visible profile would be diminished, it would not guarantee any positive gains in terms of stamping down on their numbers. Indeed, when they no longer use public channels it will be ever harder for the government to keep track of their doings and of their leaders. The result of this censorship is a more emboldened, harder to detect group that now has a sense of legitimate grievance and victimhood against the state, which it can use to encourage more extreme acts from its members and can spin to its advantage during recruitment efforts. By leaving them in the open they feel more comfortable acting within the confines of the law and are thus far less dangerous, even if they are more visible.  [1] BBC, “The Pirate Bay moves to the cloud to avoid shutdown”, BBC News, 17 October 2012,

Denial of access adds mystique to their beliefs  By denying people the ability to access sites set up by Holocaust deniers the government serves only to increase their mystique and thus the demand to know more about the movement and its beliefs. When the state opposes something so vociferously that it is willing to set aside the normal freedoms people have come to expect as granted, many people begin to take greater notice. There are always groups of individuals that wish to set themselves up as oppositional to the norms of society, to be transgressive in behavior and thus challenge the entrenched system. [1] When something like Holocaust denial is given that rare mystique of extreme transgression, it serves to encourage people, particularly young, rebellious people to seek out the group and even join it. This has been the case for neo-Nazism in Germany. In Germany Holocaust denial is illegal, yet it has one of the liveliest communities of neo-Nazis in Europe. [2] Their aggressive attacks have only served to boost the movement’s mystique and many have flocked to its banner. By allowing free expression and debate, many people would be saved from joining the barbaric organizations that promote the lies of Holocaust denial.  [1] Gottfried, Ted. Deniers of the Holocaust: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Do It. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001.  [2] BBC. “Germany’s Neo-Nazi Underground”. BBC News. 7 December 2011,

Everyone has a right to freedom of expression  No matter how unpalatable their opinions may be, everyone should have the right to voice them. The very core of a free society is the right to express one’s mind freely, without hindrance from the state. When the state presumes to judge good speech from bad, and to shut off the channel by which the designated bad speech may flow, it abrogates its duty to its citizens. The government does this by presuming to make value judgments on kinds of speech, and thus empowering itself, and not the people, to be the final arbiter of acceptable speech. Such a state of affairs is anathema to the continuation of a free society. [1] With free speech the all sides will get to voice their views and those whose opinions have most evidence will win out so there is no need for censorship as the marketplace of ideas will prevent ideas without sufficient evidence from having an impact. Furthermore, the particular speech in question is extremely fringe, and is for that reason a very unusual one to be seeking to silence. Speech can be legally curtailed only when there is a very real and manifest harm. But that is not the case here, where the participants are few and scattered, and those who would take exception to what the Holocaust deniers have to say can easily opt out online.  [1] Chomsky, Noam. “His Right to Say it”. The Nation. 28 February 1981,  /19810228.htm

Forcing Holocaust deniers out of the spotlight and underground can only serve the cause of justice. Surveillance efforts can be employed more rigorously if need be, and will be considerably more legitimate to employ against these groups when their actions are acknowledged to be illegal. With them out of the spotlight they are less likely to rope in new recruits among casual, open-minded internet-goers.

Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and truth. Besides, the Holocaust deniers are not convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, which is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and legitimize themselves in the marketplace of ideas.

Is it really in the public interest that there should be a norm that government information should be shared? There are clearly some areas where we do not want our government to share information; most clearly in the realm of security, [1] but also where the government and through them taxpayers can make a profit out of the product that the government has created. If the government creates a new radar system for the navy does it not make sense that they should be able to sell it at a profit for use by other country’s shipping? Also, the abundance of piracy online is not a reason to submit to the pirates and give them free access to information they should not receive.  [1] See ‘ This House believes transparency is necessary for security ’

The default of copyright restricts the spreading of information  Current copyright law assigns too many rights, automatically, to the creator. Law gives the generator a work full copyright protection that is extremely restrictive of that works reuse, except when strictly agreed in contracts and agreements. Making the Creative Commons license the standard for publicly-funded works generates a powerful normalizing force toward a general alteration of people’s defaults on what copyright and creator protections should actually be like. The creative commons license guarantees attribution to the creator and they retain the power to set up other for-profit deals with distributors, something that is particularly useful for building programs that need to be maintained. [1] At base the default setting of somehow having absolute control means creators of work often do not even consider the reuse by others in the commons. The result is creation and then stagnation, as others do not expend the time and energy to seek special permissions from the creator.  By normalizing the creative commons through the state funding system, more people will be willing to accept the creative commons as their private default. This means greater access to more works, for the enrichment of all. The result is that a norm is created whereby the assumption is that information should be open and shared rather than controlled and owned for profit by an individual or corporation. All governments recognise a right to freedom of information as part of freedom of expression making it the government’s responsibility to provide access to public information [2] and many are enabling this through creating freedom of information acts. [3] This is simply another part of that right.  [1] ‘About The Licenses’, Creative Commons, 2010,   [2] ‘Access to public information is government’s responsibility, concludes seminar in Montevideo’, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 8 October 2010,   [3] See ‘ This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held by public bodies ’

The choice to release work into the viral market is a business decision creators should have the power to choose, not a mandated requirement for funding. Some may decide that they will profit and gain more recognition through releasing their work into the creative commons, others may not. It should be remembered that Ordinance Survey was originally mapping for military purposes rather than for the general public so it might very well have decided that there is no reason to have its data open to the public and it would pose no benefit to enable to public to use that data for modification.

If the public funds a product it belongs to them  Everyone benefits and is enriched by open access to resources that the government can provide. A work is the province of its creator in most respects, since it is from the mind and hand of its creator that it is born. But when the state opts to fund a project, it too becomes a part-owner of the ideas and creation that springs forth. The state should thus seek to make public the work it spends taxpayer money to create. This is in exactly the same way that when an employee of a company creates something presuming there is the correct contract the rights to that work go to the company not the employee. [1]  The best means for doing this is through mandating that work created with state funding be released under creative commons licenses, which allow the work to be redistributed, re-explored, and to be used as springboards for new, derivative works. This is hampered by either the creator, or the government, retaining stricter forms of copyright, which effectively entitles the holder of the copyright to full control of the work that would not exist had it not been for the largesse of society. If state funded work is to have meaning it must be in the public sphere and reusable by the public in whatever form they wish. Simply put taxpayer bought so they own it.  [1] Harper, Georgia K., ‘Who owns what?’, Copyright Crash Course, 2007,

There is a difference between the general public and the government. It is the government that bought the rights to the work not the people even if the people are the ones that originally provided the money to develop the work by paying their taxes. It can be considered to be analogous to a business. Consumers pay for the products they buy and the profits from this enable the business to make the next generation of products. But that the consumers provided the profit that enabled that development does not enable the consumers to either get an upgrade or for the product to be released with a creative commons license

Creative commons allows existing work to be used as a building block by others  The nature of the internet and mass media is such that many creators can benefit from the freedom and flexibility that creative commons licenses furnish to them. Creative commons provides vast benefits in allowing a creation to have life after its funding has run out or beyond its original specifications. Creative commons means that the original work can be considered to be a building block that can simply be used as a foundation for more applications and modifications.  For example in many countries government has for decades produced official maps for the country but these can only be irregularly updated – often with a new release of a paper map. However the internet means that maps could easily be regularly updated online by enthusiastic users and volunteers as things change on the ground if those maps were available under creative commons. This is why applications like openstreetmap or google maps (which is not creative commons but can be easily built upon by creative commons projects) are now much more successful than traditional mapping and has often forced government map providers to follow suit such as the UK’s Ordnance Survey making many of its maps free and downloadable. [1] It is important to recollect that those operating under a creative commons license still maintain control of the marketable aspects of their work and can enter into deals for the commercial distribution of their works. [2]  [1] Arthur, Charles, ‘Ordnance Survey launches free downloadable maps’, The Guardian, 1 April 2010,   [2] ‘About The Licenses’, Creative Commons, 2010,

The government should not be interested in the profit motive but what is best for its citizens which will usually mean creative commons licenses rather than the state making a profit. This is even more likely when developments are a joint project with a for profit operation; taxpayers will rightly ask why they should be paying the research costs only for a private business to reap the profit from that investment. The government already provides a leg up to businesses in the form of providing infrastructure, a stable business environment, education etc., it should not be paying for their R&amp;D too.

Government is quite simply not ‘like everyone else’. If government acted like a profit maximising business it would clearly have the ability to turn itself into a monopoly on almost everything. This is why the role of government is not to make a profit but to ensure the welfare and freedoms of its citizens.

Creative commons is not a good option for many government works  It is simply wrong to paint all government funding with one brush decreeing that it should only be spent if the results are going to be made available through creative commons. Governments fund a vast diversity of projects that could be subject to licensing and the pragmatic approach would be for the government to use whatever license is most suitable to the work at hand. For funding for art, or for public facing software creative commons licences may well be the best option. For software with strong commercial possibilities there may be good financial reasons to keep the work in copyright, there have been many successful commercial products that have started life being developed with government money, the internet being the most famous (though of course this is something for which the government never made much money and anyway the patent would run out before it became big). [1] With many military or intelligence related software, or studies, there may want to be a tough layer of secrecy preventing even selling the work in question, we clearly would not want to have creative commons licensing for the software for anything to do with nuclear weapons. [2]  [1] Manjoo, Farhad, ‘Obama Was Right: The Government Invented the Internet’, Slate, 24 July 2012,   [2] It should however be noted that many governments do sell hardware and software that might be considered militarily sensitive. See ‘ This House would ban the sale of surveillance technology to non-democratic countries ’

Creative commons prevents the incentive of profit  The incentive of profit, rather than a creative productive drive, spurs the creation of new work. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s work, the incentive to invest time and effort in its creation is significantly diminished. When the state is the only body willing to pay for the work and offers support only on these strict terms, there will be less interest in being involved with that work. Within a robust copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the fruits of their efforts will be theirs to reap. [1] If their work were to immediately leave their control, they would be less inclined to do so.  The current copyright system that is built on profit encourages innovation and finding the best use for technology. Even when government has been the source of innovation those innovations have only become widespread when someone is able to make a profit from it; the internet became big when profit making companies began opening it up. If the government wants partnerships with businesses, or universities that are not directly linked to government then it has to accept that those partners can make a profit. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas and to cannibalize the fecund ground of creative commons works.  [1] Greenberg, M. ‘Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains’. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.

Government, like everyone else, should be able to profit from its work, that profit benefits its citizens rather than harming them  We generally accept the principle that people who create something deserve to benefit from that act of creation as they should own that work. [1] This is a principle that can be applied as easily to government, whether through works they are funding or works they are directly engaged in, as to anyone else. The owners of the work deserve to have the choice to benefit from their own endeavours through having copyright over that work. Sometimes this will mean the copyright will remain with the person who was paid to do the work but most of the time this will mean government ownership. Public funding does not change this fundamental ownership and the quixotic bargain state funding in exchange for mandatory creative commons licensing is a perversion of that ownership.  The Texas Emerging Technology Fund is an example of the use of state funding in the private sector to produce socially useful technologies without thieving the ownership of new technologies from their creators. [2] Moreover states clearly benefit from being able to use any profit from their funding. It would clearly be in taxpayers interest if the state is able to make a profit out of the investments that taxpayers funding creates as this would mean taxes could be lower.  [1] Greenberg, M. ‘Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains’. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.   [2] Office of the Governor. ‘Texas Emerging Technology Fund’. 2012,

While there will be a few cases where it is undesirable that things that the government pays the funding for to be licensed through creative commons this should not stop creative commons from being the default choice. Creative commons is a good choice for the vast majority of what government does as weapons systems and other security related items are only a small part of government investment. Think of all the IT systems for government departments, it clearly makes sense that they should be creative commons so that they can be improved and adapted when it turns out they don’t work in quite the way they were designed. For example the UK government wasted £2,7billion on an IT project for the NHS, [1] in such a situation it would have made a lot of sense to have what was done open to others to pick up on and build upon if there was any of the software that could be of any use.  [1] Wright, Oliver, ‘NHS pulls the plug on its £11bn IT system’, The Independent, 3 August 2011,

Protestant churches, which do not require celibacy, are also having problems recruiting clergy. Worldwide, the number of new priests is increasing. Only the developed world has seen a decline in priestly vocations, although even here devout countries such as Poland buck the trend. A recent study showed that vocations were on the rise in dioceses in the USA that were loyal to the teachings of the church, including priestly celibacy.

Celibacy reduces the pool of people wanting to become priests  The number of priests in developed countries is on the decline. In Ireland in 2007 160 priests died but only nine were ordained to replace them. It is expected that the number of priests in Ireland will fall from 4758 in 2008 to 1500 by 2028. [1] As a result almost 50,000 parishes worldwide are without a priest despite the number of parishes not having risen with the increase in numbers of Catholics. [2] The prohibition on marriage pushes some men away from the priesthood. The requirement of celibacy drastically reduces the pool from which the church can select priests and means that the church is not always getting the “best and the brightest”. As a result even many within the church believe the demand for celibacy should be ended. [3]  [1] McDonald, Henry, ‘Psychological vetting of would-be priests exacerbates decline’, The Guardian, 11 September 2008,   [2] Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, ‘Frequently Requested Church Statistics’, 2011,   [3] Staff reporter, ‘European theologians call for end to priestly celibacy’, CatholicHerald.co.uk, 7 February 2011,

The priest is set apart from the world. He has a unique role: he represents Christ to his parishioners. Just as Jesus led a life of chastity dedicated to God, so a priest must offer his life to God’s people.

Priest have not always been celibate  While celibacy had been encouraged since the beginning of the church, until the beginning of the twelfth century, when it was banned by the Lateran Councils of 1123 and 1139, Priests in the Western church were permitted to marry. [1] The Bible does not mandate celibacy and, in fact, St Peter, the first pope, was married. Even today within the Catholic Church celibacy is not universal as Eastern Rite Catholics can marry and it is the norm that they do, [2] and there are some Lutheran and Episcopalian ministers who have converted to Catholicism. [3] The true history and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church include the option for priests to marry or at least for married men to become priests.  [1] Parish, Helen, Clerical Celibacy in the West: c.1100-1700, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, 2010, pp103-4,   [2] Brom, Robert H., Bishop of San Diego, ‘Celibacy and the Priesthood’, Catholic.com, 10 August 2004,   [3] Johnston, George Sim, ‘The Case for Priestly Celibacy’, Catholic News Agency,

The earliest church fathers, including St Augustine, supported the celibate priesthood. In the fourth century, church councils enacted legislation forbidding married men who were ordained from having conjugal relations with their wives. We do not know if any of the apostles, other than Peter, were married, but we do know that they gave up everything to follow Jesus. More importantly, Jesus himself led a celibate life.

Celibacy and paedophilia are not connected. Sexual abuse also occurs in religions where clergy are permitted to marry. Studies have shown that sexual abusers account for less than 2% of Roman Catholic clergy, a figure comparable to clergy in other denominations, or even less than in the wider male population as a whole. [1]  Sexual abuse in the church is undoubtedly a serious problem to be addressed, but not one that is linked to the issue of celibacy.  [1] Oddie, William, ‘Now we have real evidence – sexual abuse is not a ‘Catholic problem’, Catholic Herald, 9 August 2010,

Celibacy is outdated  Priestly celibacy is out-dated. It sets the priest apart from the modern world and the experiences of his parishioners. Originally, around 1100 the Gregorian Reform movement in the church was keen to enforce celibacy for fear that too many married priests would leave church property and benefices to their children, or create local priestly dynasties. [1] At the time these fears were reasonable and necessary to maintain the property and discipline of the church, but today they are utterly unnecessary.  [1] Thurston, Hernert, Celibacy of the Clergy Second Period, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.3, Robert Appleton Company, New York, 1908,

Celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional men into the priesthood  The prospect of celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional men to the priesthood. They hope that by totally denying their sexuality, they will not engage in deviant acts, but unfortunately they often cannot overcome their deviant desires. Permitting priests to marry would bring men with healthy sexual desires to the priesthood.

Protestant clergy, for example in the Episcopal church which has similar parish structures to Roman Catholicism, successfully balance their work in the church and their families. Were priests permitted to marry and have families, their families could serve as examples to others. In addition, marriage can provide a priest with increased social support and intimacy. Too many priests burn out through overwork and stress, having no one at home to support them and tell them its time to stop working.

Celibate priests can never experience the intimate and complicated marital relationship. They lack credibility when conducting marriage and family counselling. Married priests can better serve their parishioners because of their marital and family experiences.

Principles should be maintained even when it is convenient to change them  The Catholic church should not bend its principles for the sake of expediency. Many more issues divide Roman Catholicism from other churches (e.g. the authority of the Pope, the nature of the sacrament, even the wording of the creed). If the church accepted this change for the sake of convenience, where would it stop? Should women also be allowed to become priests? What about practising homosexuals? More likely such a compromise would see a further split in the church, as those who upheld traditional Catholic teaching rejected the change.  Look how the Episcopal (Anglican) church is falling apart over the ordination of gay priests and women bishops, including some bishops leaving the Anglican for Catholic Church. [1] In any case, allowing priests to marry would undoubtedly lead to a two-class priesthood, with many good Catholics continuing to feel that clergy who continue to choose celibacy are superior to those who reject it. That would hardly be a healthy development for the unity of the church or for the authority of the priesthood.  [1] Butt, Riazat, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury accepts resignation of Anglican bishops’, guardian.co.uk, 8 November 2011,

Celibacy allows a priest to devote himself entirely to his vocation  A celibate priest can devote all his time to his parishioners. A married priest must spend time with his family. Protestant clergy have balanced their work for the church with their family responsibilities only with difficulty. Many wives and families of Protestant clergy report feeling second to the congregation.

Celibacy grants an understanding of self-control  The celibate priest has a unique understanding of the power of self-control and the giving of self, which are key ideas in marriage. The celibate priest is in a very good position to counsel people on how to keep the marital vows such as fidelity as they have experience of keeping the much stricter vow of celibacy. [1] The priest is married to the church and can counsel couples and families using that knowledge.  [1] ‘5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them’, catholiceducation.org,

The insistence on priestly celibacy is one of the major stumbling blocks to church unity. Discussions with the Orthodox church (which has always allowed married priests) and protestant denominations such as the Episcopal (Anglican) church often founder on the different conception of priesthood held by the Catholic church. Yet there is a precedent for allowing married priests - in the 1990s when British Anglican priests who could not accept women priests left the Church of England to become Catholics, they were allowed to serve as Catholic priests despite being married. Changing the rule more generally would make ecumenical dialogue more possible and open the way to the healing of historic schisms in the body of Christ.

Many of the fiscal benefits enjoyed by married couples (e.g. child support payments) are not geared towards encouraging marriages in itself, but to promote the existence of the conventional family and procreation. Gay couples, unable to propagate society, should not be provided access to the benefits of marriage which are, implicitly, the state's reward for reproductive couples. 'Collecting a dead spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy' are just a few of the benefits a state provides to married couples 1. The aforementioned benefits should not be applicable to couples who are unable to provide anything in return.  1 Kolasinksi, A. (2004, February 20). The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Tech

Gay couples should be able to take advantage of the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage  To allow gay couples to marry would enable them to take advantage of the various fiscal benefits accorded to married couples in general. As Scott Bidstrup argues, a gay couple together for 40 years can still be compelled by law to testify or provide evidence against one another, something married spouses cannot be forced to do 1. Such antiquated laws take the discriminatory view that the love between homosexuals is artificial and extend it to encompass legal benefits. As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in a Supreme Court ruling, 'homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint'1. A gay couple's inability to reproduce should not prevent them from obtaining the benefits of marriage, benefits granted not to encourage or reward child birth but to recognize the bond between two loved ones.  1 Bidstrup, S. (2009, June 3). Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Bidstrup:

States cannot ask registrars to conduct civil marriages between homosexual couples that violate their religious precepts. How can a state that espouses multi-culturalism and respect for the faiths of its citizens thereafter declare it fair and impartial to ask a Christian registrar to conduct a homosexual marriage ceremony, and thereafter fire them if they refuse? That merely replaces one discrimination with another. In the United Kingdom in 2009, a Christian registrar was demoted to a receptionist after refusing to preside over the civil marriages of gay couples1. Ms Davies, the demoted registrar, said: "Britain is supposed to be a nation that respects freedom of conscience"1. That freedom of conscience is not respected in a state that can fire anyone refusing to marry same-sex couples.  1 Millard, N. &amp; Moore-Bridger, B. (2009, June 22) Gay marriage case registrar in legal battle. Retrieved June 24, 2011 from London Evening Standard:

It is discriminatory to refuse gay couples the right to marry  One of the last bastions of discrimination against gays lies in the fact that gay couples in many countries are at present not allowed to marry. Such discrimination should be eradicated by permitting gay couples to marry as a means of professing their love to each other. The contemporary views of society ought to change with the times; as recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some Americans could not marry, no-one would defend such a law now 1. Gay marriage is possibly, as Theodore Olson, a former Bush administration Republican suggests, ‘the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed 2’. To permit heterosexual couples to profess their love through the bonds of marriage, but deny that same right to homosexual couples ultimately devalues their love, a love that is no weaker or less valid than that of straight couples. As New York State Senator Mark Grisanti admitted when voting in favour of a 2011 bill, ‘I cannot deny a person…the same rights that I have with my wife’ 3. It is clearly discriminatory and reflects an out-dated view of homosexuality.  1.The Economist, 1996  2.Olson, 2010  3. Black, 2011

Marriage is about more than procreation, therefore gay couples should not be denied the right to marry due to their biology.  It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice, and infertile couples, who cannot conceive children, are still permitted to marry. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments. Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children, or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are evidently false.

Marriage is most certainly about raising children and has always been regarded as the predominant means of creating a conducive environment in which children can be brought up. As gay couples are unlikely to have children, there is no real necessity for the right to marry to be extended to them. It is true that many heterosexual marriages do not result in offspring, through choice or infertility, however the male-female relationship preserves the general rule of marriage: only between those with the potential for procreation1. 'Children have a valid claim to be raised by their own biological parents', to encourage otherwise is to undermine long-held perceptions about the right way to bring up our youth.2  1 Shell, S. M. (2004). The liberal case against gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Interest:  2 Somerville, M. A. (2003, April 29). The Case Against 'Same-Sex Marriage'. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law

It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.  1.Somerville, 2003, p.1  2.ibid.

Gay relationships do not contribute to the interest of the state in propagating society, therefore they should not be granted access to the legal and economic benefits of marriage. Furthermore, as David Blankenhorn argues, 'for healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other'1. In addition, Susan Shell believes that 'most, if not all, of the goals of the gay marriage movement can be satisfied in the absence of gay marriage'2. The presence of civil partnerships, potentially celebrated with the same festivities that surround weddings, could provide many of the same legal and fiscal benefits that gay couples currently do not have access to.  1 Blankenhorn, D. (2008, September 19). Protecting marriage to protect children. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Los Angeles Times:  2 Shell, S. M. (2004). The liberal case against gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Interest:

State registrars conducting marriage ceremonies could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples  The state is charged with the responsibility of both providing registrars to conduct marriage ceremonies and authenticating marriages certificates. If gay marriage was to be legalized, all registrars could be thereafter forced, by the state and their commitment to the law, to legally bind themselves to avoid discriminating between homosexual and heterosexual couples who ask for their service. All registrars who refused to marry homosexual couples could be fired. There could be no difference in the process or the paperwork required for either a heterosexual or homosexual marriage. The dismissal of discriminating registrants would have a legal precedent in the charges brought upon hotel owners who refused gay couples and adoption agencies who refused to deal with gay couples.

Gay marriage is good for society  Gay marriage has clear and tangible positive effects on societies where it is permitted. There are now ten countries that allow gay marriage, with no obvious or noticeable detriment to society at large. As Chris Ott reports from Massachusetts, one of few US states to grant gay marriage rights, ‘predictably, the sky hasn’t fallen…ensuring equality doesn’t mean there’s less to go around for everyone else’ 1. Further to that, gay marriage encourages gay adoption, granting a home and a loving environment for an increasing number of orphaned or unwanted children worldwide. The evidence also suggests that gay parenting is ‘at least as favourable’ as those in heterosexual families, eroding fears that the adopted children will be worse with gay parents 2 . The economist Thomas Kostigen also argues gay marriage is a boost for the economy, ‘weddings create revenue of all sorts…even if a marriage doesn’t work out that helps the economy too. Divorces cost money’ 3. Finally, and most simply, societies benefit from the net utility of their citizens, to allow and even encourage gay marriage ensures that those gay citizens wishing to celebrate their love are able to do so, in an environment conducive to their mutual happiness.  1. Ott, (2005)  2. Short, Riggs, Perlesz, Brown, &amp; Kane, (2007), p.25  3. Kostigen, (2009)

It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.  Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.  1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist

The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.  1. Sullivan, 2011

Gay couples can declare their union without resort to marriage  There are alternative means for gay couples to formalize their love without resort to marriage. In the United Kingdom, gay couples are able to form civil partnerships, which offer all the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage without the actual ceremony. Moreover, also known as the "love contract", the registration of the union of gay couples has been carried out successfully in countries such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Spain. Both of these would be avenues for gay couples to declare their union to the world. The practice in countries which implement this system is to allow registered couples to be entitled to joint insurance coverage and to allow them to file for joint tax returns as well as inheritance and tenants' rights. On the other hand, such a proposal makes no incursions into the sanctity of the institution of marriage itself, thereby proving acceptable to the religious sections of society.

Marriage is a religious institution, and the major world religions frown upon homosexuality  Marriage is historically a religious institution. As most of the major religions in the world (e.g. Christianity, Islam and Judaism) frown upon homosexuality itself, it would thus be unacceptable to extend the right to marry to gay couples. In Christianity, the Bible is clear in Genesis that marriage is between that of a man and a woman; ‘it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him…a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh’ 1. In the Quran, it is stated that ‘Allah has given you spouses of your own kind, and has given you, from your spouses, sons and grandsons’ 2. There is little room for conjecture with such statements; marriage, so finely entwined with the religious roots of modern societies, renders marriage an institution between a man and a woman.  1.Catholic Answers, 2004  2. Eldin, 2011

Marriage should be between a man and a woman  Marriage has always been viewed by society as the religious and/or civil union between a man and a woman, and has therefore always been regarded primarily as a heterosexual institution. It confirms the natural truth that marriage, as the traditional rite of passage required before procreation, requires a man and a woman. Barack Obama, whilst on the presidential campaign trial, reaffirmed his personal belief that marriage 'is between a man and a woman', one that he shared with the majority of candidates1. Indeed, marriage, throughout its thousands of years of existence, has only been used to describe the union of a man and woman, toward the general end of starting a family and raising children.  1 Elsworth, C. (2008, November 3). Barack Obama: 'marriage is between a man and a woman'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Telegraph:

Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage, leading to an increase in out of wedlock births and divorce rates  The legalization of gay marriage undermines the principles that have traditionally linked marriage and the family. Marriage is no longer viewed as a necessary rite of passage before a family is started, leading to a rise in out of wedlock births. As Stanley Kurtz discovered in a study of Norway, where gay marriage is legal, 'an extraordinary 82.7% of first-born children' in one specific county were born out of wedlock; he goes on to explain 'many of these births are to unmarried, but cohabitating, couples'. Yet, without the bonds of marriage, such couples are two to three times more likely to break up and leave children thereafter to cope with estranged parents1. The most conservative religious counties in Norway, in comparison, 'have by far the lowest rates' of out-of-wedlock births1. The legalization of gay marriage and the, often concurrent, ban on clergy eager to discourage the practise of out-of-wedlock only serves to undermine the institution of marriage; and it is the children that pay the price.  1 Kurtz, S. (2004, February 2). Slipping toward Scandinavia. Retrieved June 29, 2011, from National Review:

Marriage is not a religious institution, but an institution that has been co-opted by religion as the means by which couples declare themselves to each other for an indefinite period. As such, marriage has always complimented contemporary attitudes and institutions. Traditional beliefs regarding the 'sanctity' of marriage are now out of touch both with contemporary opinion on the matter and concurrent advances in human rights elsewhere. In Australia a recent poll found that 75% of the population felt gay marriage was inevitable, leading marriage equality advocates to claim 'the tide of history is running toward equality and nothing can turn it back'1. Furthermore, the fact that atheists and agnostics are free to get married, but homosexuals are not undermines claims that marriage is a derivative organ of religion.  1 Wockner, Rex (2011, June 16). Australians accept marriage equality. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from the Bay Area Reporter

The alternatives presented do not satisfy the rights of gay couples to equality. Gay couples can in many countries, where gay marriage is banned, register their unions officially however they would still not enjoy complete equality with married heterosexual couples in society. If they did, their union would be deemed marriage. As Theodore Olson points out, 'a civil union reflects a second-class status that fails to protect committed same-sex couples who choose to be married'1. Moreover, this would also fuel the idea that registered gay couples enjoy an inferior status to married heterosexual couples, thereby giving rise to discrimination all over again.  1 Olson, T., &amp; Schneiderman, E. (2011, May 16). The civil union bait-and-switch: Compromise is far from true marriage equality. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from NY Daily News:

Many people have been keen to wrap themselves in the trappings of religion just as they do in the flag or in the rhetoric of one political ideology or another.  Seeking to associate one’s opinions with one creed or another is the oldest trick in the ideologue’s book.  The fact that men of violence claim to be doing things in the name of peaceful religions tells us very little about the religions themselves. In the modern world they is no reputable religious leader doing so and those minority leaders who attempt to are generally condemned and ostracized by the principle leaders of their faiths.  Laying responsibility for violence at the foot of religion as a whole gives credibility to a handful of extremists – in much the same way that conflating patriotism and fascism would.

Because religion combines dogmatic certainty with the existence of the afterlife, violence and death is all too easy to justify  Particularly in the case of contemporary Islam, although other historical examples could be referred to, the combination of certainty and the promise of life after death is a sure route towards violence. That said, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland demonstrated this until recently; the Yugoslav wars between Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, both sides of the battle for Israel/Palestine and many others in history could also be thrown into the mix.  Allowing people the opportunity to claim that “God’s on our side” can be used to justify anything, especially when He appears to be fighting on both sides.

Secularism is a peculiarly Western European concern. In most of the world religious observance is taken very seriously. Denying people access to the guidance of religious leaders flies in the face of allowing people freedom of choice and conscience.  Secularists routinely, and somewhat arrogantly, insist that their voices must be heard but those of people of faith, despite representing the overwhelming view of humanity, should be silenced.  Equally where there are religious precepts incorporated within the law. One of the oldest systems of secular, state arbitrated law- the common law of England- is based largely on religious principles. For secularists to attack religious people for criticizing difference, when all they are really saying is that most people aren’t secularists, is the height of hypocrisy.  Most of the world takes religious observance very seriously and expect their beliefs to be respected by their international political leaders and others

Religious organisations tend to act as a reactionary pull on wider society opposing egalitarian reforms and developments  It is a basic tenant of all religions that they divide humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ – believers and non-believers. However, the divisions of society perceived by religious believers do not stop there, and have a tendency to reflect the social and moral views of an earlier and far less progressive age.  As well as condemning those who practice other faiths, or who choose to follow no faith, they have fought, and continued to fight, the expansion of the rights of women and of socially marginalised castes, among other social groups. All of the major churches and sects have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, and most of them are still desperately trying to ignore the existence of modernity. While justifying their political and moral positions through obtuse and deliberately obscure interpretations of religious texts, obscure texts even the mainstream interpretations of major religions are usually sexist, frequently racist and almost universally homophobic.  Preventing access to contraception is the single largest block to women getting out of poverty. There are many other examples of the excesses and double standards of mainstream religion – too many examples to pick one.

All of the major religions teach respect for others regardless of whether people agree with their lifestyle or beliefs. That’s a huge advance on much of secular thought – quite without the help of religious organisations, prejudice exists within the worlds of business, politics and science. It seems a little unfair to single out one area of life. At least religious organisations are based on the belief that everybody should be treated with respect, which is not a claim that could be made be most political creeds.  In addition there are few social changes that have not involved religious radicals at their foundation. Rightly or wrongly, major religious organisations tend to reflect the views of the societies of which they are a part. It seems unfair to blame the religious organisations for that.  It is also worth distinguishing between nations where one religious belief is wide-spread and almost normative in nature, and those where it is far more of a choice. If women or homosexuals chose to join a church in a pluralist society, presumably they are not expecting to be a priest.

Regardless of the protestations of some there is no major religion that has not been involved in persecuting non-believers at some point in its history and most still are  Although in much of the world the days of the crusades and the inquisition may be gone, there are plenty of nations were religious disobedience still is still punished harshly, summarily or extra-judicially. In other countries, semi-official militias are left to enforce the minutiae of religious law, although usually in such a way as to disadvantage women and others already persecuted in society.  It should be noted that what tends to be the focus of such persecution is a lack of adherence to an ultra-orthodox position. It is frequently a cover for political or social prejudice. Charges of heresy or apostasy are easy to level and nigh on impossible to disprove.  Even beyond these extremes, demands for religious observance play out in US elections and, inexplicably, the views of religious leaders are sought on areas where they really have no relevant expertise at all, such as advances in medical progress. Those who disagree on matters such as stem cell research or gay rights are, apparently, arguing with the Almighty.

Religious education frequently has more to do with indoctrination than anything else, as is seen in so-called schools where reciting the Koran or Talmud passes for education or in privately funded education in the UK and US where evolution is taught as ‘just another theory’.  In terms of tackling poverty, there is no doubt that many religious organisations- especially the Catholic Church- provide enormous quantities of relief to the poverty directly caused by their policies in the first place.  No single cause of poverty, especially among women, is greater than denying women access to contraception, closely followed by denying them access to education. As the woman is frequently the primary care giver, their poverty affects their children.

The simple reality is that religious organisations in most of the world are all too willing to involve themselves in ecumenical politics and issue declarations on economic matters. Equally, presenting the absurd and grotesque wealth and power of the world’s major religions as having anything to do with quiet spiritualism is, frankly, absurd.  In some circumstances, major religions can provide international perspective but, all too often, that simply means importing the most reactionary position available – African Anglicans on gay ordination in the US; the mediaeval views from Islam in the Middle East into discussions on the rights of women in European migrant communities. Generally this brand of internationalism simply reopens social battles that were settled a century and more ago in the West

Religious ceremonies and organisations provide solace and celebration for the great changes in life such as birth, marriage and death, there is democratic support for this around the world  At times of great need or celebration, religious communities and organisations are often the only organisations that seem fit to the task of marking them.  This principle applies both in people’s own lives, with the birth of a child or the death of a loved one, but it can also apply to national events. At times of great tragedy it is frequently the main religious community that is expected to sum up the mood of a nation and to provide explanation and succour. It is difficult to see how a politician, jurist or academic could fulfill that role so well.  It is interesting that although we may ignore the day-to-day role of religion in society and in communities, at moments of great trial, or great celebration, it is to religious rites that most people turn.

Religious organisations are by far the largest providers of charity in the world  Whether sending food support in famine zones, providing education, hospices or a vast range of other charitable activities, religious organisations are streets ahead. In addition they frequently are the only organisations willing to go into certain high risk areas throughout the world.  I addition in many sociogeographic areas, especially those of urban poverty, priests may be the only professional that many hundreds of people can access. Churches and mosques are frequently the only place of sanctuary and peace.  In addition religious organisations have historically been the first to provide education and healthcare with nation states following their example.

Religious organisations remind societies and the world that there are other important things in life beyond economics and that moral and other concerns should be taken into account in public life  In a world consumed by the belief that the only thing in life that genuinely matters is money, religious bodies serve as a welcome reminder that other activities- besides “wealth creation”- can be meaningful and valuable too. In addition to promoting morality and spirituality within society they have also, historically, been sponsors of great art and music.  The fact that religions are also international organisations bring perspectives that believers in some countries may find uncomfortable, but which act as a reminder of more universal truths – primarily, altruism.

It is an interesting defence of a position to note that people only really turn to it when they are emotionally vulnerable and their mental faculties are at their weakest. It’s scarcely a clarion defence of the benefits or religious observance or practice.  It is no doubt true that when we need an explanation for the apparently inexplicable- the death of a child, say- there is more comfort to be found in the ministrations of a cleric than that of a statistician. However that in no way makes the cleric, or their creed, right.  The cold hard truth is that personal and national tragedies do have logical explanations, it just happens that we may not want to hear them at the time. However, any other credo which used other peoples emotional weaknesses to push their view of the world and the universe would be treated with contempt. For some reason, religion gets a pass.

To weigh up human lives in this calculated manner inherently strips them of dignity and reduces them to mere numbers. This “aggregative” ethical standpoint, in which a loss of utility to one person can be compensated for by gains in utility to other people, fails to respect “the separateness of persons” [1] . We are all different people, and we do not all share in the alleged benefits to maximizing total utility. For this reason, our moral intuitions reject out-of-hand many variants on “killing one to save five”; for instance, we would think it abhorrent to abduct a random person and harvest their organs in order to save five dying people, even in the absence of side effects like people now being afraid of having their organs taken. Also, see “different lives weigh differently” argument below.  [1] Richardson, Henry S., ‘John Rawls (1921-2002)’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 18 November 2005,

A utilitarian approach will result in a decision that saves the largest number of lives possible.  Every time a life is extinguished, some amount of present and future good vanishes from the world. All the good things that that person would have experienced – joy, accomplishment, delight – will no longer occur. Similarly, all the beneficially effects they will have one other people, from productively working to loving their family, will also not occur. True, people also experience unhappy times, and they sometimes negatively affect others, but in all but an exceptionally small number of cases, the net contribution of a human life to total utility is positive (indeed, if it weren’t, we probably wouldn’t consider death to be bad). Even though there will be some fluctuations in how much each life contributes to total utility – a happy doctor probably adds more utility than a miserable meter maid – it is overwhelmingly likely that saving the five lives will result in a situation of greater utility than preserving the life of the one.

Behind the veil of ignorance, human beings may not in fact side with what gives them the statistical greatest chance of survival. As Rawls himself notes, people are naturally risk-averse, and thus will select the rules that protect them from the worst possible situations, even if that sacrifice would help many others. Most people find the prospect of being actively killed by the conscious action of another human being worse than simply dying in an accident, and would seek to protect themselves against that worse outcome.

The human right to life compels us to save as many as possible  We have good reasons to value keeping people alive: it allows people the opportunity to enjoy their time on Earth and effect changes to everyone’s benefit, even if that simply means being around for our loved ones. Most people would even go so far as to say that, by virtue of being conscious creatures, human beings deserve to live. That is to say, they have a right not to suffer an untimely death. This is the reason that we normally abhor killing: it cuts short human life. However, in this thought experiment, the inescapable reality is that someone’s right to life will be violated. Either the one or the five will die, and all the horrible results attached to the cessation of a human life will inevitably befall one of the groups. In light of this fact, our moral obligation is to reduce the number of people whose right to life is violated and maximize the number for whom that right is actualized. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and that is to kill the one and save the five.

The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect. “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure. In reality, people die all the time for a variety of natural and artificial reasons, and while we certainly think that these deaths are unfortunate, we don’t think that someone’s human rights were infringed upon every time someone dies in a motor vehicle accident. By contrast, we do have an actual right not to be murdered. When one human being deliberately kills another human being, we rightly see that as an exceptional and grave violation of a basic human right. Therefore, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to let the five people die, but it certainly does violate the right of putative sixth person to actively murder them to save the others. Moreover, it may be questionable to assume that all lives are equally valuable; if we are going to engage in the grisly business of actually summing up human lives, why treat someone who we’d expect to only live for another year equal to someone we can expect to live for another sixty? If the advocate of killing the one is going to adopt a “maximizing” ethical view, they should at least commit to a true utilitarianism, rather than a view that is not necessarily supported by either utilitarianism or deontology; treating all deaths as equal, regardless of much they cut a life short, is not something a utilitarian would get behind.

Assessing the value of a life on the basis of family members and how much the person is worth to everyone else creates a perverse priority on those with large families and many connections. To do so makes an injunction: position yourself so that you’re important and well-connected, and suddenly you get priority when we are deciding who to save.

Give a choice, all rational individuals would prefer to live in a world in which behaviour prefered the choice to sacrifice one to save many  While Rawls did oppose utilitarianism, he generated a hypothetical scenario that is useful, even to the utilitarian, for evaluating moral theories. Imagine that all human beings were placed in a scenario where they knew nothing about their station in the world, and know only the basic laws of reasoning and human nature. They do not know what their level of intelligence, personality traits, gender, socioeconomic status, race or religion will be, nor even when or where they will be born; they are “behind the veil of ignorance.” Every single person who will ever exist is placed in this situation at the beginning of the universe. Next, these human beings are told they will decide which rules will govern human conduct when they come to inhabit the world. In such a situation, all rational human beings would ensure that they are treated fairly no matter who they are; they will have perfect sympathy for every human being ever, because they could end up being that person. Whatever rules they come up with in this situation are the rules that are ethically correct, because these rules will never treat anyone unfairly (as that would be an irrational move). [1] So how would people in this hypothetical treat the decision whether to kill one to save five? Rational actors would agree on the rule to kill the one and save the five. After all, any given person is five times as likely to end up as a member of the five rather than as the one. Thus, behind the veil of ignorance, the rational human being would proudly prescribe “Save the five and kill the one.”  [1] Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University press, 1971, p.136

The harms related to a death extend beyond the loss of life  Every person who dies leaves behind people whose lives are made dramatically worse by the loss of a loved one. The average person, by continuing to live, helps those around them in a multitude of ways: love for their family, productive enterprise, and any philanthropic behavior in which they may engage. Out of sheer sympathy for the loved ones of the dead, and others who depend on their continued survival, one ought to minimize the number who die, and thus save the five.

Moral intuitions are even more unreliable than that. When the “kill one save five” dilemma is presented in the form of pulling a lever to divert a train onto a track with one person on it, most people say to do it. However, when it is presented as pushing a fat man onto the track in order to stop the train, most people say not to do it [1] . The two scenarios are morally identical; the only change is what physical act needs to be done in order to result in the one person getting hit by the train. This demonstrates that we cannot directly consult our intuitions on this question.  [1] Reiner, Peter B., ‘The trolley problem and the evolution of war’, Neuroethics at the core, 11 July 2011,

Consequences do in fact matter more. People ought to be morally judged by what occurred when they had the power to decide who lives or dies; fatal non-action is just as blameworthy. This is the reason why many countries, particularly those with a civil law tradition as is the case in most of continental Europe, have Good Samaritan laws creating a legal responsibility to provide help when one can. [1] Someone who stands by and watches someone drown, even though they could have thrown them a rescue line, is rightly thought of as being no less heartless than a murderer. As Sartre put it, choosing not to act is still choosing to act. [2] Moreover, defining an “active killing” is difficult; how direct must one’s involvement in the cause of death be to constitute a killing? A prohibition on active killing overemphasizes the physical rather than the moral aspect of the choice. Finally, an absolute prohibition on killing to save a larger number soon fails to square with our moral intuitions if we crank up the numbers: if the choice is whether to kill one person in order to save five billion, then almost no one would disagree with the act.  [1] The Dan Legal Network, ‘The Good Samaritan Law Across Europe’,   [2] Daniels, Victor, ‘Sartre Summery’, Sonoma State University,

We cannot make value judgments as to who should and should not be marked for death or for salvation  Different people’s lives may indeed weigh differently. Some people may go on to cure cancer, while others may become serial killers. However, we do not know who will do what with their future, and it is an act of immense hubris to perform calculations that presume otherwise. We could be killing future a serial-rapist in order to save future a philanthropist who funds Somali famine-relief, but we could just as easily be doing the opposite. We are in a state of incredible ignorance as to what these individuals will choose to do. It truly is to “play god”, and vastly overestimate our ability to judge who will be good for the world and who will be bad.

The act of killing can wreak immense psychological damage upon rational individuals  To know that one has actually killed another human being will haunt the moral agent forever. Instances of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for soldiers returning for warzones are increasingly reported, suggesting that a situation of killing very often warps the killer’s life [1] . This holds true even for people not directly and viscerally involved in killings, such as the incredible guilt felt by the team of the Manhattan project. [2]  [1] ScienceBlog, ‘1 in 5 Iraq, Afghanistan Vets has PTSD’, 17 April 2008,   [2] Long, Tony, ‘Aug. 6, 1945: ‘I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds’, Wired, 6 August 2007,

We should not will a world where killing is acceptable in to existencele in to existence  Knowing that we have agreed that there are situations where we can decide to kill others for the greater good makes us fearful of the prospect of others visiting such judgment on us (independent of whether such an act is objectively right or wrong). Immense psychological harm accrues from knowing that other people may actively judge oneself to be worth killing for an external purpose. Moreover, an acceptance of killing tends to brutalize society and make people more receptive to the idea of killing in general, which leads human beings to behave more violently.

Firstly, it may well be the case that we are indeed morally obligated to donate all of our disposable to charity; the longer one considers how many people could be saved with the money one spends on a flat screen television, the less acceptable the purchase becomes. However, there are also meaningful distinctions between the thought experiment and donation to charity. In the thought experiment, there is no one else who can possibly come to the aid of the five. This is distinct from the complexities of a global economy where there are other possible moral saviors and the path to saving lives is far less clear.

Utilitarianism is morally demanding  If we recognize a duty to actively go out of our way (and indeed, carry the burden of killing another person) to save another person just because it’s in our power, then all sorts of new obligations open up. For instance, we are now obliged to donate all of our disposable income to charity because we could do so and each save dozens of lives a year. The reason why some religious institutions canonize people is precisely because their philanthropy is exceptional and beyond what could be expected of the average person: people like Damien of Molokai, who traveled to an island to help people suffering from leprosy, knowing that he would eventually contract the disease in the process [1] . While such actions may be praiseworthy, it is implausible that they would be morally obligatory.  [1] Donadio, Rachel, ‘Benedict Canonizes 5 New Saints’, The New York Times, 11 October 2009,

Intuitively, it is possible to understand that participating in a decision to kill is a priori wrong  While simply consulting our moral intuitions case-by-case is not always reliable (indeed many people have contradictory moral intuitions), certain moral intuitions are needed in order to morally theorize. If a moral theory was impeccably well thought out, but prescribed actions completely at odds with our moral intuitions (such as advocating indiscriminate assault and robbery), then we would rightly dismiss it out of hand. When it comes to killing, our intuition prohibiting it is foundational and widely held.

All the same harms apply if the moral agent lets the five die. They still must cope with the knowledge that their decision resulted in deaths, in fact, more deaths. Indeed, PTSD is brought on by experience with horrific death regardless of whether or not the sufferer caused the death [1] .  [1] Martynowicz, Daniel, ‘Afghanistan PTSD Worse Than Vietnam’, News By The Second, 1 July 2010,

It is worse to actively participate in a death then to simply allow an individual to die  While people die all the time, it is exceptionally rare for one human being to intentionally cause the death of another, even for a perceived “greater good.” The difference is that when one actively kills, one causes the killing. They bring about something that would not otherwise have happened, and they set it in motion. What is key is the moral actor’s role in the very inception of the threat to the life of another person. Their responsibility for the resulting death is far greater than had they committed the same non-action as every other person who wasn’t present to make the decision at all.

The moral agent’s decision will not necessarily have such wide-ranging consequences. In many cases, the matter will remain fairly quiet (even if it is reported to the police). Furthermore, this is only dubiously a “killing” if one does not adopt a deontological take on the action; it’s simply a weighing of the benefits of who can be saved. In another sense, branding it as making “killing” acceptable is misleading, because this is not a moral license to commit wanton murders, but instead a sacrifice in a situation with no bloodless answer. Moreover, even if the decision becomes public knowledge, and is defined as killing, people will recognize that the circumstances of having to make this decision were truly exceptional.

That is exactly right: we cannot know who will be most valuable to the world, and to think otherwise is “playing god.” However, this is a point for side proposition; given that we don’t know who the really valuable people are, we ought to save the greater number because it statistically increases the chances that they will be saved. The only time this would not be true is if the average person had a net negative effect on the world, but if this were the case it would commit us to the implausible position that we ought to act in a manner so that the fewest people survive, which is absurd.

The words “under God” show no preference to Christianity. “God” can refer to the chief deity of any religion. The opposition does not accept that America’s history has a Christian state has any bearing whatsoever on the meaning of this statement.

Upholding of the First Amendment  The First Amendment is that the state “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.(Archives.gov) This prohibits favouring one religion over another.(Cornell University Law School, 2010) The use of the words “under God” in this way, particularly regarding America’s history as a Christian state, clearly shows favour towards Christianity, or at its most expansive monotheistic religions, over alternative religions or no religion, even without explicitly mentioning Christianity. (Newdow 2003)

It is undeniable that any change to the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with resistance from strong patriots who believe it should never be changed.  This change would be associated with and blamed on atheists and non-Christian religious people, thus causing animosity towards them on the part of people who would have otherwise been indifferent towards them.  National pride will, therefore, be associated with Christianity, as opposed to atheism or other religions, to an even greater extent than it is under the status quo.

Prevents the coercion of school children  It is key to this debate that school children are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each day. Although they have the opportunity to opt out, the proposition does not believe they have the knowledge necessary to fully understand the oath that they are taking. (The Humanist Society 2004) According to the decision in Newdow v. US "The [school's] policy and the [1954 Act adding 'under God' to the Pledge] fail the coercion test. Just as in Lee [Lee v. Weisman, 1992], the policy and the Act place students in the untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting."(United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2002) Children should not be put in this position so ‘under God’ must be taken out.

Separation of state and religion  The inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is representative of religion’s involvement with the state. The words under God in the pledge of allegiance were clearly government sanctioned as the words were added by congress with the sanction of President Eisenhower.(83rd United States Congress 2nd Session) When they did this congress, the state, was clearly promoting religion. The proposition believes that religion has no place in politics and so these two words should be removed.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

The opposition does not accept that children do not have the knowledge to understand the oath they are taking as it is said in plain words. The opportunity to opt out is a real and viable option for all school children.

True neutrality would be adhering to the status quo; this legislation will be seen as a wilful act on the part of the government to remove religion and faith from patriotism.  As a result, religious people are likely to feel sidelined and alienated by their government to a far greater extent than atheists are likely to feel included.

Removing under god would promote religious tolerance  Even if the proposition accepts, which it does not, that the words “under God” do not show preference towards Christianity, it is undeniable that it is widely understood that these words are a reference to Christianity.  This associates national pride with Christianity and presents other religions as inherently un-American. The proposition believes that this is divisive and promotes religious intolerance and that, therefore, this legislation would help relieve the tolerance and divisions caused by the current Pledge of Allegiance.

Prevents the marginalisation of non-believers  The inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance implies that there is no place for atheism in American patriotism and that non-believers have nothing to give to their country. The removal of these words would create a more inclusive America that accepts that everyone, including all non-Christians and non-believers, have something to give to their country. (Buckner 2002)

If the opposition accepts that the inclusion of the words “under God” is a state sanction of religion, then they cannot deny that their inclusion sidelines atheists.  The proposition believes that the status quo is inherently pro-religion and anti-atheists and thus needs to be changed. Religious people will not see a move to the state, which is supposed to be completely separated from religion, making no comment about religion as an anti-religious comment.

Tradition is not a reason for persisting wth anything!  The proposition believes that the fact that references to God are made throughout official American state proceedings is not a reason to persist in including the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance but a reason for its removal to be all the more urgent. References to God do not have a place in official state proceedings as the church and the state should be completely separate from one another.  "Under God" as us in the Gettysburg address, had different meanings then. It could mean "God wiling". For that reason alone the phrase should be removed from the Pledge because "one nation, God willing" goes against the whole point.

Associates change and, by extension, anti-nationalism with atheism  Any change to something as ingrained in American patriotism as the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with extreme resistance. As Supreme Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has argued “the Pledge has become, alongside the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner, our most routine ceremonial act of patriotism; countless schoolchildren recite it daily, and their religious heterogeneity reflects that of the Nation as a whole. As a result, the Pledge and the context in which it is employed are familiar and nearly inseparable in the public mind."(O’Connor, 2004) With it being so ingrained most members of the US public would not see any reason to get rid of the words. The change would be widely accredited to atheists and would create animosity towards them. This legislation, therefore, is inherently divisive.

Implies ultimate power on the part of the state  The words “under God” reaffirm individual rights of American citizens as divine and coming from above the state. These words show that taking away these rights is not even within the conceivable grasp of the state. Removal of these words puts power back into the hands of the state and reinforces the state as the ultimate authority over what happens to its people. (The American Center for Law and Justice 2004)

The American people would be against the change  As discussed above, the removal of “under God” will not be a move towards neutrality but a move against religion. As a result it is not surprising that the American people would be against such a move. An immense majority, 87% in a newsweek poll said the pledge should contain “under God” against only 9% saying no.(CNN, 2002) No democratic government should go against the will of such a majority of the population they are supposed to represent.

Likely to be seen as a state sanctioned condemnation of religion  After nearly sixty years of having the words “under God” included in the Pledge of Allegiance this legislation will not be seen as a move to neutrality but a move against religion. 78.4% of Americans are Christian with a further 4.7% believing in other religions.(The Pew Forum, 2007) Most Americans, 60%, think it is good for the country when government leaders publicly express their faith in God.(CNN, 2002) As a result the signal that taking out under God will send to American people is that the state is against religion.  Any modification to the Pledge of Allegiance will be seen as a wilful act by the current government; true neutrality can only be shown by maintaining the status quo.

The proposition totally rejects the idea that the words “under God” are necessary to indicate that the government does not have the power to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. The fact that the constitution exists and the government cannot contradict it is what means the government cannot act without consideration; the words “under God” add nothing to the government’s answerability and their removal would detract nothing.

“Under God” is part of American tradition and history  Reference to God is made throughout American patriotism. The Supreme Court opens by saying ‘God save America and this honourable court’. The ‘under God’ in the pledge itself came from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address a significant speech in American history.(Library of congress) It is impossible to remove references to God from American patriotism and to do so would severely damage American heritage and tradition. (Robertson 2002), (Federer 2003)

The majority is not allowed to oppress the minority, they would not be allowed to go back to slavery if they wished, in exactly the same way congress should not be able to establish religion even if the majority wants it to as it is against the US constitution.

Shows that the government values atheists as much as religious people and that one does not have to be religious to contribute to the state.  The proposition does not accept that people will regard atheists with animosity as a result of this legislation but will come to recognise them, to a greater degree, as people will an equal potential to give to America.

This argument only works under the assumption that we live in a society where divorce does not exist. If a person enters into a marriage without full awareness of what they have committed to and later need to get out of that marriage, they are free to.  Being able to leave a marriage, though, does not make marriage a meaningless charade, as the proposition claims. It is still more difficult to leave a marriage than it is to leave a non-marital committed relationship and so it makes a big difference.

Unreasonable commitment to expect of people  The average age, in the UK, to get married is approximately 30 years old. (Office for National Statistics 1999) Life expectancy in the UK is approximately 80 years. (Office for National Statistics 1999) This means the average marriage expects people to commit to maintain a certain way of life for a period that is longer than they have actually been alive. This goes hand in hand with the rise of social acceptability of people having more than one life partner in their life to show that either marriage is an unreasonable expectation of someone or a meaningless charade that is not actually expected to be maintained.(Cherlin 2009)

The purpose of marriage is not an eternal, unrelenting union, whether it is wanted or not. The purpose of marriage is to foster a more stable relationship than would be possible without marital vows. Therefore, the fact that divorce is becoming more common and easier to obtain does not undermine the institution of marriage at all.

Undermines same-sex couples and single parent families as legitimate ways of raising children  As explained in the first proposition point, one of the primary functions of marriage is seen to be to raise children. Marriage is therefore seen as the best way to raise children. This undermines same-sex couples and single parent families raising children.  The existence of marriage is essentially saying that same-sex couples and single parents are less able of raising children than heterosexual couples. Marriage, therefore, can be seen to promote outdated ideals that our society no longer holds and, as such, is itself an outdated institution.

Does not provide any more of a stable environment for child rearing than a regular monogamous relationship  The main objective of marriage is often said to be bringing up children in a stable environment. However in 2010 in the UK there were 119589 divorces; 11.1 per 1000 married population. Furthermore in the same year, the median duration of a marriage remained at a low level of 11.4 years.(Rogers, 2011) This clearly does not fulfill the initial basic aim of marriage as so many marriages end In divorce with the resulting splits affecting the children. In fact, a much more stable environment can be provided by a better relationship, even without matrimonial vows (Cherlin 2009). This relationship should not have to be through marriage; rather it would simply be a partnership in the way that many couples already live today.

Once a couple get married, they have made an official and legal commitment, which makes it more difficult for them to split up. This means that, irrespective of divorce statistics, adding marriage to a relationship will only serve to make it more stable and give the children of that relationship more security. Therefore marriage still gives benefits in modern society and is not outdated. (Waite 2000)

The idea that the existence of marriage undermines other methods of raising children is ridiculous. This is equivalent to saying that making it legal for same-sex couples to adopt undermines raising children as a heterosexual couple or as a single parent.  Some people choosing to raise children in a certain way does not prevent or inhibit other people doing so in a different way.

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.  The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

Frequency and accessibility of divorce undermines the entire purpose of marriage  With pre-nuptials, which essentially amount to pre-planning for divorce, heavily on the rise, and divorces becoming ever easier to obtain, it is clear that our society no longer respects marriage as a permanent institution. Serial monogamy is also becoming ever more common, with 50% of all divorcees in the UK going on to remarry. (Office for National Statistics)  Since the purpose of marriage has always been to foster a stable and permanent relationship, it is clearly an entirely outdated institution as it no longer leads to a stable or permanent relationship.

Marriage should be for all by Marriage is a religious institution in a society of declining religion  The proposition believes that they have proven that marriage no longer has a social or practical function. This leaves its only function as one of religious significance. However, with the percentage of people in the UK who identify as having no religion having risen by nearly 20% in the last 20 years and the percentage of people who identify as religious having dropped by approximately the same amount (British Social Attitudes Surveys 2007). Church attendance is even lower at a mere 6%(whychurch.org.uk). As a result there needs to be a new more inclusive institution that is open to all religions and those of no religion. It is clear that marriage can no longer perform this function for everyone in society.

If marriage’s main function is to protect against bereavement and divorce then it is essentially protecting against harms that it itself brings. Without marriage, bereavement and divorce would cease to be as serious harms as they currently are.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

Remarriage rate shows that even people who go through failed marriages retain faith in the institution of marriage  50% of all divorcees in the UK go on to remarry. (National Office for Statistics 1999) This shows that, although their own marriage failed, they retain faith in the institution of marriage. The fact that, even when marriage has failed to work for them once, many people wish to give it another go shows that it is still meaningful to society. If an institution is so meaningful and relevant to modern society in this way, it cannot possibly be outdated.

Marriage promotes a better way to raise children  Marriage promotes raising children as part of a monogamous couple. Without marriage, the frequency of single parent families would rise. Statistically, children who come from single parent families are more likely to live under the poverty line, more likely to be convicted of a criminal offence, more likely to become ill, less likely to complete every level of education and more likely to grow up to have low incomes themselves. (O’Neill 2002) Clearly then, marriage provides a lot of goods to children of married families, thus it provides goods in modern society and therefore cannot be outdated.

Marriage is an important institution to religious people  Nearly 50% of people in the UK identify as being part of some religion. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) Marriage is an integral part of most major religions, particularly Christianity, where it is one of the sacraments(Lehmkuhl, 1910) which are necessary for salvation (Vatican.va). which encompasses over 40% of the population of the UK. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) While there are still such huge numbers of people who practice religions to which marriage is integral, marriage cannot be outdated.

Marriage represents a legal bond which protects both parties in a relationship  Marriage has relevance to modern society in not only an emotional, religious and practical sense but also in a legal sense. According to Sir Mark Potter in English Law marriage is regarded as an "age-old institution" that is "by longstanding definition and acceptance" a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children. It gives many rights in areas like property rights and pension benefits.(Travis, 2011) A marital bond gives important rights to both parties in cases of events such as severe injury, bereavement or even divorce. An institution cannot be outdated if it retains legal importance in modern society.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.  The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Removes the transient and casual aspects of a monogamous relationship, thus giving a child a far more stable environment.  Marriage represents a commitment and a bond that is, although not unbreakable, difficult to break. This may not be appropriate for couples who wish to have a more casual relationship, however, it offers a more stable and official relationship, which is far preferable to a more transient relationship when it comes to raising a child. (Waite 2000)

In the last 20 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as religious has declined by 20%. This shows that religion as a whole is becoming less important and, with it, marriage is becoming less important. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)

The fact that 50% of all divorcees (National Office for Statistics 1999) go on to remarry does not, as the opposition claims, show that marriage is a meaningful and relevant institution but quite the opposite. What this means is that a huge number of people vow to spend the rest of their life with another person, forsaking all others until death do them part, on multiple occasions. This does not show that society still has faith in marriage, it shows that society no longer respects the institution of marriage.

Property rights are not fair: it is up to individuals to protect themselves in the sphere of relationships. Married couples have entered into a state-endorsed relationship which provides advantages (both financially in terms of taxes and inheritance, and through recognition and validation). It is reasonable for the state to require something in return: namely, that the parties are treated fairly, should that marriage end. Moreover, married couples are forced to share their property because they have chosen to commit themselves to each other. When people get married they know what they are signing up to and can therefore be taken to consent.

The courts have a duty to develop services that will meet the needs of society  Fairness requires that cohabiting couples share their property on separation: when couples have lived together for a long period (such as five years or more) they will have gained benefits at each other’s expense but also suffered disadvantages for the other’s benefit. If one partner gives up a career to raise children or support the other in their career, they are seriously disadvantaged upon separation. Where the other partner has gained as a result of this sacrifice, they should compensate the former, so that the two parties can move towards independence in equal positions. Parties may choose not to marry, but this should not have to cause such financial harm to one partner.

Marriage is no longer the only type of serious long-term relationship and the law should reflect this: the absence of property rights on separation for cohabiting couples sends a message to society that cohabitation is a less meaningful relationship than marriage. Marriage has strong religious connotations and was historically a vehicle for the oppression of women. It is consequently unsurprising that some couples may not wish to enter into the institution of marriage. These couples can still have long-term relationships which are just as stable as marriage. Legal rights would help to validate such relationships and recognise the reality of diverse family structures within society. Furthermore, the status quo can be seen to be coercive in that individuals, who may not want to get married, are forced to do so if they wish to have legal rights.

The status quo discourages interdependence  The status quo discourages interdependence: the absence of property rights under the status quo encourages unmarried couples to act as individuals, protecting their own financial interests, rather than supporting each other. In UK law, “their relationship with one another is not recognised as having any legal standing, and they have no special status in the eyes of the English legal system” [1] Individuals are usually more able to pursue their own ambitions when they have the support of another. For example, financial support and security makes it easier to take risks which may be economically beneficial, such as setting up a new business, or undergoing further education to improve employment prospects.  [1]

The absence of property rights does not prevent interdependence: the law does not prevent individuals supporting each other or taking risks. However, it requires that couples discuss such plans properly with each other and decide how they wish to structure their own relationships. Expecting all couples, regardless of their circumstances, to support each other financially is unrealistic. Furthermore, it is possible that at the margin some couples may not cohabit in order to avoid having to share their property. These couples will have even less support.

Property rights for cohabiting couples will undermine the institution of marriage  Property rights for unmarried couples undermine marriage as an institution, harming society. The societal shift away from marriage is harmful. Marriages tend to be more stable than cohabitation because of the greater level of commitment involved: the mutual support of a marriage is beneficial for individuals and can create a more secure environment for raising children. Because of the higher exit costs (divorce is difficult and time-consuming), married couples are more likely to resolve their problems than cohabiting couples who can walk away more easily. Giving legal rights to cohabiting couples endorses more diverse relationships, suggesting that marriage is less important. This is harmful as it is likely in the long term to further reduce the number of marriages, leading to fewer stable relationships.

Care can be provided without property rights: as with interdependence, the status quo does not prevent individuals reducing their income to care for others. It merely requires that couples discuss their plans and make provisions to deal with the need to care for children or elderly relatives.  i

It is unreasonable for the law to expect unmarried couples to plan for when they separate: people within relationships tend to be optimistic about the prospects of their relationships. They do not expect to split up, and most choose cohabitation to see if the relationship is going to work out at all. Making agreements about property at this stage can seem unromantic and unnecessary. USA Today writes: “For young couples who have never been married, cohabiting may seem like a hassle-free way of testing a relationship before tying the knot. And for those who already have been through a divorce, who have children or other significant assets, cohabiting may seem like a way to avoid costly legal entanglements if the relationship doesn't work out.” [1]  [1]

The creation of such a law would strengthen trends toward paternalist law making  When couples choose not to get married, perhaps because one party is not willing to do so, this does not indicate the same commitment to each other. Where there are considerable disparities in income or wealth couples may have no desire to divide their assets and the choice not to get married may reflect this. Those who desire financial protection can choose to marry but the state should not intervene when couples do not make this choice, beyond ensuring that provision is made for children. Such intervention undermines the autonomy of individuals within cohabiting couples because it suggests that they cannot make these decisions competently for themselves.

The current situation discourages altruistic in a relationship  The status quo discourages care for children and the elderly: a further consequence of the perceived need for independence is that individuals are less able to reduce their working hours in order to care for young children or elderly relatives, in case they suffer significantly as a result, for example if their relationship ends. Children who see more of their parents often develop stronger relationships with their parents which are valuable in later life when they need advice or support. In addition, studies show that it is beneficial for their emotional development. Elderly people, on the other hand, often feel particularly vulnerable and isolated and care from relatives plays an important role in maintaining their inclusion within society.

Legal supervision will discourage independent planning  The law should encourage people to plan adequately: individual people are different and one size does not fit all. If the state plans how your property should be owned, this fails to provide for each individual’s specific lifestyle and circumstances. An increasing number of couples enter cohabitation contracts (where they agree how to split property if they separate) and this should be encouraged instead of automatic rights.  That is why some countries (like the US) offer cohabitation agreements, which is s a written agreement that governs the rights and obligations of two people who are in a relationship and live together in a shared residence. [1]  [1]

Creating legal provisions for property sharing after the end of a cohabitating relationship in no way limits the autonomy of individuals. If anything, the status quo does that. It forces couples to either get married (which they may not want to do) or to sign a cohabitation agreement before the beginning of a relationship (which is a preposterous idea to most couples). By creating a legal way to handle disputes after the end of a cohabitating relationship, the state would offer a middle road between the extremes of marriage and signing an unromantic contract early on.

Intolerant schools are a problem because they don’t allow freedom of religious expression. In a free society, pupils should appreciate the different faiths of their fellow pupils and respect them. Without that respect, they may just end up going to separate schools which is even more divisive [1] .  As for safety, it also prevents some potential hazards such as hair getting caught in machines or flames, which when hidden won’t be a problem.  [1] The Economist, ‘Faiths and schools Religious rights and wrongs, 4 September 2008,

It causes problems in schools  Like in society as a whole, religious symbols are divisive. It marks some out as different from the others, which could cause bullying. They may also be impractical for PE, technology or science lessons where they get in the way.  Face veils also mean that people’s lips cannot be seen when they are speaking, which can cause problems with communication (especially with any D/deaf people who lip read). For this reason, a UK court considered it reasonable for a school to not permit a teacher to teach while wearing a face veil [1] .  [1] BBC News, ‘School sacks woman after veil row’, 24 November 2006,  . See court case listed higher up for full legal decision (resource for teachers).

No-one is in a vacuum – everyone has social pressures affecting what they wear.  Banning veils itself is divisive and will create strong reactions in highly religious communities [1] . Framing laws that only ban the veil could be seen as an attack on Islam, and lead Muslim communities to think they are being unfairly targeted. The result will be that they won’t co-operate with people of other faiths. This would be bad for society and make extremists more influential.  [1] Huffington Post, ‘France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws in Europe’, 4 November 2011,

The veil is a symbol of oppression on women  Face coverings in particular divide men and women. Face veil is seen by some as a symbol of the oppression of women, because in some countries it is mandatory, as was the case in Afghanistan under the Taliban.  When worn in Europe, with equality and democracy, it can be seen as a rejection of such oppression – this is why Belgium banned it [1] . Islamic dress rules are often stricter for women than men.  [1] BBC News, ‘Belgian ban on full veils comes into force’, 23 July 2011,

It’s not seen as oppressive by those who wear it – instead they see at as a way of preserving their modesty and privacy. Everyone has their own tolerance as to how much clothing makes them comfortable. It’s a personal decision that should be left to the individual.

It causes division within society  Religious symbols, such as the veil divide society. When some Muslim women wear the veil, it creates pressure on others to do so as well. Pressure comes from wanting to fit in, and pressure from other people in the community seeing those who don’t wear the veil as being somehow less religious.  Allowing it in schools makes it more visible to non-Muslims, making them more likely to perceive it as a core part of the faith. It then gives the impression to outsiders that Islam is more extreme than it really is.

A ban would be easy to enforce  As a face covering is very obvious, it would be a school to check to see if someone is wearing one. France [1] and Turkey [2] already have attempted such bans on headscarves, which do not cover the face.  This could be enforced by teachers, not police.  [1] BBC News, ‘French scarf ban comes into force’, 2 September 2004,   [2] Rainsford, Sarah, ‘Turkey divided over headscarf ban’, BBC News, 11 February 2008,

Each religious symbol should be taken on its own merits. Unlike many other religious manifestations, the veil covers the face, which has its own problems in Western societies because it makes it harder to understand someone wearing it. This is not about the religious symbol of the burqa but about the communication problem it creates.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]  [1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013,

It’s a personal matter – it doesn’t concern others  Wearing religious and cultural symbols are a matter of personal choice. Getting the government involved in such a personal matter is a breach of privacy. The Belgian ban has been unpopular amongst some people because those who want to wear it are being limited to staying within their homes. In France a ban on the burqa has led to increasing abuse of those who do wear it; 94% of victims of anti-Muslim physical and verbal abuse are women. [1]  [1] Irving, Helene, ‘France’s “Burqa Ban” Enforcing Not Solving Inequality’, Open Society Foundations, 13 April 2012,

It’s their culture and religion  Religion is intimately linked to culture and people’s identity. To many people who believe that religion, it is very important to them. In a society with respect for human rights, people are able to not just have their religious beliefs, but put them in to practice.

If you ban it, you have to ban everything else  If one form of religious symbolism is banned, it would be difficult to justify not banning others. If the government considers face coverings which would be seen as an attack on Muslims (while only a small minority of Muslim women wear them, they are not popular in other faiths apart from for specific uses). If the motive for such a ban is integration and uniformity, items such as the Sikh turban and potentially the Christian cross should be banned as well.

A ban on the veil is just a way of targeting Muslims  This measure would just be seen as a way of targeting Muslims. Religious symbols would be used as a way of singling out Muslims as a cause of division when any such problem is bigger than any one community. Muslims would be right to ask why the veil is banned while the Kirpan, a small ceremonial knife carried by Sikhs so potentially dangerous, is allowed.

Not all Muslims believe that a full veil is a necessary part of their religion or culture. On the other side must be considered a culture that believes in being able to see the people who you are dealing with. Communication is an important part of culture, and visual contact is an important part of communication.

The veil is a visible symbol intended to be seen by others so it is clearly not just personal. It could be used to conceal identity, for example in the UK a group of robbers disguised themselves in burqas to steal over a million pounds of watches in Selfridges [1] .  [1] Davenport, Justin, ‘Selfridges 'burka gang' detectives arrest five men in dawn raids’, London Evening Standard, 22 October 2013,

There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality of Christ. We must be on guard, therefore, against constructing any other ground for our identities than the redeemed humanity given to use in him. Those who understand themselves as homosexuals, no more and no less than those who do not, are liable to false understandings based on personal or family histories, emotional dispositions, social settings and solidarities formed by common experiences or ambitions. Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class race or nationality. At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or "a" heterosexual; therefore there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humanity in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation. [1]  [1] The Lembeth Conference 1998. Resolution I.10

Sexuality is an intrinsic part of personality  Sexuality is an indivisible part of personhood; people need to be able to express their sexuality openly in order to fully actualise themselves. It is wrong therefore to use sexuality as an individual metric by which they are eligible to become priests or not – they should be taken on the whole of their personhood.

Priests act as representatives of God towards members of their congregation, not vice versa. The argument against women priests is that, while women are children of God and part of the church, they cannot represent Jesus in performing the communion service simply because he was male. The same applies to homosexuals; they cannot represent Him in the same way. The rule against gay priests but not against gay laity is not hypocritical but merely reflects the application of differing standards of discipline.

Homosexuality exists in nature and is therefore part of God’s plan  Homosexual behaviour occurs naturally – both in humans and in the animal world, it has been observed in over 1500 animal species of all different types from mammals to crabs to worms. [1] It must be a misunderstanding of God’s plan to say that homosexuality is unnatural – it forms a part of the world that He has created and therefore must form part of His plan.  The substance of what the Bible says about sexuality is that what matters is having a stable and loving relationship, not who that relationship is with.  [1] NewsMedical, ‘1,500 animal species practice homosexuality’, 23 October 2006,

Infanticide is a part of nature, as is cannibalism. What separates humanity from the rest of the natural world is our ability to appreciate morality beyond ‘what is natural’.  One of the moral rules that God has imparted to us is that the only moral sexual behaviour is between man and wife. Other moral systems obviously take a different view of sexual ethics, but they aren’t relevant how a Christian Church should organise itself.

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Priests have to represent their congregations  Priests have a responsibility to represent the members of their congregations. A large number of Christians are gay, and they can receive better spiritual direction from gay ministers than from heterosexuals who do not understand their lifestyles or relationships as well.

The Church has adapted before, it can adapt now  The Church has adapted over the centuries on a number of social and natural issues as it seeks to re-interpret and re-explain God’s message of love in the terms of modern society. For example Churches have adapted to the problems that science has thrown up, even the Catholic church, often the slowest to embrace change did eventually agree with Galileo over the earth going round the sun. [1] The acceptance of homosexuality and admission of gay priests is a necessary next step for the Church today. There will be others in the future.  [1] Butt, Riazat, ‘The Vatican may be cosying up to science but it will never go all the way’, Notes&amp;Theories guardian.co.uk, 23 February 2011,

Catholic doctrine is not the doctrine of all Christian churches. It is right to say that ordination is a privilege of service granted to men deemed mature enough to be faithful to that service – which is why that decision should be taken on each person as a rounded basis and not as an absolute litmus checklist of issues.

The part of the Book of Leviticus which sentences homosexuals to death also: permits polygamy, bans tattoos, prohibits eating meat that isn’t well-cooked, prohibits eating rabbits, pigs or some forms of seafood, and prohibits the wearing of clothes made of blended textiles (such as polyester). Most Christians accept that parts of the Bible were written according to the out-dated social opinions of the time and can be taken lightly. The only New Testament comments about homosexuality come from the moralising apostle Paul; there is nothing directly from Jesus, in the Gospels themselves.

The Church condemns all sex outside of marriage, hetero or homosexual in nature  There can be no doubt that the Bible and Jesus strongly condemn sex outside of Christian marriage (or ‘fornication’). Indeed for much of Christian history sex even within marriage has been seen as a necessary evil that should only be for creating children, as a result priests, monks and nuns had to be celibate. [1] Although Jesus spent time in the company of adulterers, He loved "the sinner, not the sin" - and ordered them to cease their behaviour. His response to homosexuals would have been just as unequivocal.  [1] Bacchiocchi, Samuele, ‘Marriage and Sex’, The Marriage Covenant: A Biblical Study on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,

Ordination is not a right.  Ordination is a privilege of service granted to men deemed mature enough in all aspects of their lives to be able to be faithful to that service  It is Catholic doctrine that Homosexuals are incapable of perceiving human nature as God as created it, consisting of male and female persons meant for mutual attraction, complementarity, and, God-willing, marriage and children.  Instead, they see members of their own gender as mutually attractive in a sexual sense. They do not see females as such. In other words, they do not see or experience objective reality. Since this is so, it follows that homosexual priests possess a serious handicap which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to serve well as ordained ministers. [1]  [1] Abbott, Matt C., ‘Three priests speak on ‘gay priest’ ban’. September 2005.

Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible  Homosexuality is "a grievous sin" in the Bible (Gen 18:20), a capital crime (Lev 20:13), and punishable by exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor 6:9-10). Christians - especially priests - must accept the Bible as the ultimate authority. Christian ministry is therefore incompatible with homosexuality. Jesus was a radical teacher and overturned Jewish tradition where He saw it was necessary to do so; His silence on homosexuality indicates that He saw no need in this case.

Condemning homosexuality as sex outside marriage is unfair, since it is the Christian church which does not offer the right of marriage to gays and lesbians. If it were to do so, they could enjoy sex within loving relationships, sanctified by the Church, just as heterosexuals do. Jesus’ main teaching was clear - "love your God and love your neighbour" - and there is clear difference between adultery and homosexuality in this respect; the former causes pain and has a victim (the betrayed partner), the latter can be a purely loving relationship.

The appreciation for complex life by all reasoning should be universal among intelligent species. It seems intelligent life is a rarity in the Universe, and thus it would be unlikely for any civilization, no matter how advanced beyond our own, not to appreciate the advent of complex life on Earth and the value of humanity, flawed and inferior as it might appear to them1. The time energy necessary to traverse the stars in order to reach Earth would only be worth spending if it were to a peaceful end. War would yield only the resources of this small planet, hardly the spoils worth an interstellar war, however one-sided it might prove. Human civilization, as short as its span has been, has developed far in terms of both physical and social sciences. The wealth of knowledge that might be had from contacting extraterrestrials is too great an opportunity to pass up. 1 Sagan, Carl. 1973. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press.

There is no way to prevent attempts at contact so they should be official.  There is no way for us to attempt to prevent everyone in the planet from trying to contact aliens so the attempts might as well be done officially. There are more than 6 billion people on Earth, we cannot control their actions or keep an eye on them all. If we had no official messages going out then we would be allowing private individuals to monopolize the message which could have consequences if there ever is contact as a result of these attempts1. At the same time we can't just turn off all our communication signals. We have been broadcasting our radio and television shows, mobile phone conversations etc. for decades, how would we just shut it all off and make sure nothing leaks further out to space? It is therefore better for governments who are at least the representatives of their people to be controlling the message by themselves attempting to contact extraterrestrial life. 1  "&gt;Drezner, Daniel, 'How do you say "realpolitik" in Klingon?' ForeignPolicy.com, 25th April 201

Certainly there are many concerns on Earth that must be addressed if mankind hopes to survive. Pollution and climate change are real threats that deserve a great deal of attention from all governments around the world, since everyone is affected. This attention, however, does not need to exclude from the agenda the effort to contact extraterrestrials. Rather, states can focus on more than one science-based issue at a time. It is rather disingenuous, in fact, to suggest that it is a matter of one or the other. Furthermore, the international unity created by mankind's collective search for intelligent life in space, binding people not as members of separate nations, but as members of the human race, can serve as a means of promoting unified action on issues affecting the whole planet. Space exploration and the search for intelligent life among the stars can thus actually help to ameliorate coordination problems between states in their efforts to deal with global issues. Clearly, when people think of themselves as citizens of the world they are more ready to think globally and consider issues affecting other countries. The search for extraterrestrials is a very real means of promoting such thinking.

The effort to contact extraterrestrial life causes humans around the world to think of themselves as one community, with an identity and purpose that transcends borders:  Space exploration fosters a general sense of internationalism. For example, in no endeavor have scientists from around the world more readily worked together than in the development of the International Space Station and other space-related enterprises. Looking beyond the Earth serves to unite humanity in a way nothing else can1. When the Apollo astronauts first transmitted images of the Earth back to the waiting masses, the sight of that tiny blue-white marble suspended in the vast void profoundly changed the way many people viewed themselves. There was for the first time a sense of oneness, of citizenship of this island Earth. In the transmissions beamed into space in hopes of contacting extraterrestrials, the messages are emissaries of the entire human race. In this way space exploration actually gives mankind a transcendent purpose, promoting peace and understanding among nations that no amount of conventional diplomacy can create. Further to this, in seeking to be representative of all humanity, the formers of messages to be sent into space must actively ask the question of what it is to be human. In seeking an answer, people foster greater understanding of one another and of the oneness of human existence.  1 Van de Hulst, H. 1961. "International Space Cooperation". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 17(5).

Space exploration produces many valuable technological innovations that benefit all of human society:  Space exploration and research have resulted in many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program1. The technological advances produced by the space program would not have been possible were it not for the intensity of focus on the paradigm of exploration. That same paradigm has come to permeate scientific enquiry generally, pushing scientists to seek new answers and to develop new technologies. So long as mankind keeps pushing the barriers of its own knowledge, it will never stagnate, and human understanding of the Universe will continue to grow. Should humanity, however, take an insular view of itself and turn back on a history of pushing of boundaries, the paradigm of progress might dissolve as well. 1 Coalition for Space Exploration. 2010. "Benefits of Space

The benefits accrued from spin-off technology resulting from space exploration are generally overstated. NASA, for example, had claimed that protein crystals could be grown in zero gravity that could fight cancer, as well as numerous other claims of benefits. Most of these benefits have never materialized. With all the billions of dollars wasted on space exploration and trying to contact extraterrestrials, most of the spin-off technologies could likely have been created independently, given the resources, and probably at lower overall expense. As to the paradigm of exploration, efforts to explore parts of space, as well as our own planet would continue. The paradigm is not shattered by the choice to take a cautious approach toward extraterrestrial life, which is likely a waste of effort anyway.

The search for extraterrestrial life does not solve the problem of the human propensity toward group distinctions. Even if such projects succeeded in fostering a sense of universal humanity, it only does so at the cost of creating a new in group-out group dynamic, namely humans defining themselves against the out group that is extraterrestrial life. Such redefinition of identity could cause serious problems in the extremely unlikely event that humans ever actually do make contact with extraterrestrial life.

Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and the search for alien life is part of mankind's exploration of the Universe:  Human history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known1. Mankind's place is among the stars, and what lies beyond the Earth will also fascinate the human imagination. Nothing is so exciting as the pursuit of other life, other beings with whom to share the knowledge of mankind and the wisdom of the cosmos. Governments should not try to slow Man's progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human. Truly, the quest to discover and contact life amongst the stars is a pursuit of truth and understanding. To not pursue such knowledge is to deny truth itself. 1 Dick, Steven. 2009. "Why We Explore". NASA. Available Why_We_/Why_We_05.html

The knowledge and technology to be gained from interaction with extraterrestrials is potentially limitless:  Humanity has built, in the relatively few millennia since formal writing was invented, compiled a truly gigantic quantity of information and knowledge, to which it is constantly adding, at increasingly rapid rates. To imagine the treasure trove of knowledge and experience that would become available to humanity in the event of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life of similar, or even greater, technological and social development is almost impossible1. The wisdom that could be gained, especially considering that alien life would likely have evolved along very different lines than humans, could be of a kind that mankind could never have conceived without such contact. This great potential for the gaining of knowledge is reason enough to devote resources to the effort of making contact. 1 Sagan, Carl. 1973. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press.

There is no need for us to be searching for alien life to be exploring the universe. The dream of contacting aliens seems to be an example of humanity's dreams gone awry. Earth's beamed messages and questing probes have for their efforts received no return signal. Surely if intelligent life were near enough to have received our signals, they would have replied. Alternatively, if they are too far away, there is no physical means by which they could ever reach Earth, due to the constraints of the laws of physics, which deny objects the power of reaching the speed of light. Furthermore, the value of the drive to explore itself should be questioned, since humanity's track record on the subject is far from stellar; the abysmal treatment of the Native Americans by European settlers, for example, shows that the will to explore can come with terrible costs.

It seems unlikely that humans would not be able to survive a great change of circumstance. The human mind is quite resilient, and while the change in how people viewed themselves and the Universe would likely change substantially, it might well be for the better. In fact, discovery of extraterrestrials might help free people from the shackles of dogmatic religious belief, which has caused untold suffering to many through the ages.

Contact with an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than our own could lead to mass existential crises, putting the existence of human civilization at risk:  Almost every human belief system, religious or secular, is based on an anthropocentric outlook. Humanity is the collective center of its Universe; the cognitively aware being that can interact with physical reality not simply by impulse, but by self-aware, conscious agency. Human belief in itself is based upon its conception of dominion over the physical world. Mankind shapes its own environment; while weaker, slower, and smaller than many other species, the intelligence of Man makes Him the apex predator. Mankind's image of itself is compromised by the existence of other intelligent life, especially more advanced intelligent life. It seems that most religious belief systems could not effectively survive with such knowledge, since the existence of intelligent, advanced extraterrestrials seems to imply the nonexistence of a creator God with any active interest in humanity over any other species1. The realization that we are not the center of the Universe could shake many people to their cores, particularly the religious, many of whom would likely find great difficulty coming to terms with that reality. It would be better that humans not seek out such revelations about the Universe. If intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the Universe, better not to invite it to Earth. The cost to people's beliefs and sense of being is too high. 1 Peters, Ted. 2011. "The Implications of the Discovery of Extra-Terrestrial Life for Religion". Philosophical Transactions of the

The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones:  The Earth is faced with many problems that people should be focusing their efforts on addressing, not on the stars and what may or may not be out there. Global warming, the destruction of ecosystems, rising sea levels, pollution, poverty, and resource depletion are all issues weighing heavily on states and the international community as a whole. Individuals and governments need to rally and fight these growing terrestrial problems1. The resources poured into space exploration and the contacting of extraterrestrials, which will likely serve no lasting purpose, would be better spent in combating the hundreds of serious issues facing the planet today. The search for extraterrestrials serves only as a distraction, keeping people's minds off the pressing concerns of the Earth. To make things worse, governments use manned space flight as a means of distraction quite deliberately. It is often easier to devote attention and resources to headline-grabbing endeavors like efforts to contact extraterrestrials than to address concerns like global warming, which requires extensive international coordination to a degree rarely reached in history. As is shown by developing countries like China and India having space programs while helping to block progress on climate talks and while they still have millions in poverty. Governments may find utility in keeping people focused on such grand projects while doing comparably little to affect change where it is direly needed. Clearly, humanity's concerns should be focused wholly on the survival of its home world, not on trying to get in touch with worlds that might not even exist, and almost certainly cannot sustain human life. 1 Carreau, Mark. 2009. "NASA Urged to Keep Feet On Earth". The Chronicle.

Attempts to contact extraterrestrial life are a waste of time and money:  Billions of dollars have been spent by a number of countries, principally the United States, on great projects seeking to make contact and signal extraterrestrials. None of these has received so much as a peep in reply. The reason for this is likely that intelligent life is an extreme rarity, with humanity its only exemplar in this part of the galaxy1. If there were intelligent life within receiving range of Earth-based transmissions, the extraterrestrials would have had ample opportunity to respond, or at least make their presence known. The fact that they have not suggests that there are no extraterrestrials within contactable range, or at least none with any interest in talking to Earthlings. If there were extraterrestrials on more distant planets, efforts to contact them would be pointless, as they would be so far away that communication would take many years and would be unreachable physically. Furthermore, the search for extraterrestrials violates reason. Money should only be spent on projects after phenomena worth analyzing have been detected. There is no evidence that intelligent lie other than our own exists at all. Trying to contact little green men in space is just a waste of time. 1 Ward, Peter. 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Philadelphia: Springer.

Extraterrestrials might prove unintelligible, or even hostile toward humanity:  Were extraterrestrials to actually be contacted, an unlikely event in itself, the ability to share in any form of meaningful communication might well prove more difficult than might first seem. The extraterrestrials will have evolved on a different world, perhaps along lines so alien to that of Earth's life that it would be utterly impossible to understand what they said, even if they could be heard. Language is built largely on frames of reference, and when an extraterrestrial, evolving on an entirely alien world, perhaps possessing an entirely alien thought process, and certainly having an entirely alien linguistic frame of reference, no level of communication might be possible. With no conceptual similarities or cognitive common ground, the potential for sharing knowledge between species would likely prove impossible to decipher. They could simply be too alien. Furthermore, the hope that technologically advanced extraterrestrials would be friendly towards humanity is entirely unfounded. They might well prove hostile, and if they are more technologically advanced, they could prove an existential threat to the survival of mankind1. This is especially true if the extraterrestrials were actually capable of physically reaching Earth, which would require an understanding of physics and engineering centuries ahead of that of mankind. Welcoming such creatures to Earth could well spell ruin for humanity, as so advanced a civilization might well consider humanity to be of no higher an order of life than we might consider insects. It is far better than humanity not make such a habit of broadcasting its position. It could prove dangerous, especially if the Universe is not as friendly a place as scientists hope.  1 Brin, David. 2006. "Shouting at the Cosmos". Lifeboat Foundation.

The potential for sharing of knowledge, were extraterrestrials to actually be contacted, might well be more limited and difficult than might first seem. The extraterrestrials will have evolved on a different world, perhaps along lines so alien to that of Earth's life that it would be utterly impossible to understand what they would have to say, even if they could be heard. They could simply be too alien. There is no reason to believe that any aliens are going to benevolent they could very well be hostile. (Brin, 2006) We should not therefore be attempting to contact aliens to share technology rather we should be focusing on advancing our own technology. 1 Brin, David. 2006. "Shouting at the Cosmos". Lifeboat Foundation.

Just because efforts to contact extraterrestrials to date have proven unsuccessful does not mean they are not out there. In fact, as communications technology develops over time, humans' ability to project messages and to receive them will increase manifold. Extraterrestrial transmissions could well be beaming toward Earth, but humans might simply lack the capacity to receive them. There could be an interplanetary conversation happening right now, and no one would even know (Sagan, 1973). Only by pushing the boundaries of science and of human imagination can such technological improvements arise. The paradigm of exploration must be maintained with the scouring for life amongst the heavens.

While ISPs are private firms, they perform a public service. They have a special duty in society as providers of information not to bias that information through private censorship policies. When they embark on any form of site-blocking, ISPs cease to be doing their job. Governments should maintain that ISPs act as neutral gatekeepers of information and not take up the role of ad hoc censor. Moreover this would be different from filtering adult content as that is a service that is provided if the subscriber wishes it, if this was the case with extremist content then such a block would be useless as those interested in extremist content would just opt for packages that do not restrict access.

ISPs are private service providers and should thus be able to have some filters on the most extreme spectrums of extremism  ISPs are ultimately private providers of a service. Because of this they should retain the right to restrict that service to certain groups. So long as ISPs make public their policy for what constitutes extremism so that consumers can decide if they want to opt into it, there is no real issue. There are many filters available to users to screen out certain materials already, for example internet providers offer customers the option to block adult content, [1] and this is merely an extension of this approach. Businesses must be able to sort their own ethos. Some ISPs may not opt to use this power given to them by the state, but others may not wish to carry content they consider dangerous. Because extremism is on the very fringe of speech and opinion, and because of the potential dangers that can arise from it, it is only right that the state give some ability to ISPs to block objectionable content.  [1] BBC News, “Internet providers offer parents bar on porn” 11 October 2011,

While it is true that extremists seek to undermine and bend the systems of discourse to be as favorable as possible, they are a tiny fringe minority of opinion, and the number of sites challenging their skewed narrative is far more numerous. Even young people are able to surf the web with great skill, and can easily see that the extremist view is fringe in the extreme. There is also little evidence that preventing access to some sites would make it more difficult for extremists, when large numbers of jihadi websites went offline in 2012 discussion simply moved elsewhere and leaders emphasized recruiting more people offline. [1]  [1] Zelin, A. et al. “The State of Global Jihad Online”. New America Foundation. January 2013.  /Zelin20130201-NewAmericaFoundation.pdf Pp.10, 15

ISPs are better placed than governments to make decisions on when and who to block  As the access providers for the internet ISPs are best placed to implement policies for blocking extremist sites and so are the natural option for deciding when and which sites to block. Furthermore, because the state is often slow due its extensive bureaucracy, it is less able to respond with alacrity to extremist sites popping up online. ISPs on the other hand are likely to be able to act as soon as they are informed of the existence of a website whereas working through government would simply add an extra layer of requests and orders. The ISPs blocking the site also creates a fire break between the state and the action so not giving the extremists the ammunition that state intervention might give them. Essentially, the good result of eliminating these sites from public access is accomplished faster, more effectively, and with lesser backlash than if any other agent did the blocking.

The freedom of speech can be curtailed when it represents a serious threat to society  Freedom of speech certainly may be curtailed when real harms can be shown to arise from it. Extremist sites serve as centers of dangerous dissent, whose members threaten all of society. They promote a message that is fundamentally bad speech, because it cannot it cannot be argued with and promotes aims that are so anathema to free society that its dissemination represents a true threat to people’s safety. The threat extremists represent to free society demands that their right to speech online be curtailed. [1] By blocking these sites, ISPs certainly are denying some freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the global commons. Thus, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring extremist websites.  [1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009.

Denying extremists their right to speak threatens everyone’s freedom of speech. It is essential in a free society that people should be able to freely express their views without fear of reprisal, however extreme or unsavory their views are. If you value free speech you must be willing to defend that right for everyone, even for those you find repugnant.

Putting the power to censor the internet, no matter how stringent or specific the guidelines, into the hands of a private organization is misguided. It is the state not individual ISPs who are needed to assess how dangerous a site is, whether it is actually promoting extremism, and ultimately make a decision as to whether a site needs to be blocked. The ISPs may end up being the actors that implement the policy but it has to be government that decides which websites to block and why. This also means that the decision would be much more centralised. Leaving this decision to the discretion of individual ISPs will mean that some websites will be blocked on some ISPs and not on others. Only government can ensure that there is consistency.

Extremist groups will always find ways to organize direct actions, be it via in-person meetings, furtive use of social networking tools, or even by using untraceable black sites online that ISPs cannot block because they cannot see them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push the extremists further underground.

It makes it more difficult for extremists to organize and spread their message when blocked  The ISPs are the gatekeepers of information. When the internet places no moral judgments on content and the ISPs let all information through without commentary, it lends an air of permissiveness to the beliefs put forward, that they are held by reasonable people. The internet is a great tool for education, but also one that can be used to sow misinformation and extreme rhetoric. Extremist groups have been able to use the internet to a remarkable extent in promoting their beliefs and recruiting new members. Worse still, the administrators of these extremist sites are able to choke of things like dissenting commenters, giving the illusion that their view is difficult, or even impossible to reasonably challenge. In doing so they create an echo chamber for their ideas that allows them to spread and to affect people, particularly young people susceptible to such manipulation. The best example of this activity is in the international jihadist community and its reaching out to people in the West. Young disaffected Muslims have received an introduction to militant Islamism from sites often based abroad, but also some domestically, increasing the number of believers in an extreme, militant form of that religion. [1] By denying these people a platform on the internet, ISPs are able to not only make a moral stance that is unequivocal, but also to choke off access to new members who can be saved by never seeing the negative messages.  [1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009.

Blocking these sites makes it more difficult for extremist groups to coordinate extremist action in the real world  The greatest fear people have about extremist groups is not their rhetoric, but the actions the rhetoric precipitates. Extremists have proven adept at setting up basic websites through which to build communities to organize and coordinate extreme actions. This means in the most limited form the coordinating of extremist demonstrations and rallies, but also violent and terrorist actions. The best example of this is As-Sahab, al-Qaeda’s media arm, which has used an extensive web presence to galvanize supporters and to coordinate terrorist attacks. [1] In using the tools of the mass media extremists have succeeded in bringing supporters to their cause, people who are often geographically diffuse, into a close community capable of action and disruption that harms all citizens. If blocking these websites entirely ISPs would pose a significant barrier to these extremist groups organising. Even more damaging to these networks in the long terms would be the drop in recruitment due to a reduction in their reach. ISPs can significantly hamper these organizations from ever embarking on serious violent actions, and from coalescing in the first place by denying them their most effective springboard. The most important effect is in the prevention of radicalization in the first place. Preventing, or at least hampering access to extremist materials serves to keep impressionable, swayable people from experiences that might turn them to extremism. [2]  [1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009.   [2] Silber, M. and Bhatt, A., “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat” The New York City Police Department, 2007.  p.83

The ISPs would not be defining the parameters of what constitutes extremism; they would simply be interpreting the parameters that are given to them by government. They do not need to gauge the extent of the harm from a site simply determine whether it falls within the kind of site they are to be blocking. There would be no expectation that the ISPs would need to work out complex cost-benefit analyses. ISPs, as the purveyors of the internet are perfectly capable of policing their own service, and are well-placed to do so because they manage the software that feeds the internet service. Furthermore, as private agents providing a service, they retain the right to alter the extent of that service if they see fit to do so.

Freedom of speech is important, but must be curtailed when people are threatened. Extremists are a very real threat because their messages and actions galvanize people to take violent, disruptive actions against the state and its citizens. ISPs have a right, and even a responsibility to block extremist websites if it is written into the contract when a user purchases the service. When people opt into an ISP they accept the parameters of the service, so their freedom is not being limited by the blocking of extremist content as they have already accepted that extremist websites are not a part of the access package they bought.

ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality  The internet is such a great thing because it is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted for the scrutiny of the global online community. Debate online and rational argument serves as a major check on the extreme views of the political fringe. By maintaining net neutrality in the provision of internet and not blocking websites, ISPs allow this process of the exchange and scrutinizing of ideas on which liberal democratic society relies. [1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the freedom, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided, and unafraid of artificially constructed bias.  [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007.

Censorship provides a propaganda victory to its targets  By denying people the ability to access sites set up by extremists, ISPs serve to increase extremists’ mystique and thus the demand to know more about the movement and its beliefs. When the public appears to oppose something so vociferously that it is willing to have its internet provider set aside the normal freedoms usually taken as granted, people begin to take notice. There are always groups of individuals that wish to set themselves up as oppositional to the norms of society, to transgress against its mores and thus challenge what they see to be a constraining system. [1] When extremist beliefs are afforded this mystique of extreme transgression, it serves to encourage people, particularly young, rebellious people to seek out the group and even join it. Such has been the case of young, disaffected Muslims in Europe, and the United Kingdom in particular. These young people feel discriminated against by the system and seek to express their anger in the public sphere. Islamists have been able to capitalize on this disaffection in their recruitment and have become all the more attractive since their sites have come under attack by the UK government. [2] By allowing free expression and debate, many people would be saved from joining the forces of extremism.  [1] Gottfried, Ted. Deniers of the Holocaust: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Do It. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001.  [2] Jowitt, T. “UK Government Prepares to Block Extremist Websites”. Tech Week Europe. 9 June 2011.

Blocking extremists will make anti-terrorism surveillance more difficult as the organizations go underground  A major risk with any extremist organization is that its members, when put under significant legal pressure, will go underground, or find other means of communicating, or use any ISPs that not blocking extremist content. The power of ISPs, or the state for that matter, to actually stop the development of extremist networks is limited, as they will be able still to organize in secret, or even semi-publicly, via social networks and hidden websites that evade detection by the censors. As Mark Burgess, director of the World Security Institute warns ““too much focus on closing down websites could also be counter-productive, since it likely forces terrorist websites to go underground to the so-called ‘deep’ or hidden web.” [1]  Terrorist groups visible profile would be blunted, but it would not guarantee any positive gains in terms of stamping down on the number of extremists. Indeed, when extremists are driven from public channels it will be ever harder for the government to keep track of their doings and of their leaders. The result of this censorship is a more careful organization that now has a sense of victimhood against the society that censors it, which it can use to encourage even more extreme acts from its members and can spin to its advantage during recruitment efforts. By leaving them in the open extremists feel more comfortable acting within the confines of the law and are thus less dangerous, even if they are more visible.  [1] Andrews, S., “The dark side of the web”, PC Pro, 9 March 2010,

ISPs are not well placed to make judgments on what constitutes extremism  ISPs are businesses, not scholars or governments. They do not have the expertise to effectively define the parameters of what constitutes extremism or when a certain site is such, and cannot gauge the extent of damage the site is having. If governments give the power to ISPs to take down extremist sites they are giving these companies the ability to dissipate the freedom of the internet on the basis of its own judgment. [1] That is a very dangerous power to give the agents that are the gatekeepers of information to the people. Even if the state sets guidelines for ISPs to follow, it will be difficult to police their decisions effectively and will set the dangerous precedent that service providers should have a degree of power over what content citizens can consume. The ISPs also face the risk of legal challenge by groups blocked that claim to not be advocates of extremism at all so burdening the ISPs with long and costly court battles which would effectively be being fought on behalf of the government. Ultimately private actors cannot be given the authority of the public censor.  [1] Mitchell, S. “BT Resists Move to Make ISPs Block Extremist Content”. PC Pro. 7 February 2012.

While some people might be enticed by the mystique of extremism as transgressors, far more people will be put off by the positive statement of denying them their favored platform from which to speak. There will always be extremists, but their views must always be challenged and their influence curtailed wherever it is found

Everyone, even extremists, deserve their freedom of expression protected  No matter how distasteful, or extreme, their opinions may be, everyone should have the right to voice them freely and publicly. That is the very essence of a free society. When groups presume to judge good speech from bad, and to shut off the channel by which the designated bad speech may flow, it abrogates its duty to protect the rights of all. When ISPs do this, which they do when they block sites they designate as extremist, they rob the people of their fundamental role as the final arbiters of acceptable speech in the marketplace of ideas, taking that power unto themselves without any form of democratic or moral mandate. Such a state of affairs is anathema to the continuation of a free society. [1] Speech can be legally curtailed only when there is a very real and manifest harm arising from it. But that is not the case here, where the participants are few and scattered, and those who would take exception to what the extremists have to say can easily opt out online. When extremists try to organize terrorist action online, then the government should step into protect its citizens. That duty does not fall to the ISPs.  [1] Chomsky, Noam. “His Right to Say it”. The Nation. 28 February 1981.

Forcing extremists underground can only serve the cause of justice. With them out of the spotlight they are less likely to drag in new recruits among casual, open-minded internet-goers. Underground they are less visible, less legitimate-seeming, and less likely to be able to build an organization capable of violent action.

Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Extremism does not deserve its day in court, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and moderation. Besides, the nature of extremists is that they are not amenable to being convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, and that is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and validate themselves to a wider audience.

Many other things such as radios within cars are just as distracting as mobile phones. Although it is easy for police and prosecutors to prove that a mobile phone was in use during a particular period of time, it is difficult to monitor the use of mobile phones in most situations. Enforcing a ban on mobiles would be as impractical as a ban on arguing with a spouse.  Further, the point of the ban on mobile phones is to minimise distractions. However, a simple ban on mobile phones is likely to create a false sense of security among road users.  Objects similar to cell phones are not subject to bans, despite the fact that they might be distracting as well. For example, a tablet PC in the passenger seat would not be under this ban, but could easily be as distracting. This false sense of security could practically cause drivers to be less conscious of distractions and thus hurt in the long run. Whilst the law might incorporate these bans into the system, the prevalent message that will get to the people will typically be centred on a mobile phone ban. This is because mobile phones are the single most prevalent item that would be banned under the proposition. As such, even though the law covers all distracting goods, it might still breed complacency in people, causing them to ignore other items in the car that might be distracting and assume that they are legitimate. [1]  [1] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000

Cell Phones are worse than other distractions  Cell phones in cars, unlike a variety of other distractions, can be regulated easily. They are an object which can easily be identified, and with phone bills it is possible to find out if a person is lying when they are caught for using cell phones in cars. As such the fact that other distractions exist, even if they are as harmful as cellphones, is no reason to not to ban their use.  Further, other sources of potential distraction, such as passengers or car radios, may provide a net gain in utility to road users and other stakeholders in mass transit systems. Being able to carry multiple people in cars for example helps society through a reduction in carbon emissions as well as simply through a reduction in traffic. To take this argument further, there are many people who cannot drive but require use of cars. For example, children might require their parents to drive them to school. Car radios are somewhat more controversial and principally if they prove to be as bad a distraction as a mobile phone then proposition would have no problem with banning them. However, things such as news and traffic updates are probably more useful to a driver than the use of mobile phones. Whilst they may be distracting, given the huge benefit they cause for society it is legitimate for them to be allowed.  Even if the benefit that they confer is the same as that of phones however, it is legitimate within our mechanism that we would ban them as well if required. [1]  [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008

Some studies have placed the economic cost of a ban on cell phones in cars at around $25 billion in total economic losses, including deaths and injuries set to cost $4.6 billion. [1]  The reason for this is explained in the first opposition counterargument. Being able to call and manage business on the fly is a valuable convenience, given the frantic nature of competitive business in the world today. As such, more transactions at a faster rate leader to a much more powerful economy. [2]  [1] “Editorial: No Strong Case for Ban on Driving With Cell Phones.” Hlbr.com 16/07/2002  [2] ibid

Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard  Cell phone use within cars is consistently linked with an increased chance of an accident. This is because if a driver only has a single hand on the wheel he lacks the ability to control the car properly. Further, with both hands free and normal sets, the driver has their hearing incredibly impaired by the phone call, reducing their ability to react to certain hazards. Dialling the phone itself results in an even worse outcome as it takes the concentration of the driver away more, by forcing them to look at the phone instead of the road. Estimates indicate that such phone use has led to the death of 2,600 drivers annually in the U.S.  Further, having a cell phone in the car and fumbling for it when it rings often causes accidents due to the distraction that it presents, firstly psychologically because of the noise going off, secondly due to the fact that both hands again would not be on the steering wheel to control the car. [1]  [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008

Firstly, it has been found by some studies that cell phone use does not have a statistically significant impact in the reduction of car wrecks. [1] This might be plausible because being able to call ahead to work for example and tell them that you will be late reduces the chance that people will speed on the roads. It also reduces the chance that you will attempt to weave between traffic to increase your speed even where acceleration might not be possible.  Further, given the societal benefits from cell phone use in cars, such as better organisation for the entire population, it seems that a ban on the use of cell phones should not be implemented because the cost of doing so is too great when compared to the benefits allowing phones would confer. [2]  [1] Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000   [2] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000

Cell Phone Use is not necessary in vehicles.  In the past the economy has not had to deal with mobile phones in cars and has been fine without their use in cars. There is no great loss in liberty or freedom when you are unable to make a mobile phone call. In fact, if you do have a pressing need to make a call, all you need do is pull over and park the vehicle, which is often not a great problem.  Further, people adjust and will adjust to the inability to use phones in cars. When the restriction was implemented in California, people were simply able to give up their phones because it emerged that they were not truly necessary. [1]  [1] “Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain.” Examiner. 3/07/2008

Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impair concentration and reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned.  Further, "Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed. [1]  [1] Healy, Melissa. “Hands-Free cellphone use while driving won’t make the roads safe, studies show. Why? Brain Overload.” 30/06/2008

The logical extent of opposition’s argument is a strongly libertarian society that does not legislate on almost any issue because it fears taking away people’s ability to choose.  It is important to note that when someone causes a death through ignorant driving they have resulted in the dehumanisation of a person through the removal of their ability to choose.  However, more so, the resulting society where people are free to do what they want ignores the fact that often people lack full information to make their decisions in an informed way. It also fails to understand that as time goes on people often regret decisions that they once made. As such, people are often happy to and do make the choice to give up some of their freedoms and allow the state to make those decisions for them.  Given then that people consent to having the “humanity” taken away from them, it seems legitimate that the state can make decisions that they might not immediately agree with, under the assumption that the state, as a composite of a large number of different people has a level of oversight that the individual doesn’t.  The state has the advantage of being able to take a step back and have a broader perspective. Individuals will make decisions that impact them in a positive way but this does not mean that those decisions will not have a negative wider impact on society. The state uses this broader perspective under the mandate to protect society as a whole looking at what is best for the group not the individual.

The Ban is Unenforceable  This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws. [1]  [1] Miller, Craig. “Laws Limiting Car-Phone use Tough to Enforce.” NPR. 08/2007

Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous  Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger.  Further, allowing the use of hands free sets has been shown to reduce fatalities, especially in adverse weather conditions through drivers being able to report their status to their loved ones and the local authorities should things become too difficult for them to handle. [1]  [1] Stuckey, Mike. “Hands-free phones are lifesavers, study says.” MSNBC. 13/5/2008

The State Does Not Have the Authority To Limit Citizens in This Way  The state places rules upon its citizens for the overall betterment of society. However, whenever possible the state also affords citizens liberty.  This is the case because the state sees that when people are free to do what they want they are able to make better decisions for themselves and further are able to interact with the state better. They do this because they feel that the state is allowing them to make their own decisions and as such the state is showing its trust in its citizens. This bond of trust between the state and the citizens as well as the state giving the citizens their own responsibilities means that citizens respect the state for the fact that it does not limit them.  To examine this from a point of view that does not rely on moral consequentialism and a utility based principle, it is possible to say that the state should afford people liberty and freedom because the starting point of any rational moral calculus should be the admission that an individual is the best judge of what is in his own interest. To not give people choice is ultimately an idea that dehumanises people. As such, the only time where freedoms should truly be restricted is when allowing the freedom results in a greater level of dehumanisation among the people. So for example, we prevent murder because allowing people to kill one another results in allowing some people to entirely remove other people’s ability to choose on purpose.

New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time. Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped.

Humans are more liability than asset when it comes to space travel. While humans can think outside the box more readily than machines, developments in cognitive science and computer design have resulted in ever more competent computers that are gaining more and more the ability to solve problems on their own. Furthermore, humans are physically fragile; in the event of even slight damage to a spacecraft, all humans on board could be killed. They are also susceptible to health risks in the form of radiation damage and muscle and bone loss due to the zero gravity conditions of space. [1] Unmanned ships are far more capable of surviving the dangers of space, and of completing missions successfully.  [1] Ad Hoc Committee on the Solar System Radiation Environment. "Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision of Space Exploration." National Research Council.

Some activities in space require human dexterity of both mind and body to succeed  Space exploration and research have resulted many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program. Many of these developments arose due to the focus on the human element of space travel; scientists had to focus on the very real challenge of getting humans into space and back home safely. [1] Furthermore, there are some experiments that can only be conducted in space and that require the dexterity and problem-solving skills of humans. While robots are very good at carrying out pre-designed programs and collecting data, their ability to think critically and engage in problem solving is quite limited. In order to get the most of space travel and exploration, humans must be present to add their critical thinking and physical capacity to missions. For technology to continue to develop through the space program the paradigm of exploration must be maintained. This can only be done through manned space flight.  [1] Coalition for Space Exploration. “Benefits of Space”. 2010.

While unmanned space exploration is not as romantic as manned space flight, it is more functional. Exploring space is extremely expensive and governments have to consider the practicalities of exploration more than the glamour. Scientifically, little is gained by manned flight over unmanned flight. In terms of increasing interest in space flight, it is questionable whether states encouraging interest in space exploration is the best thing at all. They could simply use space exploration, especially exciting manned voyages, as means of distracting public attention from domestic problems. It is better for people to be focused on life on this planet than on the mysteries of space.

Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and space is the next logical frontier  Human history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known. [1] Mankind’s place is among the stars. Simply perusing pictures of space sent back by unthinking, unfeeling robots would never be enough to satisfy humanity’s curiosity. Governments should not try to slow Man’s progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human.  [1] Dick, Steven. “Why We Explore”. NASA, 2009.

Curiosity and the will to explore certainly is a fundamental part of the human condition. But the human body has natural limitations that technology cannot overcome. While artifice can go a long way to making places suitable for the frail human form, it can only go so far. Manned space flight is extremely expensive, costing the US government, the primary investor in space technologies tens of billions of dollars every year, yet there remains no clear plan for humans to return to the moon, let alone Mars and the rest of the solar system. [1] Exploration beyond the solar system remains a pipe dream. The laws of physics likewise seem to make the possibility of human exploration beyond the solar system nigh impossible. Other stars are simply too far away for a human to reach. The reality simply is that manned space flight is too costly and will likely never find application beyond Sol.  [1] Kaku, Michio. “The Cost of Space Exploration”, Forbes, 2009.

The probability of any cosmic collision or other destructive event is extremely low and not worth thinking about. In any event, manned space flight would not be viable for the purpose of saving humanity from a dying Earth for many years, if ever. Governments and people should focus their attention on developing this planet, rather than worrying too much about finding new ones to inhabit.

Manned space flight excites the human imagination more than unmanned missions, allowing members of nations everywhere to see themselves as part of the same human race  People do not get excited when they see robots launched into space; there is no romance or adventure in a computer attached to a rocket. To enflame people’s imaginations and enthusiasm for space travel, real-life astronauts must be involved. Furthermore, it is harder for people around the world to develop a sense of connection to an unmanned space flight. Manned missions, however, can become ambassadors of all humanity. In no endeavor have scientists from around the world more readily worked together than in the development of the International Space Station and other space-related enterprises. Looking beyond the Earth serves to unite humanity in a way nothing else can. [1] When the Apollo astronauts first transmitted images of the Earth back to the waiting masses, the sight of that tiny blue-white marble suspended in the vast void profoundly changed the way many people viewed themselves. There was for the first time a sense of oneness, of citizenship of this island Earth. In the exploration of space, astronauts are not just citizens of their home countries, but are emissaries of the entire human race. In this way space exploration actually gives mankind a transcendent purpose, promoting peace and understanding among nations that no amount of conventional diplomacy can create.  [1] Van de Hulst, H. “International Space Cooperation”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 17(5). 1961

Manned space flight, and the new worlds it would serve to unlock, are essential to the long-term survival of humanity  The Earth has suffered a number of catastrophic events in its history. The galaxy is permeated with giant meteors like the one that struck the Earth 16 million years ago, which succeeded in wiping out the dinosaurs and precipitating an ice age. [1] Other cosmic risks exist as well, such as the threat of deadly radioactive waves given off by supernovae that can span the gulfs between stars and scorch planets many light-years away. Likewise, risks closer to home could prove equally destructive. Intense solar flairs from our sun could scorch a whole side of the planet. While all these occurrences are very rare, they remain possibilities, and should any of them ever occur, it could prove the end of humanity, and even life on Earth. In order to guarantee the survival of the human race, manned space flight must be made viable. One day it may prove necessary to leave this cradle of life in pursuit of a new home, and it would be wise to invest in developing the technology to do so rather than to wait until it is too late and only be able to watch as mankind’s doom arrives.  [1] Gerakines, Perry. “What is the Chance of an Asteroid Hitting Earth and How Do Astronomers Calculate It?” 2005.

Certainly there are many concerns on Earth that must be addressed if mankind hopes to survive. Pollution and climate change are real threats that deserve a great deal of attention from all governments around the world, since everyone is affected. This attention, however, does not need to exclude from the agenda the development and propagation of manned space flight. Rather, states can focus on more than one science-based issue at a time. It is rather disingenuous, in fact, to suggest that it is a matter of one or the other. Furthermore, the international unity created by manned space exploration, binding people not as members of separate nations, but as members of the human race, can serve as a means of promoting unified action on issues affecting the whole planet. Space exploration can thus actually help to ameliorate coordination problems between states in their efforts to deal with global issues. Clearly, when people think of themselves as citizens of the world they are more ready to think globally and consider issues affecting other countries. Space exploration is very real means of promoting such thinking.

The paradigm of exploration is essential to the progression of technology. Space is the last great frontier and represents the perfect object on which to construct and maintain this paradigm. The costs of manned space flight are great, but the core human drive to explore can only be satisfied by supporting it. Furthermore, the spin-off benefits of space exploration are numerous. Computers have become more compact and more powerful due to research conducted under the aegis of space exploration. Even things as ubiquitous and central to everyday life as Velcro, Teflon, and ballpoint pens find their origin in space exploration. [1] The dream of exploration should not be killed for the sake of saving money.  [1] Coalition for Space Exploration. “Benefits of Space”. 2010.

Manned space flight is a technological dead end  Manned space flight appears to have little practical use. While its supporters talk about traveling to other planets, the technology simply does not exist, nor may ever exist, to send humans to worlds that could be even potentially habitable. It may be possible to send humans to Mars, or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, but doing so would have little value other than for the sake of planting boots on alien soil. [1] Any research worth conducting on planets within the solar system can be done just as well by robots, at considerably less expense. The laws of physics seem to show that it is impossible for ships to travel at or past the speed of light, meaning any journey to planets beyond the solar system would take centuries at least. It is unlikely, for this reason, that manned space travel will ever be a practically useful endeavor. Research should be put into technology that can actually lead humanity somewhere. There is nowhere for humans to go in space that robots cannot, and nowhere worth the cost of their going.  [1] Leath, Audrey. “Should Mars Be Human Space Flight Objective?”. American Institute of Physics 2003.

The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones  The Earth is faced with many problems. Global warming, the destruction of ecosystems, rising sea levels, pollution, and resource depletion are all issues weighing heavily on states and the international community as a whole. Individuals and governments need to rally and fight these growing terrestrial problems. The resources poured into manned space travel that will likely serve no lasting purpose would be better spent in combating the hundreds of serious issues facing the planet today. Space exploration serves only as a distraction, keeping people’s minds off the pressing concerns of the Earth. Furthermore, governments can use manned space flight as a means of distraction quite deliberately. It is often easier to devote attention and resources to headline-grabbing endeavors like putting a man on the moon or on Mars than to address concerns like global warming, which requires extensive international coordination to a degree rarely reached in history. Governments may find utility in keeping people focused on such grand projects while doing comparably little to affect change where it is direly needed. Clearly, humanity’s concerns should be focused wholly on the survival of its home world, not on exploring worlds that might not even exist, and almost certainly cannot sustain human life.

Manned space exploration is prohibitively expensive while providing limited spin-off benefits:  Space exploration costs enormous amounts of money. The United States spends tens of billions of dollars every year on its space program, and the Chinese and European space agencies are seeking to catch up technologically. Overall, the amount of money wasted is astronomical. Even if manned space flight were a desirable goal, the cost is far too great. Unmanned space flight offers the same benefits at far less expense, since unmanned vessels weigh less than those needed to carry humans, and do not require the expensive and sophisticated life-support technology necessary to sustain human life in the harsh wilderness of space. [1] Furthermore, the benefits accrued from spin-off technology resulting from space exploration are generally overstated. NASA, for example, had claimed that protein crystals could be grown in zero gravity that could fight cancer, as well as numerous other claims of benefits. Most of these benefits have never materialized. With all the billions of dollars wasted on manned space flight, most of the spin-off technologies could likely have been created independently, given the resources, and probably at lower overall expense.  [1] Kaku, Michio. “The Cost of Space Exploration”. Forbes. 2009.

While the technology is still in its infancy there is still much lending itself to the value of interstellar travel. The Earth cannot sustain life forever, and the risk of a catastrophic event such as a giant asteroid impact is always real. [1] Developing technology that can sustain humans aboard spacecraft for several generations as well terra-form potential new homes are of the utmost importance to lasting human survival. Many things in the realm of science fiction today can be made reality given the will and resources. It is essential that humanity dedicate itself to the cause of manned space exploration, for the sake of its will to explore, as well as its will to survive.  [1] Gerakines, Perry. “What is the Chance of an Asteroid Hitting Earth and How Do Astronomers Calculate It?”. Scientific American. 2005.

State-sponsored space programs can utilize the infrastructure built up in the last half-century, and therefore be substantially cheaper  Since Sputnik was launched in 1957, the space race has given rise to an infrastructure, particularly in the United States and Russia, which can be exploited for economies of scale. The cost of developing shuttles and training astronauts is far cheaper in Cape Carnarvon where the necessary equipment and skills lie to do so. Furthermore, the International Space Station costs upwards of $100 billion, however it serves as a terminal where shuttles can thereafter be pointed to any corner of the universe1. The potential therefore is to save costs by using the existence of the ISS as a stepping stone to elsewhere. To not use fifty years of space development and technology is to render all that investment meaningless. 1 Kaku, M. (2009, July 16) The Cost of Space Exploration. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Forbes

If only it were true. The typical shuttle mission to the International Space Station costs $500-700 million. Private individuals, space tourists, have managed it for just $20 million a head1. Therefore, there is little in the argument that the existing space infrastructure is driving costs down. Furthermore, whilst the ISS has been justified as a terminal for the shuttles, the shuttles themselves have been justified as means to reach the space shuttle; a circular argument that offers little hope to the space explorer. Moreover, despite over fifty years of investment, NASA specifically has maintained a shuttle program at the expense of new materials, new fuels and innovative concepts1. As such, the technology has not advanced significantly since the original missions to the Moon between 1969 and 1972. The infrastructure, in this case, appears to have been more of a hindrance and intellectual barrier to development and cost-cutting than an aid. 1 Kaku, M. (2009, July 16) The Cost of Space Exploration. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Forbes

Space exploration gives back more than it takes from the treasury. Dr. Joan Vernikos, a former head of NASA Life Sciences, argues ‘economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment…royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA.' Furthermore, as Keith Cowing points out, the funding for space exploration is insignificant compared to our other discretionary spending: ‘Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol (in 2006); We spend $10 million a month in Iraq; all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year." Cowing also points out the fact that ‘the money is spent on the earth – it creates jobs and provides business to companies, just as any other government program does’ (Dubner, 2008). [1  [1] Dubner, S. J. (2008, January 11). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Freakonomics

Since the "historic handshake in space" when a US Apollo and Soviet Soyuz capsules docked in 1975, the two countries have in fact grown increasingly close. This relationship involves sharing technology (which is almost all 'dual use' i.e. it could be used for military purposes as well as civilian, thus requiring a high degree of trust), scientific knowledge and working side-by-side to build and support the ISS. With the involvement of the 11 member states of the European Space Agency as well as Canada, Japan and Brazil in the project, space is one of the few spheres where governments have been able to put aside their differences in pursuit of something more fundamentally important to humanity.

The cost of space exploration exceeds the positive benefits  NASA during the 1990s spent over a third of its budget simply keeping the ISS manned and the Space Shuttle working1; it will now spend $60 million per seat to use Russian transport to the ISS2. The vast majority of its spending on scientific research comes through ground based research, telescopes and unmanned missions. China has made no claims that there is a scientific benefit to its manned mission and nor has Russia in recent years. There are few experiments so important that they can justify the huge cost needed to allow them to be carried out by humans in zero gravity. NASA made a lot of noise about growing zero-gravity protein crystals as a potential cure for cancer when it was trying to justify building the ISS but has since dropped the claims as experiments have shown the claims were overstated. There are few experiments so important that they can justify the huge cost needed to allow them to be carried out by humans in zero gravity. 1 New York Times. (1995, March 6). Is NASA Among the Truly Needy? Retrieved May 19, 2011, from New York Times 2 Stein, K. (2011, May 18). Critical juncture for U.S. human spaceflight. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Examiner:

Space exploration takes resources away from more worthy causes  High ideals are all well and good, but not when they come at the expense of the present. Our world is marred by war, famine, and poverty; billions of people are struggling simply to live from day to day. Our dreams of exploring space are a luxury they cannot afford; U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman stated in the wake of President Bush's 2004 proposals that money was needed 'right here on Earth to give health care that's affordable to everybody, to improve our education system and do better on veterans' benefits and homeland security.'1 Instead of wasting our time and effort on macho prestige projects such as the space programme, we must set ourselves new targets. The money spent on probes to distant planets would be better invested in the people of our own planet. A world free from disease, a world where no-one lives in hunger, would be a truly great achievement. 1 Pop, V. (2004, January 19). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Space Daily:

The 'space race' fuels nationalistic sentiment and antagonism  Sending humans into space or to other planets so that they can erect the flag of a particular nation is a distinctly nationalistic act and one that is likely to create aggressive 'races' in the future just as it has before. China's manned program is openly intended to challenge the US dominance of space for the Communist regime's huge propaganda benefit. George W. Bush's pledge to boost spending on NASA and to restart the manned mission to Mars program was a direct response. This is damaging not only because of the potential for space race conflicts to escalate into greater international hostility, but also because of the way such races could result in the militarization of space, thereby turning something which should be preserved for the common good of humankind into a neo-colonial battlefield.

The positive benefits of space exploration are innumerable and profound. As Joan Vernikos describes, '43 countries now have their own observing or communications satellites in Earth orbit.' Such satellites provide the G.P.S that directs our transport, meteorological forecasts, global monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence for our national security1. Furthermore, the common misconception that NASA has a huge budget is just that; in 2007, the NASA budget of $16.3 billion was dwarfed by the overall G.D.P of $13 trillion1. 1 Dubner, S. J. (2008, January 11). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Freakonomics:

The complications in the legal framework are not reason to eliminate intellectual property rights. In fact, most licensing arrangements are done swiftly and amicably between firms. Intellectual property battles over licensing arrangements are the exception rather than the rule. With intellectual property, firms feel free to share openly through licensing. Without it, they will be more reticent to share anything.

The complicated legal arrangements created by intellectual property raise costs of doing business:  Many firms cannot act independently, but rather rely on the technology and systems of other firms. The complicated, and often convoluted, licensing arrangements needed by many firms to function sap resources and effort, slowing productivity and causing general economic sluggishness. In high-tech and science research firms particularly, mutual licensing pacts are needed that often slow production and advancement due to the complicated legal arrangements that must be entered into to allow firms to go about their business. For example, the recent battle over rights to computer technology between Hewlett-Packard and Oracle, which has cost both firms millions of dollars in legal fighting1. These costs are entirely mitigated in the absence of intellectual property rights, as ideas flow freely and people can go about their business without the complications of licensing. 1 Orlowski, Andrew. 2011. "Oracle and Itanic: Tech's Nastiest Ever Row?". The Register.

The cost of research and development of new products is often extremely high for firms. In order to reap a profit from their efforts, they must be able to count on the guarantee of ownership over their intellectual property. In the absence of such a guarantee, the incentive of firms to research and innovate declines substantially, resulting in a less dynamic business climate. The duplication of effort by research firms is rare in practice, and the efforts to develop spin-off products can easily become the beginning of entirely new inventive projects.

There is no such thing as intellectual property, since you cannot own an idea:  An individual's idea, so long as it rests solely in his mind or is kept safely hidden, belongs to him. When he disseminates it to everyone and makes it public, it becomes part of the public domain, and belongs to anyone who can use it. If individuals or firms want to keep something a secret, like a production method, then they should keep it to themselves and be careful with how they disseminate their product. One should not, however, expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea one has, since no such ownership right exists1. No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over intangible assets is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to everyone. 1 Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company.

Intellectual property slows the dissemination of essential information and products  An individual or firm with a monopoly right to the production of something may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Intellectual property rights slow, or even stop the dissemination of such ideas and inventions, as it may prove impossible to sway the creator to license or to market the product. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with the free sharing of ideas, an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public1. A similar harm arises from the enervating effect intellectual property rights can generate in people and firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting to for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of intellectual property, firms and individuals are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of intellectual property rights will invigorate economic dynamism. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent ideas do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves do to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for predominantly developing world diseases, which exist but are unprofitable to distribute to where they are needed most, in part of Africa and Asia.2 With no intellectual property rights, the access to such drugs would be facilitated and producers interested in helping the sick rather than simply profiting would be able to help those in need left to die due to intellectual property. 1 Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 2 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. "Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'".The Guardian.

There is no significant slowing down of the spread of information in the long run, since intellectual property generally only lasts for a short time, meaning owners have an incentive to make the most of it while they can. Besides, any small slowing down of the spread of ideas and innovations is a small price to pay for the recognition of a person's fundamental right to the product of his effort. Furthermore, licensing arrangements are becoming more and more refined to allow for the quick transfer of rights in order to meet societal demands for products. Licensing law has also begun to extend to products that producers may not wish to produce, such as medication for sick Africans, and is helping to force firms that refuse to act upon their patents to license the right to those that will.

Intellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform"

It may be costly and sometimes ineffective to police property rights, but that does not make them less of a right. Efficiency and Justice are not the same thing. If firms feel they can benefit from fighting infringers of their intellectual property rights, it is their right to do so. The state likewise, has an obligation to protect the rights, physical and intangible, of its citizens and cannot give up on them simply because they prove difficult and costly to enforce. For the state the costs accrued by efforts to enforce intellectual property are repaid many fold by the fact that businesses feel safer to invest in them due to the perceived protections the state promises.

Firms and individuals misallocate resources trying to race others to the same goal, and spend resources stealing from one another:  Intellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform". National Health Federation.

Costs of monitoring intellectual property rights by states and companies outweigh the benefits, and is often ineffective:  The state incurs huge costs in monitoring for intellectual property right infringement, in arresting suspected perpetrators, in imprisonment of those found guilty, even though in reality nothing was stolen but an idea that, once released to it, belonged to the public domain. The United States government, for example, projects costs of investigating intellectual property claims will cost $429 million between 2009 and 20131. Firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to intellectual property piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. This is because in many cases intellectual property rights are next to unenforceable, as the music and movie industries have learned in recent years. Only a tiny handful of perpetrators are ever caught, and though they are often punished severely in an attempt to deter future crime, it does little to stop it. Intellectual property, in many cases, simply does not work in practice; firms should move with the times and recognize they need to innovate in ways that will compensate.  1 Legal Alert. 2009. "PRO-IP Act Promises Increased Focus on IP Rights and Expanded Counterfeiting Remedies". Sutherland.  2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. "Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property".

Research and development will continue, irrespective of intellectual property rights. The desire of firms to stay ahead of the competition will drive them to invest in research regardless. That their profits will be diminished by the removal of intellectual property rights is only natural and due to the fact that they will no longer have monopoly control over their intangible assets, and will thus not be able to engage in the rent-seeking behavior inherent in monopoly control of products.

While there is little cost to the government of recognizing intellectual property rights there is a big cost to those whose intellectual property is being protected. The cost of both processing and enforcement is passed on to the users who are the people who are most innovative. This is adding a cost to innovation and so making it less attractive to innovate.

The product of an individual's intellectual endeavour is the property of that individual, who deserves to profit from it  Every individual deserves to profit from his creative endeavours, and this is secured through the application of intellectual property rights. When an individual mixes his labour with capital or other resources, part of him inheres in the product that arises from his effort. This is the origin of property rights. Property rights are an unquestioned mainstay of life in all developed countries, and are an essential prerequisite for stable markets to develop and function. [1] Intellectual property rights are protected by law in much the same way as more conventional physical property, as well it should be. Individuals generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, be it a new invention, piece of replicable art, etc. have a property right on those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone's head that he does not act up, and intellectual property. Developing new inventions, songs, and brands are all very intensive endeavours, taking time, energy, and often a considerable amount of financial investment. People and firms deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. For this reason, stealing intellectual property is the same as stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. Often the product of intellect is the source of income of an individual; the musician who is too old to play any longer, for example, may rely entirely upon revenues generated by their intellectual property rights to survive. As a matter of principle, property rights can be assigned to intangible assets like intellectual property, and in practice they are a necessity to many people's livelihood.  [1] Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company.

Intellectual property rights allow individuals to release their inventions into the public domain  Without the protection of intellectual property, artists, inventors, and innovators may develop ideas without ever releasing them to the public because they lack the ability to market them successfully, or to profit by their endeavours. After all, no one likes to see others profit by their hard work, and leaving them nothing; such is tantamount to slavery. The recognition of intellectual property rights encourages the release of ideas, inventions, and art to be released to the public, which serves to benefit society generally. Furthermore, the disclosure of ideas and inventions to the public allows firms to try to make the product better by "inventing around" the initial design, or by exploiting it once the term of the intellectual property right expires1. If the idea never enters the public, it might never do so, leaving society bereft of a potentially valuable asset. 1 Business Line. 2007. "Patents Grant Freedom to Invent Around". Hindu Business Line.

The salable and conferrable nature of intellectual property allows for the efficient and just distribution of ideas  Intellectual property rights are extremely important in the efficient and equitable allocation of ideas to firms and individuals1. The ability to sell intellectual property rights allows the price mechanism to assign ownership to the firms most likely to make a profit, and that are thus most likely to produce the product most efficiently, which will benefit all consumers. Furthermore, the ability to confer intellectual property rights on others is important, as often intellectual property, like licensing and patents, can support inventors' and artists' families after they are incapacitated or die. This is no different from the fact that ownership of physical property can be conferred for the betterment of dependents and family. It is only just that intellectual property be recognized and protected by law, so that it may be efficiently and fairly sold and transferred between parties.

Intellectual property rights incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products  When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product, or writing a new song, people put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people’s intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries’ investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The 2000 largest global companies invest more than €430 billion a year in researching new products1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment, which is why countries with less robust intellectual property rights schemes are not home to research and development firms. Without the protection of intellectual property rights, new inventions lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the invention and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Furthermore, intellectual property is particularly important to firms with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, or with low reverse engineering costs, such as computer, software, and pharmaceutical firms. The costs of commercialization, which include building factories, developing markets, etc., are often much higher than the costs of the initial conception of an idea2. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished. Within a robust intellectual property rights system, firms and individuals compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to “invent around” one another’s patents, leading to gradual improvements in technologies, benefiting consumers. Clearly, intellectual property is essential for a dynamic, progressive business world.  1 Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. 2009. “The 2009 EU Industrial R&amp;D Investment Socreboard”. Economics of Industrial Research and Innovation  2Markey, Justice Howard. 1975. Special Problems in Patent Cases, 66 F.R.D. 529.

More ideas are not released into the public when there is intellectual property. The release of ideas is most bountiful when there is active and constant competition to produce newer and better products and ideas. This is only possible in the absence of constricting intellectual property rights. The ideas circulating in the public domain are only expanded by the constant competition and innovation essential for firms to succeed in the absence of intellectual property protections.

Policing intellectual property rights is self-sustaining  While there is a cost to implementing intellectual property rights and policing them this cost is mostly met by those who apply for the patents. Each country’s patent office charges for the patent application, in the case of the UK this is between £230-280.1 It also costs to renew the patent year on year with the cost often rising. This means that the government offices that process intellectual property meet their costs through the user fees.2 Much of the costs of enforcement are also met by those who own the intellectual property as their patents enable them to go to court against those who they believe are infringing their intellectual property rights.  1 Intellectual Property Office, How much does it cost?  2 Inventors Digest, Patent Office Unveils New, Bigger Budget, 2011

It is no more just that an individual's family benefit from a monopoly over an idea, than the individual who created it. There remains no inherent right to an idea. As for the sale of patents and licenses, firms will waste precious resources in fighting amongst each other for monopoly control over intellectual property, and will even buy the rights to products with no intention of using them, planning simply to prevent any competitors from doing so. The most efficient system is to have ideas be public and accessible and usable by everyone. When they are, more innovation will occur.

No one can own an idea. Thus creating something like a property right over intangible assets is a meaningless endeavour. Doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to anyone who can use it.

This is simply wishful thinking on the basis of current technology getting a manned mission to another planet is simply not on the radar – or even close. In the light of this sobering fact there is no reason to go to the moon as some sort of test run for something we’re never going to do. Even if one were to think that it may one day be possible to travel to other planets, surely the sensible thing would be to spend the money developing that technology rather than blowing it on a manned trip to the moon we may well never need.

The technology required for colonizing ‘a second Earth’ would be easier to develop on the moon  The idea of colonizing another planet as either a contingency against a future extinction event or simply as an area for growth. Extinction events are considered to be any event which destroys over 50 per cent of life on Earth and there are believed to have been five of them in the last 540 million years. [i] It is in the nature of such an event that the warning we would have of such an event would not be sufficient to develop the technology required to relocate to another planet and so, by definition that technology needs to be developed when there is not the need. Taking global warming as an analogy, we now know that we should have been changing our lifestyles and economic models back at a time when virtually nobody believed that it was a reality. The moon could be used to develop biosphere and other technology which could be used in such a future colonization.  [i] Sanders, Robert, ‘Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?’, UC Berkeley News Center, 2 March 2011,

The modern world is vastly different to either of the periods Prop mentions both in terms of our capacity for the retention of existing knowledge and the speed of developing new solutions to old problems.  In addition to which this is comparing two completely different things the technology required here is to keep people alive for extended periods of time.  Equally the technology required for a colonization would need to be permanent and designed to be used many times, quite different from the disposable, one-time-only technology of the 1960s. As a result knowledge of those earlier missions may well be a disadvantage.  We still have the ability to launch and fly spaceships and that knowledge is vastly improved on those early attempts.  As far as the issue of spinoff technology is concerned, if you’re looking to develop products designed for Earth, developing materials and technologies for extra-terrestrial environments is a very odd way to go about it.

It would be the first step in colonizing space – the moon is preferential to Earth as a base for investigating life elsewhere in the universe  Colonizing the Moon should not be seen as an end goal in and of itself but rather a platform for reaching out further into the universe. The moon makes a better base than Earth for a number of reasons.  Any civilization that is serious about space exploration would probably have to start with the moon. It’s a comparatively simple mission which would allow us to learn the pitfalls and problems while staying within a few days of earth.  The moon also provides a better base for SETI than Earth as Radio telescopes on the far side of the moon would be shielded from the interference of Earth. Equally the Moon’s slow rotation would allow light-based observatories to undertake experiments lasting for days at a time.  Most experts are agreed that it is statistically unlikely that Earth is the only life-bearing planet, to date we have not been serious investigating this issue despite the enormous implications it has for almost every area of human thought and activity.

Whatever the merits of the search for ET, none of this requires a human presence on the moon all of the observational technology required to undertake the research could be controlled from Earth.  It doesn’t require a human presence on the moon, indeed if the purpose is for scientific research, there seems to be a strong argument for not having a human presence.  A human presence on the dark side of the Moon provides extra complications – and therefore extra costs – to simply keep the scientists alive. It seems likely that anybody based in such a situation would have to spend a large amount of their time and effort simply staying alive and performing monitoring functions that could as easily be provided from Huston.

The idea of a mining community on the moon is even more absurd than that of a scientific one. However valuable the minerals found the cost of extraction would never be covered. Furthermore the quantities required to meet the cost of extraction, let alone make a profit, would have a downward effect on the price of the commodity on earth. The whole exercise would become self-defeating. Equally, although chemicals such as Helium 3 would be useful if thermonuclear fusion was being used to produce energy it is a technology that does not yet exist. [i] Once again it would seem to make sense to invest the money in fusion technology first, then, if it happens, we how where to find Helium 3 – after there’s a practical use for it, not before.  [i] Lasker, John, ‘Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel’, Wired, 15 December 2006

We are already losing the technology and knowledge necessary for manned extra-terrestrial travel – critically that required to land people, we owe it to future generations to retain it.  If we compare the dual experience of Columbus and the Chinese Treasure Fleet of the fifteenth century, the Chinese decided not to pursue exploration and the technology of how to build and sail ships was lost until they were themselves colonized by sea-faring nations. Columbus’ voyages, by contrast were followed up with further expeditions, leading to the largest expansion in the history of humanity.  The technology required to land human beings on the surface of another planetary body is comparable.  All of those involved in the original moon landing are now elderly it seems sensible to deploy that expertise before it is lost. Recorded knowledge is all well and good but experience is also valuable.  Equally, one of the biggest justifications for NASA’s relatively modest budget – roughly nine billion dollars at the moment – is the trickledown technology from its innovations. Developing technology for survival in hostile alien environments may have applications on Earth such as inhabiting Antarctica or using resources vastly more efficiently

We already know something about it and so have a clearer idea of what to look for  In many ways our trips to the moon so far tell us which questions we need to ask, the next stage is to find the answers. It also has the advantage of being close enough to earth that samples and data can be relatively easily sent between the two.  The moon functions as a sort of attic for the Earth, a repository of rocks than are no longer found on earth. There are also resources, such as lunar glass and Helium3, which could be potentially very valuable if they are there in sufficient quantities, human beings can simply cover more territory than Robots and make assessments like these more easily. If these rare minerals exist in sufficient quantity they could potentially fund the whole project [i] .  [i] "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008

There are many worthy projects that could benefit from this funding, however that doesn’t defeat the importance of returning to the moon and developing a base there. There is absolutely nothing in the history of other manned projects into space that suggests that humanity as a whole is poorer, hungrier, sicker or more stupid because we did so.  Rather, we received those remarkable pictures of the Earth from space confirming what we look like in a way no map ever could. The various detritus of the mission in terms of solid rocks as well as ephemeral experience to prove that there is a universe out there waiting for us to find it.  A reminder, even in the darkest of times economically, that humanity has an astonishing capacity for exploration – both of the universe around us and within our own minds. Likewise the capacity of scientists and others to inspire us by showing our place in an extraordinary universe is beyond price.  We left the cave, went over the hill, crossed the Atlantic, circumnavigated the globe, went into space, went to the Moon…  And then stopped.  It’s time to start again.

Our fascination with discovery and exploration – especially anything to do with space – is one of the enduring aspects of the human condition. There are many areas of scientific development for which there is little popular support as people don’t really see the point, however space exploration is one which retains support [i] .  Polling levels no are at broadly the same level they were in the 1960s, receiving support from about forty per cent of the electorate. However, it’s worth noting that NASA has consistently higher public approvals than other federal agencies. It seems that, unsurprisingly, people aren’t that happy about the government spending any of their money but, if they’re going to do it, NASA gets more votes than the Environmental Protection Agency or the Internal Revenue Service.  [i] Public Opinion Polls and Perceptions of US Human Space Flight, Roger Launius, Space Policy 19 (2003) 163-175

There’s nothing more to find out, at least nothing that can’t be done with much cheaper unmanned missions  There are simply no good scientific reasons to send a manned flight to the moon. The desire to do so may have good justification in science fiction but not science fact [i] .  This research is simply not related to the reality of modern cosmology, it will tell us nothing about how the universe works or, frankly, anything we don’t even know already or could find out through unmanned missions.  The idea that there is serious research to be done is simply untrue. Cosmology is being conducted at the edge of the universe and the beginning of time. It’s not about collecting moon rocks.  [i] “Brave New World”, Editorial, Nature, 1 February 2007

There are simply better things to be spending money on  Whichever argument you pursue for going to the moon there are better and cheaper ways to achieve those designated goals. Whether it’s scientific, business-related, or as a ‘practice’ for exploration of deep space, there are better ways of spending the money and deploying the scientists, engineers and technicians. To waste not only the money but, more importantly, the time and expertise in the name of extending a national mythology or a political ego-fix is absurd. The cost of a moon landing, let alone an extended colonization, is foolish when there are other projects in all of those fields that are crying out for public funding.

It is impossibly expensive and lacks the kind of popular support required to get the 1969 mission of the ground  To make the kind of funding this project would require available, massive public and political will would be needed. This simply doesn’t exist.  The Cold War mentality of the ‘60s provided a justification. Having been beaten to get a man into space, there was an imperative for the American people to beat the USSR to the Moon.  No such justification exists for going the at all now, let alone going back. The only country in the world with both the technical and financial resources to do this, the United States, simply doesn’t have the political stomach to do it.

Clearly there is more than one way to skin a cat and there is research that can be done away from work that cannot be done here. The benefits that could come from a low-gravity, non-atmospheric research facility are not about ‘collecting moon rocks’ there would be benefits in, for example, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) would benefit greatly from small radio telescopes based away from the distractions and interferences based on Earth [i] . As has been shown by the International Space Station, there is useful medical research that can be conducted in low or zero gravity, notably research based on aging.  [i] "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008

Secular scientists extrapolate the age of the earth backwards from examining current natural processes, but they assume that they have always taken place at the same speed and for the same reasons, but this is not necessarily the case.  There are a number of possible solutions to the distant starlight problem: God could have created the light in transit; the speed of light may have been much greater in the past; Einstein’s theory of general relativity indicates that time is relative, and so a few thousand years on Earth could be millions elsewhere in the universe. [1]  The volcanic eruption at Mount St Helens, Washington State in 1980 shows how catastrophic events can very quickly lay down geological formations that appear to have formed slowly. The Genesis flood would account for the rapid formation of geographical features that evolutionists interpret as old. [2]  [1] James Upton ‘Beyond Distant Starlight: Next Steps For Creationist Cosmology’, Answers Research Journal 4 (2011) www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/distant-starlight-cosmology Accessed 31/5/2011  [2] ‘Mount St Helens in Washington State’, Answers in Genesis,  Accessed 1/6/2011

The Age of the Earth  Evidence from many different disciplines shows that the Earth is very old, allowing enough time for life as it exists today to evolve and contradicting a Creationist belief in a young earth.  For example, most of the stars in the sky are thousands and millions of lightyears away, which means that light took thousands and millions of years to reach us. [1]  Similarly, there are many geographic features that took thousands or millions of years to form. For example, ice cores such as those from Vostok, Antartica, give evidence of changes in climate going back 400,000 years, [2] far older than the 6,000 or so calculated from a literal reading of Genesis.  All the evidence points this way, from archaeology, geology, physics, astronomy and more. There are many different indicators that all point to an old age of the Earth.  [1] Björn Feuerbacher, ‘Determining Distances to Astronomical Objects’, Talk.Origins,  Accessed 1/6/2011  [2] ‘Vostok Ice Core’, National Climactic Data Centre,  Accessed 2/6/2011

Creationism makes empirical claims, such as that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The use of scientific arguments against these claims shows that Creationism is in fact falsifiable. [1]  Scientific Creationism is a relatively new discipline which only really started in the 20th century. It has not had the same time or resources put into developing it as has evolutionary science, because of broader cultural prejudices and philosophical assumptions against it.  Recent Creationist research has focused not on reacting to evolutionary theory, but building its own research and models working from Biblical presuppositions. Many earlier Creationist theories, models and arguments have been modified or abandoned, showing that Creationism is able to adapt in light of new research. [2]  Creationism is actually more open-minded than evolutionary theory, because evolutionary scientists exclude the possibility of the supernatural on principle, not because of lack of evidence.  [1] Larry Laudan, ‘Commentary: Science at the Bar – Causes for Concern’, Science, Technology, &amp; Human Values, Vol. 7, No. 41, Autumn, 1982  , Accessed 31/5/2011  [2] Paul Garner, ‘The New Creationism’, Evangelicals Now, June 2009,  Accessed 2/6/2011

The fossil evidence  Fossils allow us a glimpse into the development of life on Earth. Fossils show a development from earlier, less complex forms of life, through to newer, more complex forms of life, with characteristics developed from earlier organisms. This progression is strong evidence for evolution. Since fossilization is a rare event, there are some gaps in the fossil record, but all the available evidence is consistent with, and fully explained by, evolution. [1]  There are many examples of transitional fossils, including of our own ancestors, showing how humans evolved from apelike creatures. For example, scientists discovered the skeleton of Ardipithecus ramidus, nicknamed “Ardi”. Ardi is the oldest fossil of a human ancestor, and the last common ancestor of humans and modern apes. Ardi shows a mixture of advanced characteristics and primitive traits. [2]  If fossils had been laid down by a catastrophe such as the Genesis flood, as Creationists argue, then complex and simple lifeforms should be mixed together, with no clear order or progression. But the fossil record shows a clear progression in complexity.  [1] Austin Cline, Fossil Evidence Supports Evolution,  Accessed 1/6/2011  [2] Jamie Shrieve, ‘Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found’, National Geographic,  , Accessed 1/6/2011

There is an absence of transitional fossils. The evidence for ‘missing links’ between different species is itself missing. Fossils are jumbled up, rather than ordered from simple to complex. [1]  Supposed transitional species will often be wildly extrapolated from small fragments to fit with evolutionary theory. Supposed human ancestors are either extinct apes, actual human beings, or accidental mix-ups of human and ape bones. There are no clear anatomical markers separating homo erectus and homo sapiens, for example. [2]  The fossil record is better explained by a global catastrophic flood, as described in the story of Noah in Genesis. The massive geological upheaval which would take place in such an event would leave the remains of millions of dead animals and plants in layers across the world, which is exactly what we find. [3]  [1] John D Morris, ‘What’s a missing link?’, Institute for Creation Research,  Accessed 1/6/2011  [2] ‘People were always people!’ Answers in Genesis,  Accessed 1/6/2011  [3] Andrew A. Snelling, ‘Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood’,

Falsifiability  Evolutionary theory is open to change and is in principle falsifiable: if enough evidence was found, scientists would change their views. Scientists make their reputations by making new discoveries, so if evolution could be disproved, someone would have done it, but it is still standing after over 150 years of research since Darwin, showing how strong it is. [1]  Although Creationism is falsifiable scientifically, with plenty of evidence to disprove it, it is non-falsifiable on its own terms. Any scientific evidence against it can be explained away by Creationists by saying ‘God did it’ – for example, by claiming dinosaur fossils were put there to test people’s faith. Science is able to change in light of new evidence, unlike Creationism, which is a matter of dogma.  Even if evolutionary theory cannot yet explain every detail, this does not give any support to Creationism. If something cannot yet be explained by science, it does not mean that God did it; it means we need to investigate further to find a better scientific explanation. Creationism discourages scientific investigation and encourages blind faith.  [1] ‘Evolution Falsifiable’, Talk.Origins,  Accessed 2/6/2011

Evolution is not just a matter of chance. Mutations can add, change or remove genetic information. Natural selection acts as a feedback mechanism to filter those mutations to pass on useful changes in organisms to adapt them to their environment.  Beneficial mutations have been observed. For example, gene duplication is a common mechanism for introducing new information. When a long stretch of DNA is copied, then mutations often occur in one or both of the copies. This is the likely origin of some proteins. [1]  The argument from irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance: if we cannot currently explain how a complex system arose naturally, it must have been God who created it. But the development of supposedly ‘irreducibly complex’ systems can be explained: different parts in biological systems often have multiple and changing useful functions, and apparently irreducibly complex systems arise when these interlock in new ways. [2]  [1] ‘Mutations Adding Information’, Talk.Origins,  Accessed 3/6/2011  [2] Pete Dunkelberg, ‘Irreducible Complexity Demystified’,  Accessed 3/6/2011

Most scientists are not Christians and do not accept the Bible as God’s word: in 1996, only 40% of US scientists believed in God. [1]  Many Christians interpret the Creation account symbolically and have done so since long before Darwin. For example, in the 5th century, the theologian Augustine argued that the account in Genesis was not a literal, chronological account. [2] Even if Genesis was inspired by God, it could not have been intended to be a literal, scientific account, because it would have made no sense to the people of the time. It must be interpreted according to its original genre and purpose. [3]  When the Bible says death entered the world through Adam, it could refer exclusively to humans rather than the animal kingdom as a whole. Alternatively, it may refer to spiritual death, which is separation from God, rather than physical death, the separation of soul from body. [4]  Science proceeds by reason, evidence and observation, not by arguments from religious authority. If science contradicts the Bible, we should accept the findings of science, which is based on reason and evidence, rather than the Bible, which is based on faith.  [1] Edward J. Larson, Larry Witham, ‘Leading Scientists Still Reject God’, Nature, 23rd July 1998, p. 313  , accessed 24/5/11.  [2] Alister McGrath, ‘Augustine’s Origin of Species’, Christianity Today, May 2009,  Accessed 3/6/2011  [3] Ernest Lucas, Science and the Bible: Are they Incompatible? The Creation story as a test case,  Accessed 31/5/11  [4] ‘Was there Death before the Fall?’, Biologos Forum,  Accessed 2/6/2011

Naturalistic assumptions  Evolutionary science rules out the possibility of God on principle, rather than on the basis of evidence. On an unbiased assessment, without the presupposition of naturalism, Creationism offers a better interpretation of the evidence. But most scientists refuse to allow the possibility of God creating the world, blinding them to the facts.  Secular science is committed to only looking for natural explanations (methodological naturalism), but this only makes sense if you already know that nothing supernatural exists (ontological naturalism). If God intervenes in the natural world, then this can be investigated empirically and scientifically.  Evolutionists assume that “the present is the key to the past”, otherwise known as uniformitarianism. They are attempting to reconstruct the past after the event from fragmentary evidence. But God was there in the beginning and so can tell us what actually happened. We should believe God’s revelation, not human speculation. [1]  [1] Jason Lisle, ‘Is the Present the Key to the Past?’, Answers in Genesis,  Accessed 1/6/2011

Evolution undermines meaning and morality  Evolution gives no basis for morality or human dignity. If we evolved from animals rather than being uniquely created in the image of God, then humanity should be accorded no more status than an animal, plant or amoeba. Acceptance of evolution leads to Social Darwinism and eugenics.  If we are only the product of time plus chance plus impersonal forces, there is no objective standard of right and wrong, only what benefits the survival of our genes or not. For example, rape may have an adaptive benefit in enabling the passing on of genes of the rapist. An evolutionary worldview has no rational basis for condemning such an action. [1]  [1] Frank Turek, ‘Evolution Cannot Explain Morality’, CrossExamined.Org,  Accessed 3/6/2011

Chance cannot produce complexity  Evolution depends on chance mutations in genes producing changes that make it more complex and introduce survival benefits. Mutations do not increase the complexity of organisms, but damages them: for example, cancer. Mutants might gain new powers in comic books, but not in real life. [1]  Mutations may have beneficial side-effects, but do not add new information. For example, sickle-cell anemia increases resistance to malaria. [2] However, it does this because the normal functioning of the blood cells is impaired, not by evolving into something more complex, which is necessary for evolution to take place.  Many biological systems are irreducibly complex: you need all the parts to work, or they will not work at all, like a mousetrap. They cannot have arisen by step-by-step changes.  [1] Daniel W. McShea, ‘Complexity and Evolution: What Everyone Knows’, Biology and Philosophy, 6: 303-324, 1991.  Accessed 1/6/2011  [2] Michael Aidoo et al., ‘Protective effects of the sickle cell gene against malaria morbidity and mortality’, Lancet 2002; 359: 1311-12  Accessed 3/6/2011

The Bible says God created the world  The Bible is God’s Word, inspired and infallible, and it reveals that the world was created by him in 6 days within recent history (Genesis 1-2). God says it, so we should accept what he reveals as truth. [1]  If the Bible is true at all, it cannot just be ‘symbolically’ true about spiritual matters, but must be true in matters of fact and science as well. You cannot divide meaning from facts. Theologically, the Bible teaches that death entered the world through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12), which contradicts evolution because death is necessary for natural selection. [2]  There is no neutral interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists interpret the scientific evidence in light of the presupposition that there is no God, while Creationists interpret it on the presupposition there is a God. Christians who accept evolution have bought into secular assumptions that are inconsistent with their faith and what the Bible teaches.  [1] Don Landis, ‘“And God Said”’, Answers in Genesis,  Accessed 31/5/11  [2] Fred Van Dyke, ‘Theological Problems of Theistic Evolution’, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation,  Accessed 1/6/2011

Evolution has nothing to do with morality. Science simply describes what is, not what ought to be. Social Darwinism and eugenics are misapplications of science. We have evolved the capacity for higher reasoning, and so we can develop ethical and moral systems to suit us, rather than following the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’. [1]  Social studies indicate that secularised societies in which evolutionary science is widely accepted enjoy lower rates of societal dysfunction, whereas the USA, which is much more religious and anti-evolution, has worse social health. [2]  Morality may have an evolutionary basis. People who look after their relatives, those who share many of their genes, are maximising the likelihood those genes will be passed on. Altruism benefits the survival of the group as a whole.  [1] ‘Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview’, Talk.Origins,  Accessed 3/6/2011  [2] Gregory S. Paul, ‘Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies’, Journal of Religion and Society (Volume 7, 2005)  Accessed 31/5/2011

Theists and atheists alike use ‘methodological naturalism’ when doing science, because scientific method depends on understanding and explaining the natural world in natural terms. It does not assume that God does not exist. Many Christians do not believe that the evidence supports Creationism despite believing in God, and instead believe that God is the one who sustains and upholds the natural order as understood by science.  Uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption for understanding the world. If the laws of nature changed on a whim, so that science worked one way on Tuesday and another on Wednesday, we would not be able to make observations and predictions that worked. But all our observations indicate that the world does operate consistently. The success of science in providing accurate models and explanations of the world shows that its presuppositions are correct.  Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, since that is a metaphysical question outside the scope of science. But science can show that evolution explains the origins of life, and there is no need to invoke a God of the Gaps to explain it. The supernatural is outside the scope of scientific enquiry, and therefore a matter of faith.

This idea is rather flawed if you decide to take into consideration the whole aspect of one’s life. This just kicks the communication problem down the road when it needs to be dealt with early rather than essentially discouraging the child from learning the language until they have to get a job.  It is also in many cases likely to be wrong; the child will already have started learning the language of the country in which they are living. Even if the father and the mother are only able to talk their first language, kids go to nursery school or have child minders because their parents have to work. A perfect example would be the one of Mexicans in the United States. Two-thirds of Mexican-origin Hispanics ages 5 and older speak English proficiently. More than that, about nine-in-then native-born Mexicans speak English proficiently. [1] The whole idea of parents not being able to talk the local language might be true for first generation immigrants, but not for others. Even when the grasp of the language is less than perfect school is the obvious place to learn it.  [1] Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Lopez, Mark Hugo, ‘A Demographic Portrait of Mexican Origin Hispanics in the United States’, PewResearch, 1 May 2013,

Educating in their mother tongue is the best option for children’s education  Because parents that are immigrants teach their kids only the mother tongue, at the age in which they should go to school they barely know the local language. Their parents sometimes don’t know the language of the country that they live in and other times they choose not to use it at home. Therefore, at the age when children have to go to school, they have little or no interaction with the language of the country they live in. In the United States, 72% of immigrant families speak a language other than English at home and 26% live in households where no one has a strong command of the English language. [1] This simply hands over the problem of language to the school damaging education across all subjects. This is because the children will not be able to communicate with other kids in school or understand what the teacher is saying. Because of the exclusion that the immigrants feel when going to school and the fact that they are not able to understand much of what is taught, they choose to leave school early. 70% of Turkish children in Germany have no General Certificate of Secondary Education [2] ; as they leave before completing secondary school. By far the most sensible way to solve this problem is to send these children to a school where they do understand the language in which they are being taught.  [1] Shields, Margie K., and Behrman, Richard E., ‘Challenges Faced by Children of Immigrants’, Children of Immigrant Families, Vol.14, No.2, Summer 2004,   [2] Greenfield, Daniel, ‘80% of Turkish Muslim Settlers in Germany Live off Welfare’, Frontpage Mag, 31 March 2013,

The idea that immigrants that are part of large groups are not able to conserve their language and culture without the help of the foreign state is flawed.  First of all, on the broadest level large immigrant groups come from countries with big population and their culture or language is not in danger of any kind. Just to take a couple of examples, Turkey has almost a 76 million population, while Mexico has a population of almost 120 million.  Secondly, there is no clear link between education in the mother tongue and the willingness of the people to conserve their own culture. Those who are educated in the language of the culture in which they are living are just as likely to be interested about their roots and culture as those in their mother tongue.  Thirdly while there may be a link between language and thought does this extend on to culture; are Japanese unable to enjoy and take part in Taiko drumming if they don’t speak the language as well as the language of their host nation? Only in a few areas, like literature is it vital and if someone is interested in the literature of their mother country they will learn the language as a part of that interest.  Finally this assumes that all immigrants should desire to preserve their own culture rather than partake in the culture of the country to which they have migrated. Integration is the best solution. In order to achieve integration for large immigrant groups you need to convince them to be opened towards your national culture and language and not make them learn in their mother tongue.

Minorities deserve linguistic rights  Everyone should have the right to communicate in their own mother tongue so enabling them to maintain their roots with their mother country. In a world of change, where people are able to move their residence from a country to another country, protecting minority rights becomes necessary. Some migrations are historically and economically driven, take place over decades, and involve large numbers. For example, an estimated 33.7 million Hispanics of Mexican origin live in the United States, with 11.4 million immigrants born in Mexico, accounting for almost 3.5% of the US population [1] . In Europe, a lot of migration there have been successive waves of migration, as a result of World War II, the end of empires, economic boom and the European Union. To take Germany first there was an influx from lands Germany lost as a result of the war, of Turks to help power the economic miracle meaning that now more that 2.6 million Turks live in Germany [2] , and recently there has been an influx from Eastern and Southern Europe as Germany’s economy has held up in the Economic crisis. Each wave, or group of immigrants, forms a distinct community within their host nation. There is no reason why these groups should be forced to entirely give up their old identity as they embrace a new identity as a part of their host nation. Just as every human has rights so does every immigrant. Part of these rights should be education in the mother tongue. Language is what connects people and makes them able to communicate their feelings, emotions and ideas. A person should be able to communicate and express ideas in its own mother tongue in order to be able to create a connection with their family and the immigrant community that they live in.  [1] Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Lopez, Mark Hugo, ‘A Demographic Portrait of Mexican Origin Hispanics in the United States’, PewResearch, 1 May 2013,   [2] The Economist, ‘Two unamalgamated worlds’, 3 April 2008,

The state has indeed certain obligations towards the immigrant groups both to individuals and if they represent a large part of the population to the group. Once you leave your country, you are no longer under the legislation of the country. You decide to sign a new social contract with the country that you emigrated to and therefore you are under their jurisdiction, obliged to respect their laws. Minority rights are respected in the sense that immigrants are not obliged to use the local language everywhere and at any time. You are still able to use your mother tongue language to talk to your family, your foreign friends and other people from the same country. These are the fundamentals and there are cases where linguistic rights are not respected, where the minority population is forbidden to talk or write in their mother tongue. This was the case if Turkey which forbade Kurds to speak their native language until 1991. [1] While these rights should be respected there is not ‘right’ for the state to provide, or subsidize, education in languages that are not the official language of the state. If large minority groups wish to provide such education that is their prerogative.  [1] Akreyi, Minhaj, ‘19th Century mentality in 21st Century: Kurdish language still banned in Turkey’, Alliance for Kurdish Rights, 12 March 2011,

Actively promoting mother-tongue education for immigrants that are part of a large group will create a segregated society in which people are not able to communicate and relate one to another. Integration will be harder to achieve in these conditions - the state may gain some goodwill from the concession but it is unlikely to last. The difficulty in communicating with the state, even for everyday tasks such a doctor’s appointment, will surely sour relations more. Different languages create a segregated society in which foreigners are not able to integrate.  Secondly, diplomacy and trade matters have no connection with the way immigrants are treated on a minor issue like this. Those immigrants who want to trade and promote links between their old home and their new one will continue to do so regardless.

Conserving languages and immigrant community cultures  Being able to learn and teach in our own language will preserve the culture of large immigrant groups as part of another state, this is both good for that community and for the nation. For the community and the individual speaking and learning their own language will give immigrants a sense of belonging. They are part of a community that they know and understand because it speaks the same language even before they come to know the rest of the country. This provides security, belonging, and close contact with relatives. For the community it means keeping their own customs and identity alive, in a few cases this may actually be contributing to conserving a language. For the country as a whole this does not represent a threat as there can be many different levels of identity that all intermix. Instead it provides an opportunity; it diversifies the country. It gains the benefit of a different perspective on problems and new ideas as people who speak different languages think about things in different ways so it is useful for innovation to have many different communities brought up in different languages interacting. [1] It also gains from having another culture add diversity to its own; there are new festivals, concerts, art, and perhaps most commonly encountered a greater diversity of cuisines to be sampled through restaurants.  [1] Bordoditsky, Lera, ‘Lost in Translation’, The Wall St Journal, 23 July 2010,

This policy would benefit the state and provide trade  If the government decides to promote mother tongue education for large immigrant groups it will be enhancing mutual understanding between its own population and another nation as the immigrants provide a go between. The state will send a positive message towards the large immigrant groups by allowing them to study in their first language. It will acknowledge the importance of such groups in the national society by providing this additional opportunity. The importance of cooperation between immigrant groups and the state is often recognized, for example in combating extremism, this kind of measure encourages such cooperation as it brings with it the good will of the immigrant community.  On the other hand, promoting diversity will promote understanding between countries. A favorable treatment towards the large immigrant groups will be seen positively by the country the immigrants come from. Having migrants creates a link between the two countries. This may produce clear advantages for both parties, in the form of collaboration, diplomacy and trade. The effect of migrants on trade is often ignored but studies have shown that in the case of Spain from 1995-2008 exports are boosted by having immigrant communities; “doubling the number of immigrants from a certain country in a province leads to an increase of the export values from the destination province to the country of the immigrants’ origin by around 10%.” The reason was because new exporting firms are created – immigrants know the conditions in their own country so can access that market, something that would be impossible without a native understanding of the language. [1]  [1] Peri, Giovanni, and Requena-Silvente, Francisco, ‘Do immigrants create exports? Evidence from Spain’, VOX, 26 January 2010,

The simple premise of this argument is wrong. Immigrants are not discriminated by the fact that they don’t know the language. Discrimination is much more often a matter of skin color, religion and social background. Mexicans in the United States, at least American citizens of Mexican origins know very well how to speak English but they are still discriminated by the majority population. This shows in the unemployment statistics. In 2011, while the rate of unemployment for Whites was 7.9%, the jobless rate was 11.5% for Hispanics. [1]  The link between language and low skilled jobs is also open to question. Immigrants are not finding these jobs because they don’t speak the native language but because these are the jobs the natives don’t want. There is a demand for labor that the native population will not fulfill. Less fussy migrants however are more willing. These are also likely to be the jobs that the migrants have done in the past if coming from less developed countries so they have the relevant skillset. On the other hand where the migrant is skilled they will go into a job that suits those skills.  [1] ‘Labour Force Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity, 2011’, U.S. Bureau of Labor, August 2012,

The premise that states that second generation immigrants lack incentive to learn the local language is flawed. Although they might choose to learn in their mother tongue, they will still have a big incentive to learn the local language. Learning the language of the country in which they live will provide to them more opportunities and better integration. Those who find they don’t know the language will take courses to learn the language of the country in which they reside. Most certainly, their friends will not only be from their own community so they will feel obliged to talk German, or English or French. The example of Papua simply shows this is the case; promoting a national language is not incompatible with learning in another language.

Services offered the government cannot be used if the user does not know the language  Anyone who does not know the native of the place where they reside will find themselves having problems with health-care, job centers or the taxman because they are not able to understand or communicate with these people. It doesn’t matter where you live, as a citizen you will have to use different services provided by the government. A good example will be hospitals. Hospital staff are unlikely to know the immigrant’s language so making communication difficult, a problem exacerbated by all the specialized language that may be required. Being incapable of telling your doctor what the problem is or not being able to tell a police officer what happened may have devastating consequences. Sarah Bowen, a professor at the University of Alberta and expert on access to health care believes that language is the most important barrier preventing some immigrants from staying healthy. [1] This is a barrier that remains if a little of the native language has been learnt because it is still unclear if there is mutual understanding when communicating. It is therefore clear that second generation immigrants need to be taught in the language of everyday life in the country in which they live rather than just learning it on the side as a ‘foreign’ language.  [1] ‘For newcomers, language is the most important barrier to staying healthy’, Canadian Immigrant, 27 February 2012,

Migrants need to learn the language to improve job prospects  An immigrant that studies in the local language will be a citizen that is better integrated in the society, respected by the natives and with more economic opportunities. First of all, we have to acknowledge that going to a school for natives will permit the development of personal relations with people that are not from the same community community. Interaction will be possible with everybody in school and in the country. The first step towards becoming friends with someone is by understanding them. This is only possible if they can communicate properly in a single language. Secondly, the native language is necessary for most jobs. Jobs require interaction with natives and ability to discuss and work alongside co-workers. Immigrants are forced most of the time to do low-skilled jobs like working in constructions or agriculture because they are not able to speak the local language, though even in these sectors language skills would be useful. By promoting mother tongue education this problem will exacerbated. Language proficiency for immigrants that are trying to find a job in the United Kingdom increases employment probabilities by 17% to 22% and gives them an earning advantage of 18-20%. [1] Getting a new job is already hard, so why should the state through its education policy wish to damage the chances of immigrants of finding one that requires them to know the language of the country they are in?  [1] Dustmann. Christian, and Fabbri, Francesca, ‘Language proficiency and labour market performance of immigrants in the UK’, The Economic Journal, Vol.113, July 2003, pp.695-717  , p.707

A common language is necessary for a unified national community  The moment when the governments starts subsidizing mother tongue education for large immigrant groups is the moment when they will lose any incentive to learn the local language. Because most of these children do not interact with the local language until the age they should go to school, under the proposition plan they will not interact with it at all and therefore creating a major gap between native population and immigrants. A common language represents a unifying framework under which a state can function properly by promoting mutual help and understanding inside the population. [1] When people talk different languages, there is no unifying framework and the state as a whole loses its ability to promote unity within its borders. This is the case of Papua New Guinea where there is no central authority. The tribes live separately and are not able to one with another because there are over 800 different languages spoken at this moment in the country. [2] As a result during the post-colonization era efforts were made to create and promote a common language to help trade and understanding between tribes. The language that was called Tok Plsin is now the most widely spoken language in the country and one of the three official languages. [3] Because mutual-help and overall social stability can be achieved only with a strong communication between different parties, promoting mother tongue language for immigrants will only slow the road towards progress.  [1] Center for Child Well Being, ‘The Importance of Language’, education.com, 15 July 2013,   [2] ‘Papua New Guinea’s tribes and traditions’, The Telegraph,   [3] Siegel, Jeff, ‘Tok Pisin’, Hawaii.edu,

It is wrong to assume that people who can’t speak the language will not be able to access government services; the government also provides interpreters. For example in the United States and Canada, interpreters are trained and paid by the health authority to address the problems of large immigrant groups. In Ottawa, you additionally have the option of hiring interpreters from local agencies. [1]  [1] Taylor, Louisa, ‘For immigrants, language barrier is a health barrier’, The Ottowa Citizen, 27 April 2012,

Only idealists believe that prisons have rehabilitative role; we have to look at the reality. Juveniles sent to prison are less employable afterwards, and thus more likely to resort to crime. They meet established criminals in prison who both encourage the lifestyle and teach necessary skills for criminal behaviour. Prison often fosters resentment of the police and the courts and anyway the harassment of juveniles associated with zero tolerance already creates an extremely antagonistic relationship with the police.  If punishment is not proportionate it simply breeds resentment. [1]  [1] Maiese, Michelle, ‘Retributive Justice’, Knowledge Base, May 2004, www.beyondintractability.org/essay/retributive_justice/ , accessed 20 September 2011

Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role  A custodial sentence, particularly for juveniles, takes them out of the atmosphere (often surrounded by drug use and living in poverty and or abusive homes) that encourages criminality. Rehabilitation through the prison system is not just a possibility but a central tenet of many penal codes. Education and discipline are both vital to our prisons. The large number of police on the ground also allows for a supervisory role in the community after the prisoner is released to reduce re-offending.  The earlier on in the chain of criminality that people are given help, the greater chance there is of success that a cycle of re-offending will not develop. [1]  [1] Petersila, Joan, ‘When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences’, Sentencing &amp; Corrections, No.9, November 2000, www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184253.pdf , accessed 20 September 2011

They are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after zero tolerance Sydney’s has been similarly racist [1] and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers.  If the police are to be fully respected they should behave in a courteous and fair manner. While treating all citizens in a respectable and decent manner – never using unnecessary force. Zero tolerance policing reduces police accountability, openness to the public, and community cooperation.  [1] Kennedy, Michael Hartley, ‘Zero tolerance policing and Arabic-speaking young people’, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, 2001

Zero tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals.  Zero tolerance creates a far greater awareness of police presence because there are more officers on the ground. If people perceive that they have a greater chance of being caught, they are less likely to commit an offence. Strict punishments provide another firm deterrent because they make it clear that the consequences of detection will not be a minor irritant. Convicts are less likely to re-offend because zero tolerance catches them early on in the escalating cycle of crimes and provides the ‘short, sharp shock.’ There is a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. If a law is to exist at all then it ought to be enforced. Otherwise they will be held in contempt. [1]  There has to be a meaningful mechanism in place to punish actions that don’t merit criminal punishment, but that damage the quality of life of others, especially through constant repetition. In this way a slide into more serious lawlessness and criminality can be prevented, and the rights of the law-abiding majority to walk the streets and live peacefully with their neighbours can be secured. It is the law-abiding majority who should be the prime focus of the protection the State offers.  [1] Marshall, Jayne, ‘Zero Tolerance Policing’, Information Bulletin, Issue 9, March 1999, www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB9.pdf , accessed 20 September 2011

Minor offenders, gang members, and the poor are extremely unlikely to be aware of the punishments for the crimes which they commit so deterrence doesn’t have much effect there. Many crimes are a product of necessity (through poverty and drugs) and therefore can be reduced only by structural changes to the society, not by threatening punishment. The idea of a ‘short sharp shock’ is unconvincing. Labeling people as criminals at an early age actually causes them to perceive themselves as such and gives them fewer other options by placing them outside mainstream society. This leads to ‘deviance amplification’ where convicts increasingly commit more serious crimes as a result of their contact with law enforcement. [1]  [1] Becker, Howard S., ‘Labeling Theory’, from Becker Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, The Free Press, 1963,  , accessed 20 September 2011

Zero tolerance improves the standard of policing  They are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after zero tolerance Sydney’s has been similarly racist [1] and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers.  If the police are to be fully respected they should behave in a courteous and fair manner. While treating all citizens in a respectable and decent manner – never using unnecessary force. Zero tolerance policing reduces police accountability, openness to the public, and community cooperation.  [1] Kennedy, Michael Hartley, ‘Zero tolerance policing and Arabic-speaking young people’, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, 2001

Economic and demographic changes will always impact crime rates and of course, these factors would have played their part in the noticeable improvement in New York. However, zero tolerance has proved successful in many instances and provides a more stable promise of crime reduction less susceptible to transient factors (such as economic and demographic ones).  For example, the Swedish parliament introduced its ‘drug-free society’ as the official goal for the drug policy in 1978. Long before such policies were called ‘zero tolerance. The Attorney General in 1980 stopped allowing for waivers for possession of drugs for personal use. Meanwhile, police were to prioritize the crack down on those in possession of drugs. In 1988 all non-medicinally prescribed usage became illegal. Finally, in 1993 the police were permitted to take blood or urine samples from suspects. [1]  This zero tolerance approach is now cited by the UN as one the main reason for Sweden's relatively low drug prevalence rates. [2]  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Zero Tolerance’,  , accessed 21 September 2011  [2] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy: A Review of the Evidence, February 2007,  , accessed 21 September 2011

There is no point building in inner cities if we don’t protect these resources from graffiti and vandalism by concrete and certain means. Zero tolerance reduces the amount of dead ground used for drug dealing and so returns parks and open spaces to the community. Unless businesses are protected from vandalism and petty crime, it is usually uneconomic for them to return to the worst areas. It is these businesses which are vital to raising the standard of living. Zero tolerance policing is often seen to lead to the return of public transport and services to deprived areas because it can be protected through a guaranteed means. [1]  [1] Kurki, Leena, ‘Restorative and Community Justice in the United States’, 2000, 27 Crime &amp; Just. 235, www.julianhermida.com/polnotesbrokenwindows.htm , accessed 21 September 2011

Zero tolerance policing is enormously expensive  The enormous expense of zero tolerance in money and manpower and prisons actually makes policing worse. Either we have to throw limitless money at doubling the number of officers (it is almost impossible to recruit and train so many even if we could afford it). Or we have to divert officers away from investigations and serious crime prevention in order to put them back on the pavement. This reduces detection of important crimes in return for catching graffiti artists. Even when reported crime rates drop this does not prove that zero tolerance achieves anything because it is corporate crime, large scale drug dealing that is ignored and these are rarely reported. [1]  [1] Croall, Hazel, Understanding white collar crime, Open University Press 2001, www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335204279.pdf , accessed 21 September 2011

There is no concrete proof that a zero tolerance approach to crime exists0  There is no proof that zero tolerance is effective and yet it comes at the great expense of full police accountability and practical financial outlay.  An examination of the main ‘success stories’ of zero tolerance reveal that not all success can be attributed to the zero tolerance approach. In fact, the vast majority of the improvement in these circumstances were largely attributed to simultaneous social and economic changes.  In New York, the decline of crime rate started prior to 1993 and the arrival of Rudy Giuliani to his post. During Giuliani’s time in power a similar decrease in crime was happening in other major US cities. The main factors that can be attributed to this decrease in crime were economic and demographic ones. With huge economic growth millions of jobs were being created and taken by young people. Simultaneously, there was a move from cocaine to other drugs and this also reduced street crime. The economists Steven Levitt and John Donahue even famously argued that the primary cause of the decrease in crime in New York during the 1990s was actually the legalization of abortion in 1973. [1]  Therefore, it is these social and economic problems which should be targeted if we are to see a successful reduction in crime.  [1] Donohue, John J., and Levitt, Steven D., ‘The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000,  , accessed 21

Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime  Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime, and zero tolerance policing detracts from that effort. The most important element of urban regeneration is the way individuals come to take pride in their area. This is far more likely when it is not associated with police persecution, antagonism with the government and constant fear of arrest. No police presence is sufficient to properly defend a business which has not fostered good relations with the local community. Regeneration has worked on its own to solve crime problems; this can be seen in Hong Kong and Brixton in London.

Protecting businesses and creating a reputation for low crime and sound policing attracts inward investment and immigration both to a country as a whole and to individual areas. The cost to a country of theft and vandalism per year is a significant chunk of GDP, in the United States for example a 1994 report estimated the annual cost at $674 billion. [1] Deterrence reduces the number of crimes that police are forced to investigate and although prisons are expensive the reduction in recidivism should start to empty them in time. [2]  However, with economic hardship comes higher likelihood of petty crime. It is for this reason that those in the lower classes are more likely to commit crime than those in higher classes. This effect is heightened in the aftermath of a recession. As people feel less and less willing to pay and put the blame on society, they are more likely to steal. It is cost effective in as much as it is less expensive than prison and is ultimately less expensive to society than ignoring the criminality.  [1] Shapiro, Emily, ‘Cost of Crime: A Review of the Research Studies’, Information Brief Minnesota House of Representatives, August 1999, p. 15, www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/costcrime.pdf , accessed 21 September 2011  [2] Friedman David D., ‘Rational Criminals and Profit-Maximizing Police: Gary Becker's Contribution to the Economic Analysis of Law and Law Enforcement’, Cambridge University Press 1995,  , accessed 21 September 2011

This is a marginal impact at best. The vast majority of illegal immigrants will try to flee the scene of a crash because they would be worried that the police might be called in to investigate the crash and find out they are illegal and therefore deport them. Although this isn’t always a realistic expectation, it is an expectation that most people in the illegal immigrant community have because of their paranoia over the state pursuing them and wanting to deport them. This fear is only exacerbated by the anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric that permeates American society at present and makes them feel that the state will try to seek them out however they can to get rid of them.

This allows illegal immigrants to get drivers insurance, which makes safer and fairer roads.  Insurance is a key component in making the streets safe for all drivers on the road. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses allows them to gain driver’s insurance.  Driving absent insurance means that there is an incentive to drive off if you cause an accident to avoid having to pay for the damages you have caused and being criminally punished for driving without insurance. This leaves the other driver having to foot their own bill for the repairs to their vehicles [1] . Moreover, even if the uninsured driver stays at the scene, illegal immigrants are characteristically very poor as they must engage in exploitative work to make a wage because they must hide from the state and do not get the same protections from the state, so would still be unable to pay for the damages they have caused. Moreover, having uninsured drivers on the road increases insurance premiums for all insured drivers on the road, as they have to de-facto pay for the risk and damage these uninsured drivers cause [2] .  Therefore, offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses allows for more fair and accountable systems of insurance and driving conditions on the road.  [1] Confessore, Nicholas, and Danny Hakim. "Licenses for Immigrants Find Suppot." New York Times 09 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.   [2] Confessore, Nicholas, and Danny Hakim. "Licenses for Immigrants Find Suppot." New York Times 09 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.

These people do not deserve to use the services of the USA. They are not citizens, they are law-breakers and society has no obligation to make life easier or more comfortable for those who break the law. Regardless of their contributions to society or the economy, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The consequences of their breaches of the law should be remedied. If necessary, illegal immigrants should be punished in proportion to the harm that their act has caused. Under no circumstances should illegal acts allow these individuals to gain access to the status and legal privileges that citizenship confers.

The provision of driver’s licenses makes the streets safer.  Offering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants makes the streets safer by giving drivers training to people who would otherwise be driving on the streets without adequate education. Unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to get into a fatal crash than licensed drivers [1] .  A fact that needs to be acknowledged is that illegal immigrants have a necessity to drive and the vast majority will do so regardless of if they are given licenses or not. This is very dangerous both for them and for those who they share the road with as they are operating motor vehicles with a proper education on the rules of the road or any form of driving instruction or test to ensure that they can competently and safely drive on the streets [2] .  Illegal immigrants are very likely to opt into this system of driver’s education and licensing because it is in their own interest to avoid breaking the law to avoid detection, but also because it is very much in their interest to get instruction on how to drive as they are as much a danger to themselves as they are to the rest of society when they drive without instruction [3] .  Therefore, offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses will help make the streets safer by giving drivers access to the education and instruction they need to be safe and competent drivers.  [1] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.   [2] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.   [3] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.

It is very unlikely that illegal immigrants will even opt into this scheme. Illegal immigrants are notoriously paranoid about going to the state for any form of assistance as they are afraid of deportation. The vast majority of them would rather risk getting caught driving without a license then they would risk going to the state as an illegal to receive a license in the first place.

This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society.  Drivers licenses are used a major form of identification in America and so granting illegal immigrants these forms of identification can help enfranchise one of the most exploited minorities in America.  Despite American feelings on illegal immigrants, they are there in their society, contribute to their communities and are a group of people that are routinely and unjustly exploited because of their lack of access to state protection. Despite popular opinion of this being a punishment for breaking their laws, these people operate like any other citizen in American society and are human beings who deserve to be treated as such and to be offered at least some level of protection for the fact that they are human and for what they contribute to America communities and society.  Providing these people with a proper form of identification, especially a driver’s license, which is almost universally accepted as an adequate form of identification to access services from the state and to interact with the rest of society. Specifically, this allows immigrant communities to not feel as though they are confined to an isolated area as they now can travel further distances to gain better employment without fear of being caught and thrown into jail [1] . Moreover, this allows them access to all services offered by the state that require identification such as voter registration.  Therefore, this helps enfranchise a group that is normally exploited in America society.  [1] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.

The first problem with this argument is that it assumes that illegal immigrants are easily identifiable without a driver’s license. It is not like illegal immigrants walk around with a giant red sign that says “Potential Security Threat” at present, and that when we give them licenses they will finally get to put down their signs.  On this basis, the security risk presented by this policy is minimal. Moreover, for what security risk might exist, it is very easily mitigated or gotten rid of all together. For example, if identification is needed for access to something that is vulnerable to security threat, it is very easy for the government or relevant officials to say that the only sufficient form of ID is a passport instead of a license, due to the risk people may pose.  The additional harms identified by side opposition are the result of service providers’ discriminatory practices. Federal and state race equality laws prevent businesses and government employees from refusing service to individuals based on their physical characteristics or ethnicity. Therefore, official discrimination cannot exist. At best, this will simply be soft discrimination.

There is a very big difference between rewarding people for breaking the law and taking positive action to prevent them being exploited and financially marginalised. The United States’ legal system supposedly exists to protect everyone resident within its borders – not just individuals possessing citizenship. Giving illegal immigrants basic access to very rudimentary things such as the driver’s education does not reward law-breaking or undermine the rule of law. Even if side opposition disagree with granting illegal immigrants any rights, this argument is still defeated by the beneficial consequences of ensuring that a much larger number of drivers have received training on the rules of the road. Under the resolution, America’s highways and cities will generally safer for both pedestrians and other drivers.  On the point of deterrence, there are already very large deterrents to trying to immigrate illegally. The trek is long, dangerous and controlled by violent groups on either side of the border. Bandits and people smugglers engage in robberies and people trafficking on the Mexican side; extremist groups such as the minutemen attempt to assault or shoot immigrants in transit from the American side. Not being able to get a driver’s license once here is not in any way a deterrent that holds any weight when put in context.  Being able to drive is a necessary skill in the US, where under-investment in public transport infrastructure has led to workers developing a dependence on private transport. The weak bargaining position of an immigrant seeking work would be completely undermined if she were unwilling to drive for or to her job. Even the most risk averse migrant labourer accepts that the possibility of being caught driving without a licence is a risk that they have no choice but to take.

This will foster further resentment of the Hispanic community in America.  This policy will only further the resentment that exists for illegal immigrants in America, and will make life harder for the entire Hispanic community as a result.  It is no secret that the idea of granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses is a very unpopular idea. In New York, for example, 70% of the electorate is against this policy [1] . Looking to California, not only are drivers licenses out of the question, but in 1994 the state passed a bill denying illegals access to welfare, healthcare and education by a 59% margin [2] . Resentment for the community is high and it is undeniable that this policy will be wildly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans.  The issue with Americans being unhappy with this policy is that they will channel their unhappiness toward all immigrant communities and the Hispanic community more generally. The concept of driver’s licenses especially fuels this hatred because Americans believe that this will allow them to “masquerade” as normal Americans and therefore will assume all Hispanics are these illegals that are masquerading as legal immigrants in their communities. This will only engender more hate and discrimination against these communities.  Therefore, this will seriously harm the Hispanic-American community by fuelling hatred against them in the American majority.  [1] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.   [2] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.

This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants.  Allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses is a security issue for America.  Illegal immigrants are a threat to the US because they have not gone through the necessary background checks that all immigrants are supposed to go through before being allowed into the US to ensure that they are not going to harm American citizens.  Giving illegal immigrants documents that- as proposition argument three says- could grant them access to state services and to a wider range of private services is dangerous [1] . There is no way for frontline state and business staff to determine whether drivers licence holders are migrants who have undergone appropriate police screening, or criminals with a history of dishonest or exploitative behaviour. The resolution may, therefore, allow disreputable individuals to falsely claim to be normalised American citizens.  Alternatively, and more likely, the resolution will undermine the value and utility of state drivers licences – for Latin-American US citizens at the very least. As it becomes known that immigrants from the south bearing licences might be more likely to be dishonest, banks, stores and hospitals will become less willing to accept drivers licences as conclusive proof of a Latin-American individual’s identity.  If the degree to which service providers will trust a driving licence is reduced, the improvements to illegal immigrants’ quality of life that the resolution brings about will be short lived. Moreover, legally resident Latin-Americans will find that their lives become much more difficult. Service providers will adopt a stance of suspicion toward Latin-American individuals, assuming that a Latino-American’s driving licence offers no useful indication as to his immigration status and background. Therefore, this policy constitutes a large security threat to America and its citizens, and a significant danger to the integration and lifestyles of thousands of Latino-American individuals.  [1] "Position Paper: No Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens." News Blaze. Realtime News, 23 Sep 2001. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.

This rewards law-breaking.  This policy rewards those who break the law and therefore is unjustified.  There are immigration policies for a reason, and to skirt them because you do not want to wait in line like everyone else does not entitle you to be treated on the same level as those who adhere to American laws and immigration procedures. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses simply because they made it here is just rewarding them for being good at breaking our laws.  We have a moral obligation to continue to deny illegal immigrants the perks of citizenship because they have undermined the very laws and processes that citizenship relies on in America. Moreover, if we simply treat them the same as legal immigrants in our country, there is no deterrent left to stop people from just ignoring our immigrant processes and trying to immigrate illegally to avoid the queue.  Therefore, we shouldn’t give illegal immigrants drivers licenses because that simply rewards law-breaking and undermines the legal system and immigration policy we rely on.

The state should never allow mob mentality to govern its policies and specifically should never let prejudice of its people allow the state to let exploitation and abuse of human beings go unaddressed. This resentment and assumption that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants leeching from the state is something that is already a perception that permeates US thought. This policy will at worst marginally increase that sentiment, and even if it does, the state has a duty to ignore blind hate and not let it drive state policy.

The policy itself has no malicious intent and is not aimed to harm different communities to a different level. An argument about the rich ignoring the one child policy is an argument for better regulation of the current policy, which is meant to be completely fair no matter a family’s status or wealth, not the abolition of the policy itself.

The one child policy is ignored by Chinas elite  The one child policy is a policy that can be ignored fairly easily by richer people within China. Through their ability to bribe officials as well as their ability to hide extra children using foster parents and the like, it is easily possible for richer people to flout the one child policy. This has shown itself in the form of many wealthy Chinese officials, entrepreneurs and celebrities who have been caught ignoring the one child policy. For example between 2000 and 2005 1968 government officials in Hunan violated the one child policy.1  Given that this is true, the one child policy serves to create social division in China. It is perceived by the poorest Chinese communities as an obstacle to prosperity. By imposing harsh penalties (both moral and fiscal) on parents who attempt to maximise not only their future welfare, but also their family’s economic prosperity by trying for a son, the one child policy undermines social development within China’s rural and working classes. Moreover, it serves to entrench negative perceptions of Chinese officials and business owners as corrupt tyrants. How else will marginalised communities relate to a law that undermines the cohesion of their families and that the wealthy can exempt themselves from? 2  1 Liu, Melinda, ‘China’s One Child Left Behind’, Newsweek, 19 January 2008,   2 ibid

The Chinese authorities outlaw forced abortions. The violations of human rights are outliers and rarely occur. When they do they are punished badly.  Such violations are regrettable; however the one child policy carries a number of benefits for the vast majority of Chinese families. Since the implementation of the policy family planning in China has become significantly better and thus the overall benefit to all of China outweighs the harm that is incurred by a tiny minority of people. 1  Without population control measures, quality of life in China would decline for all citizens who must compete for limited jobs, healthcare resources, and access to social services, particularly in rural areas.2  1 Associated Press. “China Will Outlaw Selective Abortions.” MSNBC. 07-01-2005.   2 "Family Planning in China." Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China.

The one child policy skews gender demographics  Many Asian cultures have a preference for sons over daughters due to traditions involving inheritance. Further, in rural communities a son is often preferable to a daughter simply because of the amount of work that they can do for the family. As well as this, sons act as primary caregivers for the parents when they go into retirement and the son’s parents are often treated better than the daughter’s.  It is for these reasons that often when a Chinese family finds out that they are set to have a daughter they attempt to selectively abort it and try again for a son. This is technically illegal in China, however, this has only led to back alley abortions which often carry a much higher chance of mortality for the mother. Further, it has also led to parents abandoning female children or leaving them to starve so that they may try again with a son. In China’s rural provinces it is much more difficult for the authorities to deal with every case given the sheer number of people over such a large area and as such these crimes often go unprosecuted or punished.  This process not only leads to human rights violations, as mentioned, but it also skews the gender balance of the Chinese population. Specifically, since the implementation of the policy in 1979 many men are finding there are simply no women to marry. By 2020 it is estimated there will be 40 million men unable to marry in China simply because of the lack of females.1  1 Baculino, Eric. “China Grapples with legacy of its ‘missing girls.” MSNBC. 09-14-2004.

The Chinese authorities are getting better at preventing selective abortion of females since it was banned in 2005. Whilst the demographic changes resulting from the one child policy are regrettable, they are ultimately what the Chinese authorities are seeking from the one child policy. 40 million men who cannot marry are unlikely to have children and contribute to China’s population problems.  Whilst there is harm to society from these men being unable to marry, the problem of overpopulation in China’s future which is being prevented by the one child policy outweighs this harm significantly.1  1 Associated Press. “China Will Outlaw Selective Abortions.” MSNBC. 07-01-2005.

The one child policy results in sweeping human rights violations  The One Child policy is often strictly enforced in China and many parents are given information about contraception to prevent any chance of an unplanned pregnancy. However a large number of pregnancies- within any population- are inevitable, despite the precautions that parents may take. Whether as a result of defective medication, irresponsible behaviour, or simple bad luck, sufficiently frequent sexual activity will always lead to pregnancy.  Reports from human rights workers indicate that the Chinese states deals with such eventualities by forcing women to have abortions against their will. By some accounts, the state directly detains and punishes women who resist family planning policies.1 The psychological trauma caused by this is almost indescribable. Not only does a forced abortion represent a significant attack on a woman’s bodily autonomy, procedures of this type are officially contextualised as correcting the results of wrongdoing. The woman is not counselled or assured that she is not morally culpable for her actions; she is placed in a position where the destruction of her foetus is portrayed as the inevitable result of her own lack of responsibility. Chinese women are made to feel directly responsible for the loss of their unborn children or for the circumstances that gave rise to their pregnancy.  Further the Chinese authorities often force people to be sterilised against their will. This has happened in some cases almost immediately after birth, which is incredibly traumatic for the people involved. Further, should these people ever leave China it prevents them from raising a family in the future with more than a single child. Again, forced sterilisation in this way causes large psychological harms due to the manner in which the person’s body is violated.2  1 Life Site News. "Forced Abortion Still a Reality in China Says New Amnesty Report." Life Site News. 27-05-2005.   2 Elegant, Simon. “Why Forced Abortions Persist in China.” Time. 30-04-2007.

The Chinese economy may well have grown anyway; correlation is not causation. It was not the one child policy that has caused China’s incredible economic growth but the opening up of the Chinese economy to the market.  Moreover the economic benefits from the one child policy do not come without costs.  “An associate professor of economics at Columbia University, Lena Edlund, found that a 1% increase in the ratio of males to females equates to an increase in violent and property crime of as much as 6%, "suggesting that male sex ratios may account for 28% to 38% of the rise in crime.”  Further to this, the economic benefits of the one child policy do not outweigh the harms to human rights that the one child policy causes.1  1 “One-Child Policy, Chine Crime Rise Linked by Study.” New Yorks Sun. 19-11-2007.

Interventions and contraceptive techniques such as condoms and sex education have proven to be more effective than the one child policy in aiding population control. Thailand and Indonesia for example achieved the same ends as China in reduction of their population just using these methods of birth control and family planning.  Further, the benefits of one child in population control are often exaggerated. From 1970 to 1979, through education and an emphasis on having smaller families and more time between pregnancy the Chinese government was able to reduce its birth rate from 5.2 to 2.9.  Population growth within China at a stable rate, which a replacement fertility level of 2.1 would bring, might actually be beneficial. The extra man power will be useful to China, it would mean that instead of having its population decline from 1. 341 billion today to 941 million by 21001 as is currently projected there would be a more stable population which would result in less problems with an aging population.2  Other critics question the assertion that the One-Child policy is effective at achieving population control in the first place. Fertility levels dropped between 1970 and 1979 due to government policies that pushed for later marriages and fewer births.3 Additionally, economic growth and social programs are likely to encourage smaller family sizes -- this phenomena has been observed in other countries without similar government policies.4 In cities and wealthier rural areas, surveys indicated that women on average wanted to have fewer than two children, which is below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 children per couple.5 It is difficult to isolate the One-Child policy as the primary cause of declining birth rates when other socioeconomic factors also affect families' decisions.  1 ‘China Population (thousands) Medium variant 2010-2100’, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2010 revision,   2 “The most surprising demographic crisis.” The Economist. 05-05-2011.   3 Feng, Wang. "Can China Afford to Continue its One-Child Policy?" Analysis from the East-West Center. No. 77. March 2005.   4 Engelman, Robert. "What happens if China's 'one child' is left behind?" Worldwatch Institute. 03-03-2008.   5 The Economist. "The child in time." 10-08-2010.

One child benefits women  It is reported that the focus of China on population control helps provide a better health services for women and a reduction in the risks of death and injury associated with pregnancy. At family planning offices, women receive free contraception and pre-natal classes. Help is provided for pregnant women to closely monitor their health. In various places in China, the government rolled out a ‘Care for Girls’ programme, which aims at eliminating cultural discrimination against girls in rural and underdeveloped areas through subsidies and education.  Within many Chinese communities, women have traditionally been the primary caregivers for children; however, with fewer children, they have more time to invest in their careers, increasing both their personal earnings and the national GDP.1,2  1 “Family Planning in China.” Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 1995.   2 Taylor, John. “China-One Child Policy,” Foreign Correspondent. 02-08-2005.

Single child families are economically efficient  The one child policy is economically beneficial because it allows China to push its population growth rate well below its growth rate in GDP.  This has allowed the standard of living in China for the average Chinese citizen to improve significantly since the policy was implemented. Specifically speaking, since 1978 the income of the urban population in China has increased tenfold. Per capita housing space has also increased both in towns and in rural areas allowing Chinese people to enjoy a higher standard of living.  Further, the individual savings rate has increased since the introduction of the One Child Policy. This has been partially attributed to the policy in two respects. First, the average Chinese household expends fewer resources, both in terms of time and money, on children, which gives many Chinese more money with which to invest. Second, since young Chinese can no longer rely on children to care for them in their old age, there is an impetus to save money for the future.  On top of this, the one child policy has also been instrumental in the eradication of poverty in China. Often, the greatest problem with poverty is that families grow to unsustainably large sizes and as such the entire family is forced to be hand to mouth. However, the one child policy prevents this from happening and as such allows for the single child to be educated properly without providing too much strain on the family. Hence, by improving educational attainment and by reducing the financial pressures bearing on poor families, the one child policy has contributed significantly to reducing poverty within China.1  1 “Family Planning in China.” Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 1995.

The one child policy is needed for population control  The One Child policy in China acts as an extremely powerful check on the population. With 1.3 billion people, problems of overcrowding and resource depletion in China are bad and will get significantly worse without change.1  The reality of the abolition of the one child policy is that with an increase in birth rate from the current level of 1.7 to 2.1 which is not unreasonable given population growth in other countries, there would be 5 million more births per year in China than there are now resulting in 250 million more people by the middle of this century.  Given that China is already one of the biggest contributors to global warming in the world, the addition of another 250 million people would be catastrophic in the prevention of damage to the climate. Ecological damage of this kind has been a common feature of overpopulated societies, china included, for centuries. Soil erosion, depletion of soil nutrients in arable land and pollution of water sources are already an increasing problem in China, desertification for example causes US $6.5billion of losses to the country each year.2 Further, the strain on Chinese resources would also be incredible. The policy also prevents other problems associated with overpopulation, such as epidemics and the growth of slums.3 Stable and balanced population growth requires that the policy remain in place for the time being.4  1 "Family Planning in China." Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China.   2 People’s Daily, ‘China Faces Challenge of Desertification’, 1 September 2001,   3 Revkin, Andrew. “An End to One-Child Families in China?” New York Times.28-02-2008.   4 Yardley, Jim. "China Sticking with One-Child Policy."

The benefits for women in this situation could easily be enforced via legislation, without the need for a one child policy to begin with. The gain from mothers who are able to work could easily be replicated through family planning and a greater focus on equality between genders in the country. As it is, the one child policy as defined in side opposition’s case causes women’s rights to be violated and often results in the deaths of otherwise healthy baby girls.

Even if the international community decided it wanted to better protect the human rights of migrants, an international treaty will not necessarily advance that cause, as international law has proven to be very difficult to enforce. This will continue to be a problem into the foreseeable future.

The U.N. Convention is the best available mechanism for addressing the widespread problem of migrant rights.  Because the issue of migrant rights is a global one, concerned with human rights and the domestic and international actions of states, a U.N. convention is an appropriate solution. The U.N. is the best body to act because although the situation for migrant workers may be slightly different in each state, there are basic rights that they all deserve. In addition, even if each state sought individually to protect migrant rights, they might not be able to, because governing migration takes coordination between states. With international legislation, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights; and, migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, with such bodies as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy." [1] The U.N. Convention would fill this gap.  Indeed, the U.N.’s solution to regulate migration represents a reasonable and thorough approach. It is reasonable because it does not ask too much of states, requiring only that they provide migrants with basic rights. It is thorough because it provides protection for each of the many challenges and injustices facing migrant workers. Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world.  [1] Deparle, Jason. "Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move," New York Times. June 26, 2010.

In most democratic, developed countries—which are those that receive the most immigrants—all people share equal rights in the workplace, as long as they immigrated legally. The workplace protections in the U.N. Convention that only apply to legal migrants. Ratifying the Convention would thus not make much positive change for migrant workers around the world.  The workplace protections in the U.N. Convention that apply to illegal immigrants are unjust, as migrants surrender the right to work when they come to a country illegally. Article 26, which provides the right to unionize, applies to all migrant workers, but countries cannot be expected to grant illegal immigrants these powers. People who broke the law to come to the country do not deserve these rights. In fact, because they usually come to work, the workplace is the ideal place to discover illegal immigrants. Not only are they not allowed to unionize, but they are not allowed to get paid. Workplace rights do not need to be strengthened for legal migrants, and they should not be for illegal migrants.

Ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve diplomacy between source countries and receiving countries.  Migrant rights is a major diplomatic issue between receiving and source countries, and ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve relations, clearing the way for states to work together to solve other international problems.  The diplomacy of western liberal states depends on the principle of rights for all, which is somewhat delegitimized by the unresolved issue of migrant rights. The International Federation for Human rights argues, “Non-ratification [of the U.N. Convention of migrant rights] brings the core values of the EU into question.” [1] If receiving countries were to join source countries in strengthening protections for migrants, it would send a message that they are committed to freedom for all citizens of the world, and so it would improve their legitimacy in international diplomacy.  [1] International Federation for Human Rights, "Europe, It's Time to Ratify the Migrant Workers Convention," June 21, 2010 , accessed June 27,  .

Migrants face a growing human-rights problem that needs fixing.  Migrants around the world are often seen as second-class citizens, and this inequality is encouraged by legislation. Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws.  Human rights also include fair treatment under the welfare state, which migrants are often denied. Without this equal treatment, common myths about migrants will continue to be widely believed. These myths claim that immigrants are criminals and that they steal jobs from natives. The organization Migrant Rights says, “All these myths rob migrant workers and refugees of their humanity, and are aimed at portraying them as less deserving of our sympathy and help.” [1]  It is a violation of migrants’ human rights to be treated this way, and they will only be seen as equals when there is a sweeping change in their legal protections in and between the nations of the world.  [1] Migrant Rights, "Fact-checking the Israeli government’s incitement against migrants and refugees," October 1st, 2010 , accessed June 30, 2011,  .

Migration is a problem; not migrant rights. Migrant rights are already protected under human rights law. If a nation violates existing international human rights law against a migrant, perhaps with exploitative working conditions, wrongful imprisonment, seizure of property, discrimination, or violence, existing international law already adequately protects them. There is no need to expand human rights law to create a separate category and separate protections for migrants.

Even seriously talking about full ratification of the U.N. Convention would actually cause international tensions. This is especially true in the European Union, which has tried to avoid the issue as much as possible. Stanley Pignal, of the Financial Times, calls migration “among the most sensitive topics in any of its 27 member states.” [1] Since its formation when it allowed for internal migration, the European Union has tried to avoid this difficult issue. Many of the protections that are proposed are very unpopular there, as well as in the United States. These include particularly the right of family reunification, and any measures that clear a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Even broaching the topic of the Convention would cause diplomatic fights between many of the world’s leading countries, who must stay friendly in order to keep a state of peace.  [1] Stanley Pignal, "EU faces threat to migration principle," Financial Times,September 28 2010 ,  .

Migration puts too heavy a burden on receiving countries, and it essentially means giving up on source countries. It is not a mechanism of the market, but rather an unfair system that takes money from taxpayers in certain countries and gives it to people in other countries. Not all aspects of migration are bad, but in addition to its workplace protections, the U.N. Convention would protect the right of immigrants to send money home. This would solidify the current unfair system (Article 47). Remittances are a short-term fix that come at a high cost for receiving and source countries. If migrants are not allowed to send home remittances, it is possible that the most skilled workers would stay in their home country and work to rebuild the economy for the long-term.  The supposed intangible benefit of “innovation and invention” is much less important than the real cost that these countries feel as a result from the unemployment and increased cost of health, education, and welfare systems that migrants cause.

Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so  Migrants face a number of challenges in integrating into a new workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. These challenges include the right to join unions as well as inhumane working conditions. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, "In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group." [1] Ratifying the U.N. convention would create specific changes in many countries that would finally make migrants less vulnerable. For example, Articles 26 and 40 provide all migrant workers the right to join and form trade unions, which is banned for them in all of the Arab Gulf states. [2] Protecting the right to unionize, allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, which is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term.  In addition to the right to unionize, the Convention ensures, in Article 25, “Migrant workers shall enjoy treatment not less favourable than that which applies to nationals” in the workplace. All states that have not already done so ought to immediately ratify the U.N. Convention so that migrant workers will receive equal treatment in the workplace.  [1] Daily Star, “Ratify U.N. convention on migrant workers’ rights,” May 3, 2009,  .  [2] Human Rights Watch. "Saudi Arabia/GCC States: Ratify Migrant Rights Treaty." April 10th, 2003.  .

Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so.  The economic protections in the U.N. Convention are not only good for migrants themselves; they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. In a globalized world, migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization.  The growth of the world’s great economies has relied throughout history on the innovation and invention of immigrants. The new perspective brought by migrants leads to new breakthroughs, which are some of the most important benefits to receiving countries from migration. The exploitation of migrant workers that exists in the status quo creates tensions and prejudices that hamper this essential creative ability of migrants in the workplace.  Irene Khan shows that migrant protections are important for everybody involved: "When business exploits irregular migrants, it distorts the economy, creates social tensions, feeds racial prejudice and impedes prospects for regular migration. Protecting the rights of migrant workers -- regular and irregular -- makes good economic and political sense for all countries -- whether source, destination or transit." [1] The U.N. Convention works to combat this exploitation, ensuring equal treatment for migrants in the workplace, and requiring, in many Articles (e.g. Article 17) covering various aspects of political life, that migrants are treated with respect. This will create an atmosphere in which migrants can contribute their invaluable input as well as their low-wage labor, to help boom the economies of the receiving countries that have not yet ratified the Convention.  [1] Irene Khan, "Invisible people, irregular migrants," The Daily Star, June 7th, 2010 ,  .

Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to ratify the U.N. Convention because of the burden it would put on their health, education, and welfare systems.  Because immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries. Therefore it is not practical for countries to grant them the equal access to health, education, and welfare systems, as they would have to under the U.N. Convention. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons. [1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them detracts from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling.  [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration," accessed June 30, 2011,  .

The U.N. Convention would make it harder for states to deport illegal immigrants who broke the law by entering the country.  States have the right to deport people who entered the country illegally, and the U.N. Convention would make that more difficult. The Convention gives extensive rights even to illegal immigrants, especially in the realm of the justice system (Article 17). Indeed, migrant activists often see deportation policies as immoral. Yet, a state has every right to arrest, imprison, and deport illegal immigrants. When an illegal immigrant commits a crime (in addition to unlawful entry into the country), states are often forced to pay to keep the criminal in prison, rather than deport him. The United States loses half-a-billion dollars each year this way. [1] Ultimately it's a matter of enforcing national laws, sovereignty, and the integrity of a nation's welfare-system.  [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration." Accessed June 30, 2011.  .

If states were to ratify the U.N. Convention, many of them would not be able to protect their national identities.  A state-by-state approach would allow each state to pass a law that fits its needs, particularly those of protecting its national identity, which is a concern international law cannot approach. Maintaining an original ethnic and cultural structure is important to many states, especially those that are populated by one ethnic group. Is Israel, for example, wrong to term itself a "Jewish state"? There is nothing inherently wrong with its efforts to maintain this identity, even if that effort constrains the expansion of migrant rights.

Ratifying the U.N. Convention would increase unemployment rates in receiving countries at a time when they are already painfully high  Increasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Article 8 of the U.N. Convention grants all workers the right to leave their state of origin. This implies an obligation of other states to receive them, and so it would protect increased migration. Further, the right to family reunification for documented migrants, found in Article 50, would also increase migration.  This increase in migration would be problematic in many countries. It could worsen overpopulation problems, increase tensions between ethnic and/or religious groups, and raise unemployment rates. The economies of many receiving countries are barely managing to fight unemployment in the status quo. If migrants receive further protection, they will take more jobs, making it harder for citizens to find employment. Everybody should have the opportunity to work in his home country, but the economic protection of migrants overcrowds receiving countries, driving up unemployment. In America, for example, between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled workers is caused by immigration, and around 1,880,000 American workers lose their jobs every year because of immigration. [1] In addition to unemployment problems, overcrowding can have a variety of negative consequences affecting air pollution, traffic, sanitation, and quality of life. So, why are migrants deserving of "protection"? It should be the other way around: the national workers of a state deserve protection from migrant workers and the jobs they are taking.  [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration." Accessed June 30, 2011.  .

It is in the nature of international treaties that they represent a compromise, if it was not a compromise receiving nations were willing to make they should have made changes during the negotiations. However the convention does not impose a heavy burden on states wishing to deport migrants, it simply ensures that their human rights are upheld. Suggestions such as “Migrant workers… who are subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment… shall enjoy the same rights as nationals of those States who are in the same situation.” (Article 17) is simply asking for equality for all rather than allowing the current inequality to continue.

States should form their own migration policy, because the U.N. Convention violates state sovereignty.  Every state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to ratify a piece of one-size-fits-all legislation, like the U.N. Convention. Instead, immigration policy and migrant rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis.  The U.N. Convention would violate state sovereignty. Not all international law is necessarily bad, but these protections go too far, because they force a huge burden on certain nations, and not others. It is fair for an international body to say that all nations should treat their citizens with equality and respect, but it is not fair to say that certain countries should have to provide for many additional citizens from less-well-off states. It is not surprising that only source countries have ratified the Convention thus far; that is because those are the countries that would benefit from the changes, at the expense of those countries that are still holding out.

While it is true that migrants are poorer than natives, or they would likely not be migrating to that country, it is not the case that they are costly for the receiving country. Immigrants come for a reason; to work. It therefore stands to reason that these people are going to be working and paying taxes. In the US in 2010 the labor force participation rate for foreign born men was 80.1%, much higher than among native born men. They are at the same time likely to be young, and therefore healthy so relatively less of a burden on healthcare, and in many cases leave their families behind so are not a burden on the education system. The typical immigrant in the United States and their descendants represent an $80,000 gain to the government. [1]  [1] Daniel T. Griswold, “Immigration and the Welfare State”, CATO Journal, Vol.32, No.1, Winter 2012,  p.163

The scientific debate is not as settled as proponents of gay rights claim. The studies, while positive in their conclusions, have generally been based on very small samples, not more than a dozen families. Some experts claim that there is also a volunteer bias, with the subjects of these studies usually supportive of the gay rights agenda and therefore keen on reporting positive results. Lastly, the researchers themselves can be biased and willing to find evidence to back a political agenda1.  1 Parke, Mary. "Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?".Center for Law And Social Policy. May 2003. (accessed 2 August 2011).

There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion.  The overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in 2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of one group, it is only based on prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a democratic society.  1 Carey, Benedict. "Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption Issue". New York Times. 29 January 2005. (accessed 2 August 2011).  2 Wikipeida. "LGBT adoption status around the world" .(accessed 2 August 2011).  3 Foster Care 1999 Statistics. Adoption.com .(accessed 2 August 2011).

States place many restrictions on adoptions. China, for example, does not permit adoptions by couples who are too old, have disabilities or are obese1. It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with being overweight, old, or disabled. But the Chinese authorities are trying to decrease the likelihood of the adopted child losing a parent before the age of 18, which for these kids can be especially traumatic. If the parents being gay can be shown to be inherently harmful or less desirable for a child than straight parents, then such a ban would not constitute discrimination. It would be a decision based on a relevant and valid criterion.  1 Belkin, Lisa. "An End to Gay-Adoption Bans?". New York Times. 28 July 2010 .(accessed 2 August 2011)

Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal rights as opposite-sex households.  There are still many ways for gay people to become parents. Some of them are able to pay for a surrogate; some may have a natural child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship and then raise the child with a gay partner. In effect, what this law does is make it impossible for two gay people to have legal rights over a child they may already be raising together. These kids deserve the security of two legally recognized parents. If being raised by gay parents is really that harmful, why would the law allow two gay people to raise a child together as parents but refuse to legally recognize them as such?

Because no democratic government should ever attempt to regulate people's reproductive rights and dictate who is or isn't allowed to have children. And unless a massive harm can be shown to the child, the government usually doesn't take children away from their parents, as that might be more harmful. But the government is allowed to define what a family is or should be, under the law.

Just because the government will protect people's right to have a family from outside interference, and will publicly fund the treatment of a medical condition, such as infertility, it doesn't mean the government has to give children to those who don't or are unable to have any in order to protect their right to a family life.

Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people.  Discrimination is the practice of treating people differently based not on individual merit but on their membership to a certain group. The adoption bans are a clear example. Rather than assessing gay couples individually, it is simply assumed that they would all make bad parents because they are gay, while straight couples are assessed based on their individual merit. This breaches the fundamental right of all people to be treated equally under the law and it should be stopped. This principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; article 1 "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."1 And also many other national and regional legal texts (e.g. The US Constitution,2 The European Convention on Human Rights).  1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011)  2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)

Gay people have the right to a family life.  Getting married and raising a family is considered in most societies one of the most important and fulfilling experiences one can aspire to. It is so important it is considered a human right (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."1) It is considered so important for people to be able to become parents that some governments (the UK, for example) fund fertility treatments for couples who are reproductively challenged, and a majority of the population supports that policy2. But members of the LGBT community are stopped from pursuing this human right by repressive and discriminatory laws.  1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th November 1950 ,( accessed 2nd August 2011)  2 Schwartz, John. "Florida Court Calls Ban on Gay Adoption Unlawful". New York Times. 22 September 2010 .(accessed 2 August 2011).

Even if it were true, that the ideal environment for a child is a mother and father, which studies show it isn't, that still wouldn't justify a flat-out ban. Most governments still allow single people to apply for adoption, and even single gay people1. That is because there won't be an 'ideal' family available for every child who needs a home. So other options should be considered. After all, a child is better off with 'non-ideal' parents than with no parents at all. With adoptions, there is generally great demand for babies and toddlers, but older children are generally unwanted2 and end up in foster care until they're 18.  Proposition fails to tell us what studies they are referring to which does leave the question open whether these studies have taken into account other factors such as whether or not the biological parents were drug users. The heritage left by the biological parents needs to be remembered.  1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011)  2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)

These kids won't be completely deprived of models from the opposite sex to their parents'. They will still have contact with grandparents, teachers, friends, etc. But even if they didn't, why would the opposition just assume that gender roles are a valuable thing to learn? Why would we want to teach children to act and think differently based on being a boy or a girl? Parents should help them develop as individuals, based on their own interests and propensities.

The government's interest in protecting traditional families.  Numerous studies have shown that children do best when they are raised by two married, biological parents1. In the case of adopted children that is impossible, but a man and a woman is the best approximation of that family. Since that is the best environment to raise children, the government has to encourage and promote these traditional unions, not undermine them. Allowing gay couples to legally become parents, would legally and socially redefine what a family is and society as a whole may suffer. Children who are adopted already face bullying and exclusion in school because of their difference, placing them in same-sex households will double their exclusion and make their lives much harder than if placed in an opposite-sex household.  1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th November 1950 ,( accessed 2nd August 2011)

The welfare of the adopted child as the primary concern of the state.  The focus of this debate should not be on gay rights, but on what is in the best interest of the adopted child. The adoption process' goal is to find the most suitable parents for that child, not to resolve other social inequalities and injustices. Being raised in a traditional family, by a mother and father, is the best environment for a child. Studies have shown that children who are raised by homosexual couples can have problems with substance abuse, violence and 'at risk' behaviour. Therefore the state has the obligation to try to provide the child with that environment.

Gender roles.  Children raised by gay couples will find it more difficult to learn appropriate gender roles in the absence of male and female role-models. Although not an exact match single parents provide a similar case where there has not been someone of the other gender as a role model. Although the evidence is not nearly as conclusive as is often claimed1 there have been many studies that have shown that two parents from different genders is beneficial to the child in its development2. Similarly it is often claimed that boys develop negative attitudes to study because there are very few male teachers in primary schools3.  1 Flood, Michael, Fatherhood and fatherlessness, The Australia institute, Discussion Paper Number 59, (November 2003), p.xi ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)  2 Sarkadi, Anna et al., 'Father's involvemen and children's developmental outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal studies, ActaPaediatrica, 97 (2008) pp.153-158, p.155 (accessed 2nd August 2011)  3 Gerver, Richard, 'Lack of male role models a primary concern', The Telegraph, 22nd March 2009, (accessed 2nd August 2011)

These studies often confuse correlation and causation. The reason why children do best in these unions is not because there is some type of magical component to traditional marriage. It is the quality of the relationship not the form of it that benefits children. The government should encourage people to be stable, committed, loving parents, regardless of their marital status or gender. The stability of a relationship is what causes children to thrive, and it is merely usually correlated to heterosexual marriage, not produced by it. Also, there are more children up for adoption than there are opposite-sex couples willing to adopt, in this sort of a world it is clearly better for children to get out of the foster care system and into a loving home. Gay parents have also faced more discrimination and exclusion than most straight parents, which makes them especially able to help children who feel unwanted or out of place in the world.

The glass ceiling is extremely variable. The two deciding and overlapping factors, being whether women have children and which profession they are in. Higher numbers of women now going to university may change the number of lawyers, judges, doctors etc in the future. Doctors, barristers, leading scientists, all now contain a significant female percentage. Since 2001 there are more women called to the bar than men. [1] Huge advancements have been made and given positive intervention in the past statistics are now changing. Therefore, the feminist movement has achieved its objective.  [1]

Males Still Dominate the Top Positions  Out of over 250 countries, only a few are currently headed by women. [1] Women still account for only about 14% of members of parliament worldwide in 2002. [2] Some argue that gender quotas should be established to ensure equal input of men and women in parliament. Therefore, the feminist movement is still needed to fight this battle.  Woman still hold lower position in business, the legal profession and in the world of politics. It is therefore hard to argue that the glass ceiling has disintegrated. Until women hold higher positions in these fields the feminist cause has still not achieved its goals- in seeking to create a world where, amongst other things women can advance up the ladder in their career without being blocked by a glass ceiling and held back in lower positions.  [1]   [2]

Most corporations, in almost every country on the earth will not even offer their male employees something close to paternity. [1] But, most countries mandate by law, that women get a set amount of maternity leave. The truth is that, the lack of any kind of paternity leave for the male, indicates that there is a "glass ceiling" hovering over fathers heads, and is preventing them from being good parents. It would benefit every family, if fathers were allowed to spend time with their new borns, like women can.  This is not a battle for the feminist cause.  [1]

Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve  Feminism is still of relevance today, and is indeed needed. In the UK, one in four women suffers domestic violence, and an increase in the reporting of rape in the last thirty years has gone alongside a threefold drop in conviction rates. In countries such as Ireland and Malta abortion is still not legal for all women, this can be seen as an important part of equality for woman that has not been achieved yet and needs to be fought for. If we take feminism as a global movement then the movement is still of huge importance. That's because U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics. (That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.) [1] These are all real problems, on which feminists continue to campaign - as they should.  [1]

Feminism has no more battles left to fight. Victories such as gaining the vote, the right to an abortion(in most of the northern hemisphere) and the right to equal pay were important and worth winning. But given that sexual equality is now - rightly - enshrined and protected in law, there is nothing left for the feminist movement to do in most western countries. It may still be useful in parts of the world where women still lack basic democratic and other rights. However, in western society the feminist cause in no longer needed.

Maternity and Paternity Leave Are Not Yet Equal  Employers worry when they hire young/middle aged women. They fear that after hiring a woman, she will only cost the company money by getting pregnant and going on maternity leave. To combat this attitude, maternity and paternity leave should be equal. Currently, paternity leave is a maximum of two consecutive weeks. These two weeks must be taken within 56 days of the child’s birth. This can be contrasted with the long maternity leave that is allowed for. Women are entitled to 52 weeks of maternity leave from day one of employment. Women are entitled to maternity pay for 39 weeks if they have been working for their employer for 26 weeks.  Father’s also do not have the right to take time off work to attend antenatal classes, this allowance is for pregnant employees only. The feminist cause still has this issue to resolve. Until paternity leave is offered an employer can safely assume that a woman will be the partner to burden the care of the child and the employer will be the one to bear these costs of maternity leave. This gives men an unfair advantage in the workplace as they are a “safer bet” for employment.

Feminism is not about judging women for choices they make. It is about allowing women to make that choice. If we haven’t got to a point where all woman are given the choice either to stay in the home or advance equally in their career or do both then this is a point to indicate that feminism is still needed and relevant. In many ways women are still dictated to about the way they should act or what should interest them. Girls are told in school that science is more of a “boys subject”, while subjects such as wood work are rarely offered in all girls schools. In the media magazines tell girls how to “please your man” further cementing the idea, that women have long fought to remove, that women are solely the object of a man’s desire.  Stereotypes of women still exist and as long as they still exist in the minds of many, feminism still has an active role to play in dispelling these stereotypes. Take rape for an example. There are definitely legislative parts that need to be drastically improved and also better policing, but one way to challenge the cause of rape is to challenge traditional perceptions of the role of men. Why do men rape? Is it something to do with a certain perception of domination, a need to feel powerful? If this is the case can we challenge the traditional pressures and perceptions placed on men that they are the powerful ones. We may have challenged stereotypes about women, but it is still very difficult for men to feel comfortable expressing a 'feminine side.' All of these male stereotypes must also be tackled if we want to establish equality, which is what feminism has always been about.

There are two responses to this. First, many of the ways in which men suffer inequality are relatively minor when compared to the ongoing subordination of women in many areas of private and public life such as pay, childcare and sexuality. Second, where such inequality does exist, feminism possesses the resources to offer a distinctive and useful critique of the causes and consequences of sexual inequality, whether it is men or women who suffer as a result - men and women should be joining forces to offer feminist responses to discrimination, not blaming feminism where men have problems disconnected from the feminist cause.  Additionally, Feminism is a rights movement to place the female sex on equal footing as males. This naturally means that when an inequality exists it needs to be corrected. Yes, even when women have an apparent advantage in something over men it needs to be fixed. It is true men are given lower rights in certain cases. The results of divorce with children involved comes to mind. However, this, like many issues, will be solved in time through feminism. The main issue with this particular example is that women are seen as primary caregivers and are given the responsibility to be in that position. By showing women can succeed in traditionally male dominated areas it also opens the oppurtunity for men to step into female dominated areas. When men and women are seen as equal caregivers then there is less bias to grant custody to a mother over an equal father.

The Feminist Cause No Longer Appeals to Women  Many women no longer identify themselves as feminists, associating feminism with man-hating, sex-hating humourlessness, and seeing it as a relic of the 1970s. Modern women are perfectly capable of competing with men on equal terms, and they resent suggestions that they need special treatment.  Some women would question where the line between feminism and positive sexism begins. Women no longer want to associate themselves with a cause that is outdated and outmoded.

Now Damaging Gender Roles?  There is certainly a case to be made that women, in modern-western society have completely shattered the traditional values and roles that are best suited to them.  For example, it has always been the case that men have been the providers, the defenders of themselves, the household and the family. Women have been the maintainers of these things. These things are not unfair. They are not unequal. They are simply what each gender is best suited for.  Women should not feel lesser than men simply because they are "supposed" to do "motherly things". The feminist movement has gone beyond its cause in beginning to deem what role in life is more appropriate.

Men Have Big Problems Too  By focusing on women and their problems, feminism fails to recognise that there are inequality issues in which men are the victims. For example: boys are falling behind girls in academic achievement; far less money is spent on combating ‘male’ than ‘female’ diseases (the difference between the amount of research into breast cancer and prostate cancer is a striking.) [1] Single fathers are discriminated against over child custody and child support; fear of being accused of sexism is so widespread that it often leads to unfair discrimination against men. [2] Even the way men are portrayed in the media is a cause for concern. Last year, an oven cleaner ad drew a thousand-plus complaints for the slogan, “So easy, even a man can use it.” These can only be tackled by recognising that feminism has gone too far. The battle for equality is no longer needed but rather, we must remember feminism was never a tool for women to get their own back.  [1]   [2] www.mens-rights.net

Opponents of the feminist movement have always sought to stereotype feminists in order to reduce their support. That this enterprise is often successful is not an argument against feminism; in any case, many of the women who dislike the label ‘feminist’ turn out to hold what would until recently have been seen as extreme feminist views, such as the belief that women are perfectly capable of competing with men on equal terms. Feminists have always argued that women are just as capable of men; they have campaigned against legal, cultural and social barriers which have worked against women, preventing them from achieving equality.

Paying housewives would not make much difference to images of women and family life, and could even make things worse rather than better. By paying housewives, monetizing the position of housewife and home-keeper, the state re-affirms the idea that the only true value a person can hold is an economic one and that the only way to assess and quantify the value of an individual or their impact is through financial means. Re-enforcing such a financial-centric version of worth and value is dangerous to housewives, who, by any reasonable expectation, will never make as much as private-sector professionals such as CEOs. It simply re-enforces the inferiority of house-keeping and the role of the family unit in society.  This pay gap simply re-affirms prejudice and bias of the inferiority of home-keeping as a profession and gives tangible evidence to support this by placing a monetary value on what housewives do and inevitably not including the non-monetary benefits, such as the children having their mother to take them home from school.  Keeping a division between the money-led economic world and the love-driven family world is beneficial to the family dynamic and the perceptions of all those involved.

Paying housewives promotes more positive images of women and family life  Gender stereotypes dictate that the woman’s place is in the home and that that is an inferior position in the social hierarchy than that of the male’s corporate bread-winner status. The stereotype is particularly damaging to women’s expectations for themselves and the way society treats women.  By paying housewives for their work, a greater emphasis is placed on the role of the home-keeper and on the women that tend to this job. It elevates the position of women in the household by economically empowering them and giving them the very thing that usually implies the greater importance of the bread-winners in the family (economic power and status). Moreover, it elevates societal views of housewives and home-keepers by valuing their contributions to the household and society in a tangible, monetary way that society cares about.  Paying housewives for their work grants greater social status and power to women and family lives, which improves views of women and the roles they take in the family.

It is highly unlikely that this can be implemented in any country where female empowerment is as restricted as is discussed. If women are as dependent and oppressed as the proposition suggests, the political will to pass such legislation will not exist. Even if a law were passed, the pay would be very low, and so the wife would still rely on the husband’s income.

Housewives are entitled to pay  The philosophical basis of entitlement for pay is derived from the notion that if something comes into being as the product of an individual’s labor, then that individual is entitled to the profit and benefit of such a product because its existence was resultant of that individual’s labor [1] . That in this case the labor is on services does not make any difference, the product of the housewife’s labor is that the children are looked after and domestic matters are all sorted. This is beneficial to society as housewives in addition to helping their own family are likely to have the time to help out others – through volunteering, through looking after other’s children after school etc.  It is estimated that the value of a housemaker’s services would be equivalent to approximately £30,000 per year [2] . In the same way that any product or service is created, offered or manufactured by individual workers, the services of home-keeping are delivered by the labor of the home-keeper. Just as all workers are entitled to remuneration for the goods and services they create, so is a housewife is so entitled for the house-keeping services they offer.  [1] "Locke's Political Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010. Web. &lt;  .  [2] "'Housewives should be paid £30,000 for doing the cooking, laundry and childcare'." Daily Mail 19 Feb 2008, Print.

Not all labor is rewarded with wages or pay despite the fact that goods and services are products of said labor. For example, voluntary and charity work are both types of labor that is not paid. The distinction is where the work is done and the obligations owed to people as a result. Home-keeping is a voluntary job that has its own forms of remuneration (family connections etc.) in the same way that volunteering and charity work do (e.g. feeling as though you are part of something larger).

Paying housewives for their work is an important form of economic empowerment.  One of the most important factors of oppression of women’s rights, particularly in the developing world, is dependence [1] . Women are often confined to the home by force, lack of opportunity or social stigma, on behalf of their husbands. When she is not paid, a housewife must rely on her husband for money, especially if she has children she is expected to take care of. Economic empowerment allows further freedom for women in countries where women are confined to the home [2] . By making women economic actors, you empower them to engage in different social structures and hold a stake and position in the centres of economic power. This is the most empowering tool one can offer women in most countries around the world [3] .  By paying housewives for their work, you offer one of the most powerful forms of social empowerment for women around the world.  [1] United Nations. Women's Work and Economic Empowerment. Accessed July 1, 2011.  .  [2] United Nations. Women's Work and Economic Empowerment. Accessed July 1, 2011.  .  [3] United Nations. Women's Work and Economic Empowerment. Accessed July 1, 2011.  .

There are many ways to implement this on a practical level. Wages can be created through tax exemptions as opposed to the creation of new streams of wages and wealth.  Moreover, the prohibitive expense can be paid for by an increase in taxation. Home-keeping can be seen as a public good as it create good, strong homes and helps create constructive bases of support that help create productive future members of society, it can qualify as a public good that would therefore be a legitimate expense to tax the public for.

The job of housewives provides an essential service to society—to raise a healthy family—and so those who perform the job should be paid. Even if a product or service is not economically quantifiable, the person who provides it may have created something that otherwise would not exist through the exertion of their labor. Moreover, simply because they never had an option to opt into a monetized agreement or exchange does not mean that they do not deserve such an option in the future or that their services are not economically valuable, and thus, entitles them to wages.

Paying housewives reduces social mobility  By paying housewives for their work, you create negative stereotypes about families and women by commodifying the role of home-keeper. Paying housewives for their work re-enforces the very framework that is seen as oppressive on home-keepers. It creates a system in which women are even more strongly expected to be housewives than they are now, rather than seeking out career jobs with upward mobility. The result is that women are discouraged from seeking to fulfil their own dreams by creating their own careers as they are more firmly chained to their traditional role. This is damaging to societal views of women and the family.  As a result the full potential of many more women will not be reached. As is the case in Saudi Arabia women are likely to be very well educated but then have their education and talents wasted by being expected to remain in the home. [1] This would neither be good for the individuals involved or the economy as a whole.  [1] Saner, Emine, “Saudi Arabia opens the world’s largest university for women”, The Guardian, 27 May 2011, &lt;

Paying housewives is financially impractical.  On a very practical level, this policy could never be implemented. As much as housewives are valuable members of society, it is economically impossible to pay them wages. It is only possible to increase somebody’s pay if that person creates increased wealth. There is no direct increase in wealth creation caused by housewives and therefore it would be impossible to gain a direct or accurate valuation or mechanism of exchange for housewife pay.  Even if there was no market mechanism needed, and assuming that there is no interest in getting an accurate valuation of housewife economic contribution, there is no way for a government to finance this. Without the creation of a product or service that has a consumer who would be able to use the money to purchase such services, there is no method of capital accumulation to reimburse the home-keeper with. The baby or child who is receiving the service does not have the ability to pay. Should the government attempt to fill this void, it would be prohibitively expensive to create wages for every single housewife in a country.

Payment and obligation works differently in public and in private.  The economic sphere and the private (family) sphere have separate obligations and systems of contracts. The way in which the economic system works is that generally people are paid for their labor by those who benefit from it, either directly or indirectly. This is a mutual relationship of monetary-labor exchange. In the family sphere, the contracts are based on personal obligation and the family unit as opposed to individual contraction of services. The family unit is a pre-existing relationship not created on labor-pay agreements. Individuals opt into being a parent in a family unit on a voluntary basis and with no expectation or pretence of return for their services, except perhaps from their children in the future. Remuneration is created in the form of a functioning, rewarding family unit and family life and the products and services produced are of no quantifiable monetary value nor can they be sold or do they create wealth. Because housewives do not labor for anybody outside of their household, they should not be paid by anybody outside of their family. Moreover most of the work that housewives do would have to be done by a member of the family unit regardless of whether everyone was also engaged in monetized work – there would still need to be washing, cleaning, shopping etc done.  Housewives do not exist as workers in the economic sphere as they do not create a monetized product with their labor and opt into the agreement on voluntary non-monetary bases. As such, they are not entitled to pay.

Paying housewives a wage would improve not reduce social mobility. Many women would still choose to go to university and the vast majority who do will still want to work. Paying housewives will not prevent any women who wants to work from working. Rather it will simply provide another option for those who wish to devote themselves full time to their family. This will give these women some financial freedom giving them more opportunities to educate themselves and their children so that they can get a better job than they otherwise would when they no longer wish to just be a housewife.

What is best for the economy is making sure that government money is spent as efficiently as possible. This may mean taking some money away from spending on youth as well as providing more in some areas. Education for example can be changed to focus more specifically on skills needed for the workplace rather than learning for learning’s sake or could be made more efficient by transferring some learning online. This need not involve more spending on youth but better spending on youth.

Spending on youth is best for the economy  Spending on young people is an investment. While there may be other objectives too, such as taking young people off the street to prevent trouble, when there is spending on young people this is almost always to ensure they have either a broader, or more focused skill base. This is done through education, training, and apprenticeships. Having a better skilled workforce has a beneficial effect on economic growth. This means that there are several economic benefits to spending on youth; there is the initial fiscal benefit from the spending on youth followed over years and decades by a return on the investment from having higher skilled workers. This higher skilled workforce will then over time pay back the initial investment through paying more tax as a result of being more productive (so earning more). There is then a change from the unemployed youth being a burden on the state and the economy to a contributor.  A study in the US suggests that a 25 year old with little education past 16 and no job will cost the taxpayer $258,000 over their lifetime. [1] If trained and given a job this can clearly be turned into a gain for the taxpayer and society. This is similar to why it is more beneficial to the economy to spend on infrastructure than simply handing cash out. Both will give a fiscal boost from the money being spent but handing money out won’t bring a return decades later.  [1] Belfield, Clive R., ‘The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth’, Kellogg Foundation, January 2012,  , p.2

It seems a little unfair to blame baby boomers for their fortune in terms of demographics. They were simply lucky to be born when they were. Most countries are already considering the impact of aging; the pension age for example is being raised almost everywhere. And of course it is wrong to suggest that the youth are getting a raw deal in every possible area; for example they have much more technology to play with, and average incomes are much higher than they were when the boomers were young. While the government may not pay for as much for the youth parents and grandparents step in, in the UK £470million is contributed to child trust funds each year by grandparents and they provide an estimated £4billion worth of childcare each year. [1]  [1] Mitchell, Michelle, ‘Debate: Is the baby-boomer generation selfish?’, totalpolitics,

The government must do what is in the long term interest of the county  Typically businesses, and most people, think about the short term; how they are going to live or produce a profit over the next few years. This leaves the role of thinking across broader horizons to the government. Governments need to plan to ensure the prosperity of the nation in twenty or even fifty years’ time because many of their current citizens will still be alive. This planning is also necessary because of the length of time that large scale construction projects or social changes take. For example “In the energy sector, investments are made for a period between 20 and 60 years.” [1] Decisions on what kind of power to support, coal, gas, nuclear, or renewables, will still be making an impact in half a century. Clearly when thinking longer term it simply makes sense to focus on younger people as they are going to have an impact for longer. Just the same as in energy policy if a nation makes mistakes with its treatment of its youth it will be feeling the consequences for half a century. It is clearly in the long term interest of the state to invest in its youth.  [1] ‘The Commission's Energy Roadmap 2050’, Europa, 15 December 2011, MEMO/11/914,

It is unclear that the long term interest of the country really means investing in youth. Instead it should mean anticipating the changes that are necessary to ensure future security, health, and prosperity for every citizen. This is what happens with investing in energy; we anticipate that if we don’t invest in it for the future the lights will go out. But we also need to change along with changing circumstances so taking the comparison with energy further that means not just investing in power generation but in renewable power generation. Considering current demographics this should mean spending more to ensure that health services are ready for an older population and ensuring that pensions are on a stable long term footing rather than more on youth.

Scaremongering is not the best way to create policy. Clearly leaving large numbers of unemployed young people could be dangerous but so could large numbers of unemployed of any age. Every government wants more economic growth and to solve unemployment but they should be focusing on how to bring the economy as a whole back to growth rather than specifically on youth unemployment. When this happens unemployment will begin to fall. Artificially focusing on reducing youth unemployment will simply prevent broader action to regain competitiveness. It should be remembered from communist states that it is possible for government action to create full employment while destroying the foundations of the economy.

The youth are getting a raw deal  In most western countries the ‘baby boomers’ (those who were born between the end of the second world war and the mid-1960s) could be considered to have led a charmed life. They were the beneficiaries of free schooling and university education, then of an expanding economy that provided enough jobs, and finally high pensions. David Willetts, the UK Minister for Universities and Science, estimates that the boomers are set to take out about 118% of what they put in to the welfare state. [1] The current generation on the other hand in some countries are having to pay more for their education and then find there is no job available. To make matters worse they are likely to be paying more for their elders’ pensions (which come out of current workers national insurance not that which was paid in by the boomers themselves) and healthcare and then will have to work longer for a smaller pension themselves. This means that if spending remains on its current trajectory most spending will remain directed at the baby boomers for decades to come.  [1] Reeves, Richard, ‘The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Stole Their Children’s Future by David Willetts’, The Observer, 7 February 2010,

Leaving large numbers of young people unemployed could be dangerous  Allowing high rates of youth unemployment and underemployment to continue could be disastrous. When people lose hope they are much more likely to turn to violence, or towards crime and drugs. There are clearly extreme examples of this; one cause of the second world war was the great depression and feeble recovery that preceded it, similarly in Africa according to the World Bank 40% of those who join rebel movements are motivating by a lack of jobs. [1] A new World War, or succession conflicts, are unlikely, though not impossible, in Europe. [2] Much more likely however are riots and social unrest aimed at government; youth unemployment was a spark for the Arab Spring. In the west youth protests such as the occupy movement or indignados have so far mostly been peaceful [3] but they may not remain that way without hope of improvement.  [1] Ighobor, Kingsley, ‘Africa’s youth: a “ticking time bomb” or an opportunity?’, Africa Renewal, May 2013,   [2] See the debatabase debate ‘This House believes the Euro is a threat to peace’   [3] ‘The youth employment crisis: Time for action’, International Labour Conference, 101st Session, 2012,  , Pp.2-3

In health services where much care is provided for free there has always been a question of balancing resources. Some treatments are just too expensive, when this is the case the individuals are free to pay for private healthcare. Clearly then if there is less money to be spent on healthcare there just needs to be a rethink about which treatments are affordable as a part of free healthcare. In the United States deciding what treatments are worth the cost is left to the market, in more centrally organised health systems as is the case in Europe there is a regulator or commission that decides. In the UK this is NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) which decides what drugs are worthwhile based upon quality-adjusted life years and usually does not recommend treatments that cost more than £20-30,000 per QALY. [1] The answer then would be to drop this down to a lower figure.  [1] Dreaper, Jane, ‘Researchers claim NHS drug decisions ‘are flawed’’, BBC News, 24 January 2013,

In theory it is great to say that government should treat all people equally, but we all know that in practice this does not happen. Government spending is determined by what programs already exist and where there spending is regardless of current need while new spending is based on where the government thinks it will get votes. Because older people are more likely to vote, and there are more of them, the political system is clearly prejudiced against providing for youth.

Older people have paid into the system.  Those who are retiring today were promised good pensions that they could draw from their early sixties. They paid into national insurance, and other pension schemes on the assumption that they would get a good pension at the end of it. Doctors are a good example of a group that have paid a large amount into their pensions and expect to get a large pension in return. At the moment the UK’s NHS pension scheme pays more than £2billion per year into the treasury than it takes out. [1] The public purse has gained from boomers payments for pensions for years and they are responsible to pay the boomers back with what they were told they would be entitled to.  [1] ‘Our response to government claims about the NHS pensions dispute’, British Medical Association,

The youth already have a lot of spending focused on them  It may be true that there is little spending specifically on ‘youth’ but that does not mean there is not a lot of spending young people more generally. Government education budgets in Europe vary but are generally between 10-15% of government spending, [1] added to this should be the 2.3% of GDP spent on family/child benefit [2] (since European governments typically spend about 50% of GDP this generally means about 5% of spending). While this may not seem like much compared to 26.89% of the population being under 25 [3] we need to remember that most other government spending (with the exception of pensions) is not age targeted and so also goes pretty proportionally on youth; children and youth are as likely to use healthcare, young people use roads and public transport, many in the military are under 25 etc. Since young people are more likely to be unemployed they are also getting a larger proportion of welfare spending on them. Added to this there are areas of government spending which don’t really go on any age group, such as interest repayments on European government’s debts. It is difficult to see why the government should be spending yet more on youth when they already receive a large amount of spending.  [1] UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Public spending on education, total (% of government expenditure), The World Bank,   [2] Mossuti, Giuseppe, and Asero, Gemma, ‘In 2009 a 6.5% rise in per capita social protection expenditure matched a 6.1% drop in EU-27 GDP’, Eurostat, 14/2012,  , p.5  [3] European Union, The World Factbook, 6 May 2013,

Aging means we will be spending more on the old, not less  There is simply no room to be increasing spending on young people as an Ageing population means that western nations are going to have to focus more resources on the elderly. A larger elderly population will mean less tax take for the government as there will be less people working, at the same time there will many unavoidable costs. The average cost of retires households to health services is £5200, compares to just £2800 for those who are not retired. [1] The expansion and progress of medical science has been amazing, we can treat many conditions that were incurable. But this means many more are living longer with medical support, which is costly. A US study estimates total healthcare expenditures “increase substantially with longevity, from $36,000 for persons who die at the age of 65 to more than $230,000 for those who die at the age of 90”. [2] Clearly the government cannot both increase spending on youth and pay more on healthcare for the elderly at the same time. With healthcare a matter of life and death it seems clear which should be prioritised.  [1] ‘The ageing population’, parliament.uk,   [2] Alemayehu, Berhanu, and Warner, Kenneth E., ‘The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs’, Health Services Researech, vol.39, no.3, June 2004, pp.627-642,  (does not show pages but near the end)

The government should not prioritise one age group over another  The government should not be playing favourites when it comes to government spending. It should not prioritise one age group over another, just as it should not prioritise one ethnic group or religion over another. The government has just as much responsibility to the middle aged or elderly as it does to the young. Rather than artificially deciding to spend more on certain age groups government spending should clearly just be based on what provides the most value for taxpayers’ money. In some cases this may mean spending on youth but it could also mean spending on the elderly.

It is difficult to see why there should be large amounts of public spending on ‘youth’ directed through the education system that then simply stops as soon as education is left behind. When young people are finished university or particularly school when they are not going on to university they are suddenly left on their own with no clear path to transition into work. [1] Those not in the education system get very little spending on them and this is clearly where the problem lies. There needs to be much more spent on ensuring that young people get a first job both in ensuring that they have the right skills and ensuring a good standard of living until they get a job.  [1] ACEVO Commission on Youth Unemployment, ‘Youth unemployment: the crisis we cannot afford’, ACEVO, 2012,  , p.46

Pensions are not paid by what the retiree paid in during their lifetime but by those who are earning and paying taxes and national insurance while the pensioner is drawing their pension. Current pensioners did not pay for their pension but for their parents’ pensions. In the UK “In 2008 there were 3.2 people of working age for every person of pensionable age. This ratio is projected to fall to 2.8 by 2033.” [1] With fewer workers for every pensioner pensions are clearly unsustainable and so should be reduced.  [1] ‘The ageing population’, parliament.uk,

The principle reason some countries have higher ages of consent for males compared to females [1] is simply because of the medical evidence that males reach sexual maturity at a later age than females. [2] This has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexual sex. However it is true that when it comes to children, some countries do view underage homosexual as slightly more dangerous than underage heterosexual sex. Largely because there is the higher risk of HIV infection in the case of the former. [3]  [1] Canadian Department of Justice, ‘Age of Consent to Sexual Activity’, justice.gc.ca,   [2] Neinstein, Lawrence S., ‘Puberty: Normal Growth and Development’, Adolescent Health Curriculum: University of Southern California,   [3] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV &amp; AIDS,

Consent Laws are discriminatory.  Some countries have one age of consent for young females (say 16) and a different, higher age of consent for young males or for having anal sex (say 18). This means that a heterosexual adult male who wants to have sex with a 17-year-old female is free to do so, but a homosexual adult male cannot have intercourse with a young man who is 17. [1] Not only are such laws clearly discriminatory, they entrench and perpetuate the myths, stereotypes, and prejudices against homosexuals and homosexual sex. Age of consent laws, if we are to have them at all, should be equalised across the genders.  [1] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV &amp; AIDS,  , ‘Worldwide ages of Consent’, AVERT: averting HIV &amp; AIDS,  , HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV &amp; AIDS,

Liberals tend to assume that many young boys and girls would want to have sex if not for age of consent laws. In reality many boys and girls themselves actually do not want to have sex or sexual contact, but lack the social and emotional confidence to say ‘no’. Age of consent laws protect such children, by preventing others from putting them in such a difficult position and help them against peer pressure.

We should defend children’s freedom of expression.  The freedom of sexual expression (and exploration) is not only a matter of choice which is fundamental to the individual – it is also particularly important to young people as they proceed through the stage of adolescence into young adulthood. Age of consent laws place artificial limits on this freedom. Sex is entirely natural and should be celebrated in the context of loving relationships, not criminalised and put under the prying eye of an authoritarian state. Violence, coercion and exploitation in sexual relationships should still be punished, but not consensual activity. Such restrictions go against the human rights to privacy and of freedom of expression.  The concept that young people do not know what they are doing is flawed, because every person who has gone through sexual development has learnt by doing. There is no process of suddenly coming into full knowledge without acting and exploration. Such exploration would be more safely done in an environment that doesn't criminalize it. Such criminalization can actaully lead to the very harm that the law ostensibly seeks to avoid, coercion and exploitation, for it is people who are naturally more inclined to coercion and exploitation that will disregard the law anyway. This feeds the lambs to the wolves.

Those who are underage are not 'expressing' themselves through sex. They are unlikely to fully know what they are doing so this is not an area where they are going to be expressing themselves. Children have freedom of expression in many other areas and through technology gaining more and more options. This is therefore a step that is unnecessary if all it is about is 'freedom of expression'.

It seems important to note that the age of consent could be maintained – or raised- while allowing people who need advice on or access to contraceptives, or other services to access them. The idea would be that school students are still taught about sex, contraceptives and consequences, and doctors are to give free, impartial and –most importantly- confidential advice, and contraception to be readily available to all

The censorship laws are a relic from the past.  The idea that young people should not be having sex is a leftover relic from the past: its justifications are anachronistic and have little place in modern times. Age of consent laws were the product of a ‘purity campaign’ in Britain in the 1800s, when it was believed that sex was a ‘male privilege’, that it led to the sexual ruin of young women, that it meant the loss of their virtue, which was a fate worse than death, and that it contributed to women’s second class citizenship. [1] In the UK the age of 16 was chosen and set in 1885, more than 100 years ago, and has remained ever since. [2] Today these ideas would offend both men and women.  [1] Harman, Lillian, ‘Understanding the Age of Consent in the Context of the 1800’s’, Liberty No. 235, pp.3-4 from Age Of Consent,   [2] Bullough, Vern L, ‘The Age of Consent’, Journal of Psychology &amp; Human Sexuality Volume 16, Issue 2-3, 2005

Age of consent laws prevent the most vulnerable receiving contraceptives.  Age of consent laws are in fact dangerous because they drive underground the very people who should be, and are in most need of, receiving contraceptives, advice on safe sex, and access to health and other educational services. This is true both of the ‘statutory rapist’ as well as the under-16 consenting ‘victim’, who may worry about having assisted in the commission of a crime. Both parties then become real victims as they are put at greater risk of contracting STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

Liberalising age of consent laws will not encourage paedophilia or make sexual exploitation any easier. That is simply a false nightmare scenario propagated by scaremongers. Many countries have lowered the basic age of consent while strengthening their ‘plus elements’. For example, by making ‘sexual grooming’ an offence (to stop rings of internet paedophiles); by making it an offence to have sex with a young child if you are above a certain age or if the age differential between the partners is above a certain limit (to target adult paedophiles while allowing teens their sexual freedom); and by making it an offence to have sex with someone who is in a relationship of trust of dependency with you (to stop sexual exploitation).

Even if we can accept that children need protection from sex, is it right to use the full force of the criminal law – which includes the threat of criminal prosecution and the prospect of a criminal sentence – to do it? It is contrary to both justice and common sense for people who have merely had consensual sex with a teen who happens to be under-16 to be arrested, tried, branded with a criminal label (‘statutory rapist’, ‘sex offender’), thrown in prison, and thereby treated on the same footing as real (sometimes violent) rapists, arsonists and kidnappers.  The debate surrounding the age of consent raises the broader point of the role of the criminal law. The function of the criminal law is to preserve public order and decency, not to intervene in the lives of citizens, especially those who have mutually consented to taking part in a harmless activity in private. To accept otherwise would be to disregard the crucial notion of human autonomy and the free will of the individual, which are expressed, regardless of one’s age, each time a person presents his or her consent. This is why it is so important that the law recognises the sanctity of consent.

We must protect the vulnerable from themselves.  It is undeniable that young children form a special and vulnerable group in society. Nowhere is this truer than in the context of sex – so much so that we often need to protect them by placing limitations on what they do sexually. Below a certain minimum age, children are at risk of not having the physiological, biological and, most importantly, emotional development to cope with sex, and with the many possible consequences of having sex, which include teen pregnancy, illegal or legal abortion, childbirth, parental and societal disapproval, unsupported parenthood, legal consequences and increased risk of cervical cancer. [1]  Unfortunately everyone matures a different age. That does not mean that choosing an average, approximate age for consensual sex, such as 16, is arbitrary or wrong. There is no great harm in asking “early developers” to wait for a year or two before they begin to have sex. Especially young people are not always as mature as they believe they are.  [1] BBC News, ‘Cervical cancer link to early sex’, 21 December 2009,  ,

Lowering the age of consent will cause criminal dangers.  Lowering the age of consent (or worse, getting rid of it entirely) legalises, legitimises and brings above ground the many problems that we are fighting underground. It will provide an opportunity for paedophile networks to expand, by allowing them to target even younger children – now lawfully. The problem of paedophilia is already a rapidly growing one, made worse by its expansion into ‘related’ avenues such as child pornography. In addition to the obvious problem of paedophilia, the problem of the sexual predation of young children also encompasses the problem of youth prostitution (since prostitution is itself already legal in many countries), and the international traffic in boys and girls.

We must protect the vulnerable in society.  Even without resorting to a moralistic view of the criminal law (i.e. that its function is to stem moral disintegration and to uphold the ‘shared morality’ of society), there is adequate justification for age of consent laws. Society has a vital interest in ensuring that its naturally weaker members are protected from harm, and doing so is precisely the function of the persuasive and coercive powers of the criminal law. It is therefore legitimate for the law to aim to prevent sexual harm to children by criminalising sex with them. Indeed, age of consent sex laws are not the only laws dependent on age. In many countries it is also an offence, for example, to sell tobacco to children, or to employ children below a certain age in the entertainment industry, whether or not the child ‘consents’. Society must recognise the reality that the apparent expression of ‘consent’ by a child is often different from consent expressed an adult. In the case of the former, therefore, it is not always true that saying ‘yes’ is a true expression of human autonomy.  The argument that these laws may cause injustice to someone who truly thought his partner was above the legal age is also a poor one – many countries already provide a defence for such situations

Age of consent laws are also arbitrary as children become sexually and emotionally mature at very different rates, so any artificially imposed limit will be too high for many and too low for others.

There are thousands of citizens who have been made unemployed during the economic crisis of the last few years who would be happy to have a paying job again. In 2010 unemployment across the OECD ranged from 3.7% of the labour force in Norway to 20.2% in Spain with an OECD average of 8.5%. [1] These unemployed could fill the jobs left by migrants in no time at all, as a result migrants do not benefit the economy rather provide drag to it as they mean that some natives who would otherwise be in employment are unemployed.  [1] Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, ‘How do OECD labour markets perform?’, OECD Employment Outlook, 27 September 2011,

Migrants benefit the economy  Migrants, including illegal migrants, are necessary for the economies of rich countries. There are schemes run by these countries that allow the migration of skilled workers for jobs where there is a skills shortage in the native population, for example the United Kingdom takes in a lot of migrants to work as doctors and migrants. However these schemes fail to acknowledge that migrants are also vital for unskilled jobs which native workers are often unwilling to take; for example jobs in catering, picking crops and cleaning. Approximately 6.3 million illegal immigrants are working in the USA, and these are benefiting the economy. [1] The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas says “The pace of recent U.S. economic growth would have been impossible without immigration. Since 1990, immigrants have contributed to job growth in three main ways: They fill an increasing share of jobs overall, they take jobs in labor-scarce regions, and they fill the types of jobs native workers often shun.” [2] Amnesties are necessary to ensure the economy keeps benefiting from these workers.  [1] Goyle, Rajeev, and Jaeger, David A., ‘Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment’, Center for American Progress, July 2005, p.9.   [2] Orrenius, Pia M., ‘U.S. Immigration and Economic Growth: Putting Policy on Hold’, Southwest Economy, Issue 6, Nov./Dec. 2003,

Far from being necessary immigrants are a drain on the economy. The vast majority of immigrants have few skills. These low skill migrants pay few taxes and take a lot of government benefits. For example in the United States each immigrant without a high school diploma costs the US taxpayers $89,000 over their lifetime. Since there are six million illegals without a high school diploma living in the US this adds up to half a trillion dollars. This increases further if they are given an amnesty so are able to claim citizenship and more money and the costs spiral yet further when the cost of educating their children is included with the possible cost rising to $2 trillion. [1] Some migrants may be necessary as a country ages, but the state should pick the migrants it wants - if a state wants migrants with skills to work in care homes it should let in those who have those skills or are applying to colleges to learn the relevant skills rather than granting an amnesty to those who are already here regardless of their worth to the economy.  [1] Rector, Robert, ‘Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts’, The Heritage Foundation, 25th October 2006,

Amnesties are the only long term solution  Amnesty is the only way to deal with the fundamental problem behind immigration; the developed world much richer and has more jobs available than the developing world. For example the USA has a per capita GDP of $48,100 [1] by comparison Mexico’s is only $15,100 [2] using PPP the gap with the Central American countries to the south of Mexico is even starker with Guatemalan GDP/capita at $5,000. [3] Not surprisingly the USA far outstrips the Central American countries in the Human development index; the US is 4th, Mexico 57th and Guatemala 131st. [4] So long as there is such diversity of income and opportunity immigrants will keep coming, and this will continue no matter what the state that is receiving migrants does in an attempt to deter them.  Amnesties will help allow labour to get to where it is needed, through NAFTA the US is integrating North America but it is specifically excluding labour from this integration while tightening border controls at the Mexican border. Amnesties would help to counter-act the problems caused by leaving labour as the resource that is not allowed to cross borders and so provide benefits to both the host economy and the country of origin for the migrants. This is because the migrants will send back remittances that will help to develop their home nation and they themselves may well return after developing new skills that can then be put to use at home.  [1] The World Factbook, ‘United States’, Central Intelligence Agency, 15 February 2012,   [2] The World Factbook, ‘Mexico’, Central Intelligence Agency, 21 February 2012,   [3] The World Factbook, ‘Guatemala’, Central Intelligence Agency, 21 February 2012,   [4] United Nations Development Programme, ‘Human Development Index’, 2011,

An amnesty will not solve this problem either; all it will do is move poor people from one country to another. Those granted an amnesty might be slightly higher paid than they would be if they had stayed at home but without skills they will remain at the bottom of the pile while having to adapt to a new nation. Instead what is needed is economic growth in the poorer countries that are the origin of the migrants. This is something the rich world can encourage through numerous different methods. For example the USA allowed Mexico to join the North American Free Trade Agreement and so the US is Mexico's biggest export partner with 80% of Mexican exports being to America. Secondly rich countries can provide investment and the skills necessary to develop industries in these developing countries. For example Mexico has "structural inefficiencies" in its farming industry, [1] something which the United States as the world's most efficient agricultural producer could help with.  [1] Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, ‘Background Note: Mexico’, U.S. Department of State, 16 November 2011,

Immigrants are needed to make up for aging populations  Much of the rich world is aging, and in a few cases is close to having a declining population. As a result the size of the available workforce will decrease. For example in Germany by 2050 a third of the population will be over 60, [1] and over the next 15 years will as a result loose five million workers from the current workforce of 41 million. [2] While increasing retirement age can mean that these reductions in the size of the workforce come later to maintain the size of the workforce immigration or a rapid increase in birth rate is necessary. These countries in order to maintain the size of their economies will therefore either have to rapidly increase productivity, which itself may not be easy as they are already the most productive nations, or else allow migrants to fill the gaps in the labour force. At the same time there will be an increase in some jobs that rely on migrants such as care workers to help look after the increasing number of elderly. [3]  [1] Ripperger, Sabine, ‘The Challenge of Demographic Change in Old, Shrivelling Europe’, Deutche-Welle,   [2] Elliott, Larry, and Kollewe, Julia, ‘Germany faces up to problem of ageing workforce’, guardian.co.uk, 17 March 2011,   [3] Martin, Susan, et al., ‘The Role of Migrant Care Workers in Aging Societies: Report on Research Findings in the United States’, Institute for the Study of International Migration, December 2009, p.vii,

Amnesties do not increase immigration. For examples it is not the case that the Immigration Reform and Control Act encouraged immigration. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas concluded “it appears that amnesty programs do not encourage illegal immigration. If anything, IRCA reduced the number of illegal immigrants in the short run, perhaps because potential migrants thought that it would be more difficult to cross the border or to get a job in the United States after the law was passed.” And also over the long term illegal immigration did not increase. “apprehensions [at the Mexico-US border] were about 11 percent lower during the pre-filing period than prior to IRCA’s passage, controlling for other factors.” While there was little change overall between the periods before and after the amnesty. [1]  [1] Orrenius, Pia M., and Zavodny, Madeline, ‘Do Amnesty Programs Encourage Illegal Immigration? Evidence from IRCA’, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Oct. 2001, pp.11, 14.

An amnesty is not a reward for breaking the law, and any illegal immigrant who has committed crimes other than entering the country illegally could be excluded. Instead amnesty should be seen as acknowledging those who live and work in a country but are nonetheless ignored. An amnesty would mean the state would get to collect more money in taxes from immigrants and they would be subject to all the requirements that all citizens are expected to abide by. They could also be expected to pay a processing fee to cover town or government expenditure for the amnesty amongst other things. So an amnesty wouldn't be a reward in its entirety as much as an acknowledgment and a way to balance the books. [1] The government would also be free to impose strict restrictions on any amnesty. For example the one proposed by the liberal democrats in 2010 was only to allow those who had been in the UK for ten years, spoke English and wished to work towards earning citizenship. There would also have been a probationary period and some form of voluntary service. [2]  [1] Barney, Katherine, ‘Mayor Wants Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants’, London Evening Standard, 9 March 2009,   [2] Standford, Daniel, ‘Illegal immigration: Is an amnesty the answer’, BBC News, 19 April 2010,

Amnesties are unpopular; governments need to get tougher if they want to be reelected.  Amnesties are unpopular, in the UK for example 65% of the population wants tougher immigration laws, [1] and so most governments are unlikely to resort to them except as a last resort. Instead of granting an amnesty governments need to get tougher on illegal immigrants in order to find, deport and deter them. This would be a much more popular policy and could be achieved using better monitoring and communications between departments. For example in the United States the Inland Revenue Service knows where millions of illegals live and are employed as they know 600,000 people work under the Social Security number 000-00-0000, presumably many more were used different made up numbers. [2] This would therefore not only catch illegal immigrants but would help end misuse of Social Security and IRS identification numbers. There are also other tactics that can make illegal immigration more difficult and less likely to pay such as preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers licences or, as in Tennessee, employers that knowingly employ illegal immigrants can have their business licence suspended. [3]  [1] Standford, Daniel, ‘Illegal immigration: Is an amnesty the answer’, BBC News, 19 April 2010,   [2] Sensenbrenner, James F., et al., ‘Social Security Better Coordination among Federal Agencies Could Reduce Unidentified Earnings Reports’, United States Government Accountability Office, February 2005, p.3.   [3] Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ‘Illegal Alien Employment Act Frequently Asked Questions’, Tn.gov,

An amnesty would encourage rather than reduce immigration  An amnesty would simply mean more immigration resulting in new illegal immigrants. First, it would quickly become known that a country is offering an amnesty resulting in a rush to gain entry in time. An increase would continue even after the amnesty because migrants would believe that country would be more likely to grant another amnesty in the future.  Second, Once there is an amnesty those who have been granted amnesty and are able to work legally so have gained a measure of security will bring family to live with them.  This is exactly what has occurred with previous amnesties. After the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act in the United States which 2.7 million immigrants took advantage of to become legal residents the number of illegal immigrants arriving in the USA rose to 800,000 before falling back down to a more normal level of 500,000 per year. [1] Spain has granted numerous amnesties since 1985 as a response to increasing immigration, particularly from South America. There has as a result been an ever increasing number of applications for these amnesties from 43,815 in 1985 to 350,000 in 2001. [2] A general amnesty in 2005 that had 700,000 applicants. [3] If the result is simply increased immigration an amnesty will have achieved nothing except pushing up immigration; there will still be illegal immigrants, there will be more anger against them, and ultimately there will need to be more deportations or another amnesty.  [1] Camarota, Steven A, ‘New INS Report: 1986 Amnesty Increased Illegal Immigration’, Center for Immigration Studies, 12th October 2000,   [2] Maas, Willem. "The Politics of Immigration, Employment, and Amnesty in Spain" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town &amp; Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006.  pp.10, 14  [3] Tremlett, Giles, ‘Spain grants amnesty to 700,000 migrants’, The Guardian, 9th May 2009,

An amnesty rewards law breakers  An amnesty by its very definition is letting someone who has engaged in an illegal act off the hook. It is letting criminal activity pay. It is also an admission of government defeat; other options have failed and there are still lawbreakers who are not being deported as they should be so there is a need for an amnesty. These people who have entered the country illegally, and have worked illegally are then being forgiven for their having broken the law. This is not something that rich countries should be encouraging.

The question is what happens then? Do we immediately deport all these newly found immigrants despite the large cost? Would the occupation they are engaged in or having made a family make a difference? Finding or knowing where illegal immigrants are is not the same as getting them out of the country, in the UK in 2006/7 20,700 people were recorded as failing in asylum requests but the UK only managed to deport 18,280. [1] Finding more illegal immigrants would mean the deportation systems could not cope.  [1] Johnston, Philip, ‘Number of failed asylum seeker removals falls’, The Telegraph, 21st August 2007,

Just because many people are in favour of a policy does not mean it is normatively justified. Policies that have little to no efficacy and actually even create the opposite outcome than is desired are certainly not justified by this logic. People only want a fence because they think that it will protect American jobs and border security. If a closer examination of the economics of illegal immigration demonstrates that immigration actually grows the economy, it seems nonsensical to continue maintaining the fence. This just perpetuates racist attitudes.

A state has a fundamental right to set immigration policies and take the necessary steps to make them work.  Ironically, even Mexico recognizes this when it attempts to increase border enforcement along its own southern border with Guatemala1,2. If those policies are lawfully set by the people and legislature, then regardless of how efficacious a particular tool is, it is justified. It is clear that the fence is wildly popular – well over half of the United States supports it3 , and many individuals are so adamant about increasing border security that they are willing to make donations for these purposes4. The social contract of the United States means that the government is democratically elected and therefore accountable to its people. If they want to focus on securing the borders instead of providing more extensive welfare programs or reforming education or anything else they could be spending money on, that is their prerogative.  1Thompson, Ginger. “Mexico Worries About Its Own Southern Border.”  2Cutler, Michael. “Hypocrisy: Mexico Building Security Fence Against Guatemala.”  3Rasmussen Reports. “Support for Mexican Border Fence Up to 68%.”  4Crawford, Amanda. “Arizona’s State-Owned Mexico Border Fence Attracts Donors From Across U.S.”

Safety arguments are a red herring; terrorism will not be effectively prevented by the erection of the border fence. We need a proactive strategy that gathers intelligence and works with counterterrorism officials abroad to disrupt recruitment and training centers for terrorist groups.1 If some immigrants can slip through, so can some terrorists. At any rate, the 9/11 hijackers and other Al-Qaeda terrorists traditionally have not come through the Mexican border but rather from abroad and by airplanes or seaports, or they are homegrown radicals. Spending billions of dollars in a vain series of attempts to seal ourselves in an impenetrable fortress simply helps terrorists fulfill their goals of making us live in a culture of perpetual fear. As for drug trafficking, this problem is largely born of the tremendous market for it that still exists in the United States. If the demand dried up, so would the suppliers; on the other hand, if there is still an incredibly lucrative market, no fence will stop them from ferrying large amounts of drugs over the border, and most of the weapons the narcotics traffickers use actually come from the United States as well.2 We need to look to other solutions besides simplistic fences.  1 Bruguire, Jean-Louis. "The holes in America's anti-terror fence."  2McGreal, Chris. "The battle of the US-Mexico frontier."

The fence is a practical way to stop immigration and large parts of it have been built.  The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized the construction of at least two layers of reinforced fencing in high-crossing and high-risk sections along the border. This includes around the border town of Tecate, Calif., and a huge expanse stretching from Calexico, Calif., to Douglas, Ariz., which is virtually the entire length of Arizona's border with Mexico. Another section would stretch over most of the southern border of New Mexico. An additional section will wind through Texas, from Del Rio to Eagle Pass, and from Laredo to Brownsville. This would not only be a fence but will include technology to secure "operational control" of the border by using unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, radar, satellites and cameras.1  1Weisman, Jonathan. "With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill."

A fence would help defend the economy of the United States.  A fence would help defend the economy of the United States during difficult times by protecting American jobs. It is a popular misconception that immigrants only do the types of jobs that native-born Americans will not take. Many professions encompassing construction, grounds-maintenance, housekeeping, and janitorial services actually have the majority of jobs performed by native-born Americans.1 Furthermore, illegal immigrants constitute a tremendous drain on various public benefits. These include medical treatment (because no one who is seriously injured or sick can be turned away from the emergency room as a result of a law called EMTALA)2 , municipal services like fire and police protection, food stamps, and education in public schools. Every dollar that gets spent on illegal immigrants is a dollar that could have been spent on law-abiding American citizens, who need all the help they can get during these difficult times.  1 Camarota, Steven and Jensenius, Karen. "Jobs Americans Won't Do?"  2Jordan, Miriam. "Illegal Immigration Enters the Health-Care Debate."

This assumes the fence is efficacious and therefore the cause of the reduction. It is not – there are numerous bypasses, ranging from simple ladders on pickup trucks to complex tunnels for the movement of people and drugs.1 While it may seem to be the case that the fence has caused the reduced numbers of illegal immigrants attempting to cross, in actuality this is because of the economic downturn in the United States.2,3 If there are no jobs, it stands to reason there is not going to be an influx of workers.  Even if it were efficacious, however, the idea that immigrants steal jobs is fundamentally flawed. Immigrants fill gaps in the domestic labour market.4 They are non-competitive for most types of jobs, such as supervisor positions.5 And anyways, most economists say that immigration grows the economy by expanding demand for goods and services that immigrants consume, and consequently this actually creates more jobs. While immigrants certainly may push down wages for some occupations, the net effect is to increase average wages for non-immigrant Americans.  Finally, the economies of many border towns on the United States’ side of the fence will suffer because of decreased demand for their goods and services.  1McGreal, Chris. “The battle of the US-Mexico frontier.”  2Associated Press. “U.S.-Mexico border fence almost complete.”  3Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. “Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence.”  4Cowen, Tyler. “How Immigrants Create More Jobs.”  5Novak, Viveca. “Does Immigration Cost Jobs?”

The border fence is a waste of money. It and the associated measures was given a budget of $1.2billion [i] and it is not likely to be a comprehensive fix. If the fence just covers current high crossing areas then these areas will simply move to more inhospitable areas or migrants will find other ways around – such as travelling through the gulf of Mexico by boat as occurs between in the Mediterranean for migrants travelling from North Africa to Europe.  [i] Weisman, Jonathan. "With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill."

Just because something is a law does not mean that it is justified or morally correct. There have been many bad and unjustified laws on the books of the legal codes of many countries. Any means of carrying out the ends of a just law that will have terrible impacts are themselves also unjustified. When there are hundreds of people who have died in attempts to cross deserts or dangerous terrain to go around the fence in order to find gainful employment, that is a good indication that a policy is failing.

A fence would dramatically increase American safety.  Mexican violence between drug cartels frequently spills over and threatens the lives and peace-of-mind of Americans as well. The Council on Foreign Relations has said that Mexico's levels of violence and lawlessness over the past few years exceed even those in Iraq or Afghanistan.1 That has forced a costly increased police presence in border areas, and even that often proves insufficient to quell the killings. But even if the violent common criminals were somehow suppressed because of stepped up actions by the Mexican government, an easily penetrated border presents a national security threat. The FBI has warned that it is likely that Al Qaeda operatives and other terrorist groups will use the porous Mexican border as a means of infiltrating the country and launching deadly plots against American citizens in future. To prevent the carrying out of attacks, America needs secure borders.  1 McGreal, Chris. "The battle of the US-Mexico frontier."

It is important to maintain and enforce the principle of the rule of law, and a fence does that.  Illegal immigrants are openly flaunting the law, and permitting them to enter the country in this way demeans the hard-working individuals who immigrated legally. If people become angrier about illegal immigrants because more of them are coming in without a fence, this may also lead to the negative outcome of poorer treatment of Latinos who live and work legally in the United States. If there were no or very few illegal immigrants, there would be much less tension in communities since everyone would know that all the inhabitants had come there legally.

The United States has consistently demonstrated that it is a true partner in the war on organized crime in Northern Mexico. For instance, it has used unmanned drones like the ones in Pakistan to gather intelligence on Mexican drug lords.1 The relationship is healthy and Mexican officials frequently cooperate; it is certainly possible that there are underlying domestic political motivations for those politicians to be making such strong statements, and we should not necessarily take them at face value as representing the best picture of Mexican-American relations.  1 Defense News. "US Drones Track Drug Lords Over Mexic

While environmental concerns are certainly serious and warrant consideration, we need to balance the competing interests here. It is only a handful of species that would be threatened by this project, and any such endangered species can be moved into specially-designed preservation facilities that mimic the natural habitat. On the other hand, there is no other truly effective way to stop illegal immigrant crossings. In this sense, the local environment is a sacrifice of necessity. A related environmental concern is the pollution border-crossers leave in the desert and surrounding habitats, which would actually be reduced if fewer of them were crossing.

The fence is morally wrong and inhumane  Because it does not create an airtight border, it simply forces crossings at more dangerous locales like the hot, snake-infested deserts. Thousands of Mexicans have died since 2000 attempting the crossing, while less than 300 people died attempting to cross the Berlin Wall in almost three decades.1 The bodies of at least four hundred people were found in 2010.2 Simply put, barriers do not diminish the desire for a better life.3 That sort of catastrophic disregard for the fundamental humanity of these people demeans America as a nation. It is hard to reconcile this disregard with our considerable humanitarian support for starving people in Somalia and all over the world. We should work together to help hard-working individuals provide for their families. Most border-crossers are not drug runners, but people who just want legitimate jobs so they can feed their families.  1 Defense News. "US Drones Track Drug Lords Over Mexico."  2McGreal, Chris. "The battle of the US-Mexico frontier."  3McFadyen, Jennifer. "Immigration Issues: US-Mexico Border Fence Pros and Cons."

The fence only seems to solve the problem and detracts from dialogue about real solutions.  The fence serves as a band-aid fix, seemingly solving the problem while not really advancing comprehensive immigration reform. Maintenance of the fence and stringent border patrol contingents drains money that could be used to facilitate better solutions to the supposed problems immigration creates.1Additionally, the perception that something is already being done about illegal immigration saps the political will to find better solutions to the problem. This enables us to ignore the need to investigate shady business practices by employers, for instance.  1 Emmott, Robin. "A costly U.S.-Mexico border wall, in both dollars and deaths."

The fence is ineffective at carrying out its stated goals.  Not all illegal immigrants who are in the United States arrive by means of crossing the border; some overstay legally-acquired work visas. Attempts to implement "virtual" components of the fence have failed on several grounds. Images were too blurry, the systems performed poorly in bad weather, and there were false detections because of the inability to distinguish between animals and people.1 The technology also suffered from software bugs, and ultimately squandered billions of dollars.2 Because not all of the approximately 2000 mile border is covered by actual fencing, and even the physical fencing that exists is not continuous and relied on virtual components to cover the gaps, immigrants can easily go around the fence or through the weak points.3 In the past, immigrants have also used ladders or deception techniques (like cars with hollowed out dashboards) to bypass the fence. Additionally, drug runners have developed extensive and sophisticated tunnels to duck the wall and clear any sort of security checkpoints, rendering this defense mechanism with a price tag in the billions of USD4 (and expensive upkeep costs to boot) virtually useless.5 Finally, many individuals who cross the border looking for employment do so repeatedly, even when they are deported or turned back at the border by agents.6 In jurisdictions where these individuals are held in detention on misdemeanour charges, they contribute to overcrowding in prison facilities and consume valuable prosecutorial resources.7  1Ryan, Jason. "Homeland Security Axes Bush-Era 'Virtual Fence' Project."  2NYT Editors. "Virtual Failure on the Border."  3The Economist. "Good neighbours make fences." 4McFadyen, Jennifer. "Immigration Issues: US-Mexico Border Fence Pros and Cons."  5Global Security. "US-Mexico Border Fence."  6Federation for American Immigration Reform. "US Mexico Border Fence and Patrol Operations."  7Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. "Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence."

A fence hurts our political relationship with Mexico.  The United States needs to demonstrate that it is interested in being a true partner with Mexico in efforts to reduce drug trafficking and the pervasive cartel-driven violence of northern Mexico. Trying to simply keep all the Mexicans out is offensive; the governor of the Mexican state Coahuila has called the fence a "wall of hate",1 and in 2005 Mexican President Vincente Fox called the situation "disgraceful and shameful."2 Many individuals in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas have family and friends on the Mexican side and speak fluent Spanish, and don't support the wall. On the other hand, Arizona's demographics reflect population growth as the result of many Midwestern "snowbirds" with little experience of Latino culture moving there, and thus Arizona has much harsher prejudices against Mexicans.3 If we do not cooperate with Mexico, they will be less likely to share information valuable to our national security or cooperate with us on foreign policy initiatives.  1Hylton, Hillary. "Opponents of the Border Fence Look to Obama."  2Global Security. "US-Mexico Border Fence."  3The Economist. "Good neighbours make fences."

This argument is based on drastically different goals than the one that would support the fence being raised. While some individuals may want to take in illegal immigrants and provide them with generous welfare benefits and call that "comprehensive immigration reform", that is not what the majority of Americans want. They want illegal immigrants kept out of the country, and that in and of itself is a solution from their perspective, so to say that a fence distracts from the goal is just a straw-man. In the sense that it helps keep people out, it is working just as intended.  Erecting the fence and taking other measures (such as investigating employers who hire illegal immigrants) are by no means mutually exclusive, and we can do both to ensure that American jobs are going to people who are in America legally.

The fence is a serious environmental threat and endangers wildlife.  By cutting off components of the habitat, the fence diminishes gene flow and reduces the ability for survival, or creates remnant populations that are too small to sustain the species.1 Counter-intuitively, even certain winged species which fly low to the ground would be at risk. Climate change is forcing more migrations, and this would also prevent animals from carrying those out.2 This has been so lightly regarded by U.S. officials that at one point Mexico actually threatened to file a claim with the International Court of Justice.3  1Goldstein, Rob. "US-Mexico border fence putting wildlife at risk of extinction."  2Marshall, Jessica. "U.S.-Mexico Border Fence May Snag Wildlife."  3Magee, Megan. "The U.S.-Mexico Border Wall: An Environmental And Human Rights Disaster."

The role of concentrated fencing around urban areas in particular is to prevent immigrants from blending immediately into a town population, and in that sense, it is effective.1Even if you divert some illegal immigrant traffic elsewhere along the border, fencing still reduces overall rates of crossing by forcing those who would cross to go through more dangerous and barren territory; this is a significant deterrent. 2 Additionally, you can step up border patrols in the areas that do not cover the fence to catch drug smugglers and other illegal border crossers.3 This reduces the numbers of border patrol agents necessary to create an effective net to catch would-be illegal immigrants, and consequently reduces the long-term costs of border protection measures. The fence is meant to be merely a tool in the tool box, not a comprehensive solution to the problem of illegal immigration.4  1Associated Press. "U.S.-Mexico border fence almost complete."  2Wood, Daniel. "Where U.S.-Mexico border fence is tall, border crossings fall."  3Hendricks, Tyche. "Border security or boondoggle?"  4Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. "Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence."

We have no absolute moral obligation to everyone in the world. Many individuals are now calling for serious reductions in foreign aid and in foreign interventions in order to help Americans who are also suffering. That suffering is no less worthy of support just because it is not as highly publicized or televised on international news. Times may be difficult in Mexico, but they are difficult in America as well, and a country has an obligation to its citizens first, and then everyone else. It is legitimate and justified to build a fence to protect the American economy.