In the case of foxes, most of the alternative ways of killing them are crueler - e.g. trapping, snaring, or shooting, which often have the end result of maiming the fox and leaving it to die slowly of starvation and infection. A fox killed by hounds dies very quickly. In the case of killing animals to eat - such as fish, or game birds such as pheasants and grouse - the justification is even more straightforward; it is the most natural activity in the world to hunt and eat. And given the controversy surrounding the welfare of animals in modern farms, it would seem preferable to eat an animal that had had a free and happy life in the wild than one that had been reared in a factory farm, as many examples of secret filming (Warning: may find disturbing) in abattoirs show far more cruelty than you see on your standard deer or rabbit hunt. In the case of fishing, many anglers who fish for sport throw their catches back in, so the fish come to no lasting harm.

Blood sports cannot be justified by reference to their role in pest control or conservation  All sorts of hunting, shooting, and fishing boil down to slaughtering other animals for pleasure. If the prey is a pest (e.g. foxes), or needs culling (e.g. hares, deer), there are always more humane ways to kill it than hunting it to the point of terror and exhaustion with a pack of hounds- e.g. killing it with a rifle shot. If the prey is being killed for food it is entirely gratuitous. In modern society people do not need to kill food for themselves but can buy it from a source where animals have been killed humanely; indeed no-one needs to eat meat at all and for moral, health, and environmental reasons they should not (see vegetarianism debate). As for fishing, again there is absolutely no need to catch or eat fish; even when anglers throw their catch back in they have first put a hook through its palate.

“Specieism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.” [1]  Conflating specieism with racism or sexism is fallacious because it fails to recognise that the former involves fundamental differences, whereas all people regardless of skin colour or gender are ‘human beings’.  As animals are incapable of moral enquiry they can never acquire rights beyond those that humans choose to bestow on them.  [1] C. Cohan (1986) The case of the use of animals in biomedical research, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 315, No 14.

The use of animals in sport demeans humans  Other animals may not have the same level of sapience as humans, but they feel fear, stress, exhaustion and pain just as we do. It is immoral to derive pleasure either from the suffering or forced performance of another living being, especially when that being is under one’s power and control.  It would of course be absurd to suggest that animals should have equality with humans on the level of having the right to vote or of criminal responsibility, but they should have equality with us on terms of equal consideration of interests, that is, pain and suffering should be equally significant whether it is a human or an animal that feels it. [1]  [1] For further reading see any work by Peter Singer.

This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them?  We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’.  Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1]  [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer &amp; Richard Posner'.

The circus is where children first learn to love animals! The proposition is right to draw attention to issues of animal welfare but again, they do not need to take such an extremist approach. There is evidence that animals enjoy performing and can form close relationships with their trainers and with an audience. Closer scrutiny of circuses and better enforcement of animal welfare laws are desirable, but once those conditions are met the circus can be seen as a celebration of wild animals and the relationships they can form with animal-loving human beings. If the reality falls short of this ideal then reform is called for, not abolition.  We need to strike a balance between human pleasure and animal welfare. The proposition's point of view is much too unbalanced. Putting the animal welfare case at its strongest, we should ban all sports in which animals are treated cruelly, or are at high risk of injury or death. None of the sports mentioned by the proposition here fall into that category. Anyone who works in horse- or dog-racing will tell you that it is in their interest to ensure that the animals are healthy and happy, or else they will not perform well. They will also tell you that most of these animals enjoy racing and enjoy winning. As for polo, horses are rarely injured; the risk of injury is acceptably low.

Treating animals as property prevents them from being perceived as part of the moral community  As long as animals are treated as property, their interests will always be subsidiary to the interests of their owners. To treat animals as property simply because they are not human is specieism [1] and no different to discrimination on race or gender. [2]  For humans, not being a slave is the practical prerequisite of all other rights. So too must it be for animals. Making the treatment of animals more ‘humane’ is an inadequate solution because it does not change the fundamental problem of exploitation.  [1] BBC Ethics guide, ‘The ethics of speciesism’  [2] Gary Francione, ‘The animal rights debate: abolition or regulation?’ p.22

Animals are harmed when used as objects of entertainment, no matter how innocent that entertainment is  The circus is another arena in which human beings abuse other animals. Animals are trained to perform tricks using whips, electronic goads, sticks, food-deprivation etc. Wild animals such as lions, tigers, and elephants are kept in shamefully inadequate conditions in tiny spaces. The necessity of regular transportation means that the circus can never provide an appropriate home for wild animals. These animals are forced to travel thousands of miles in cramped and squalid conditions and frequently end up physically and mentally ill. And what for? Purely for the entertainment of we arrogant exploitative humans. What sort of lesson does it teach our children about non-human animals to take them to the circus and see these great creatures demeaned and controlled by force to perform silly tricks?  Horses and dogs are among the principle victims of exploitation in human sporting activities. The main purpose of horse- and dog-racing is for human beings to indulge their penchant for gambling. The welfare of the animals involved is at best a secondary concern. Horses are frequently injured and die in horse races, especially races over hurdles such as the infamous British 'Grand National'; they are also blinkered and whipped to make them run faster, even the British Horseracing Authority has accepted the use of the whip needs to be limited out of concern for the welfare of the animals. [1] Or the Riverside (Washington)Suicide Race [2] [3] , where horse often die from the nearly 400 foot steep grade of the suicide hill, the riders trying to make it down and through a river. It is unconvincing to claim that the animals can enjoy being subjected to this. As for the conditions the animals are kept in, these may be good for the top dogs and horses, but in the main conditions are poor, and once the animals cease to win races they are likely to be neglected, abandoned, or slaughtered. Horses are also forced to take part in the dangerous contact sport of polo in which collisions and a hard, fast-moving puck pose serious danger to the animals who, unlike their riders, have no choice in whether they take part.  [1] British Horseracing Authority, ‘Whip use and specification’, 2011.  [2] Wikipedia, Suicide Race  [3] Nick Timiraos, ‘The Race Where Horses Die’.

It is consistent to oppose both uses of the animal.  Moreover, Bull fighting is probably the most barbaric exploitation of animals that is still legally practised (in Spain, Portugal, parts of France, Mexico, and, illegally, in the United States). The idea that there is a fair match between the bull and the matador is laughable. The bull dies at the end of every single bullfight (it is either killed by the matador or slaughtered afterwards if it survives); for a matador to be seriously injured is rare and it is very rare indeed for a matador to die as the result of a bull fight. During bull fights the animals are taunted and goaded, and have sharp spears stuck into their bodies until eventually they collapse from their injuries and exhaustion. Matadors are not heroes or artists, they are cruel cowards.

Animals can be used to enhance the quality of human life  Activities involving the hunting or performance of animals are often large scale social activities. The Grand National for example has an audience of 153,000 paying spectators at the event [1] and a further 600 million in 140 countries watch it on television. [2] They can invoke themes of struggle and competition that serve to bring communities together in a shared experience.  [1] Pwc, ‘Attendances rise at UK’s biggest annual sporting events’, 4 August 2011.  [2] Aintree, ‘Broadcasting the Grand National’.

Fighting bulls have a better quality of life than meat-producing bulls  If animal welfare is the primary concern then consistency requires that if one accepts the raising and slaughter of animals for meat then one should also accept the raising and slaughter of animals for entertainment.  “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.” [1]  To condemn bull fighting is to fail to be sensitive to cultural differences and to the true nature of the sport. First, bull fighting is an integral part of traditional Spanish culture that should therefore be respected in the same way that any other minority activity (such as the slaughtering of animals according to certain Jewish or Muslim ritual laws) would be. Secondly, the bull fight is a symbolic enactment of the battle between man and beast; the matador is a highly trained and highly skilled artist and fighter and takes his life in his hands when he enters the ring - it is a match between man and animal. Finally, since the bull would be killed anyway, it is of little consequence how it is killed.  [1] Robert Elms, ‘End bullfighting and you give in to the neutering forces of accepted taste’.

If animal suffering is equal to human suffering then the benefits of exploiting animals in this way are only appropriate if it would also be appropriate to use a mentally disabled human in the same way.

No renewable energy is going to provide the sheer quantity and variety of energy needed to power a developed society. Wind suffers from being unreliable – producing either too little or too much – and as a result would be a bad choice to be the core technology.  The basic staple of the energy supply needs to be predictable as well as clean. Wind may well have a useful role providing a surplus that can be tapped in to at times of high demand. However, it is simply not reliable enough to be the mainstay of the energy blend.  It is worth noting that wind energy requires government subsidies which is simply not viable in the long term, people are unlikely to be keen on the idea of paying for their energy twice; once through their power bill and then again in their taxes [i] .  [i] Industrial Wind Energy Group. 23 August 2008.

Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power  There is little doubt that the current mix of energy provision is simply unsustainable. Fossil fuels are simply too damaging to the environment and nuclear is just too expensive. Wind power is an established technology providing, for example, 21% of electricity in Denmark. [i]  The research is already done and can be made available around the world.  Once externalities are taken into account nuclear energy is the single most expensive way of producing a therm. Clean coal is, frankly, a myth and the trend for oil and gas is constantly upwards in term of price.  Other renewables are embryonic technologies fraught with development costs whereas wind is an established technology already providing a significant share of the energy mix in several developed economies.  [i] World Wind Energy Association, World Wind Energy Report 2010, April 2010, p.5

The difficulty with wind energy is not whether it will be here in 500 years, it’s whether it will be here next Tuesday. Relying as a long term prospect on something so unreliable is simply building fallibility into the future.  A short term reliance on wind would be risky enough, building it in for the long term would be incredibly dangerous.  This is particularly true in countries where the weather is considerably less reliable that it is in Europe. Not only does wind face the risk of a shortfall but it also risks surges to the network at times of high wind. Denmark which pioneered wind energy in Europe, and remains the largest producer, is compelled to export much of that energy to Norway and Sweden because production frequently outstrips demand. That’s fine if one nation in the region is relying on the technology; if everyone is then the capacity simply isn’t there [i] .  [i] Mark Landler. “Sweden turns to a promising power source, with flaws.” New York Times. 23 November 2007.

Wind energy is an economic form of energy generation reducing both running costs and environmental harm  The installation costs of an entire wind farm are, admittedly, fairly high – although they pale into insignificance compared to an oil station or a nuclear plant – but after that there is almost no associated cost whatsoever. In addition to which farms can be built incrementally; a half completed wind farm is simply one that is half its original size for virtually any other form of power generation it’s an all or nothing proposition [i] .  Furthermore, many experts agree that so-called micro-renewables will play an increasingly important role in the energy future of the planet and wind energy is the example par excellence of how this can be done; the most basic homemade windmill can power a generator and wind power predates electricity – offshore and on – by centuries.  [i] "The Future of Energy. Trade winds". Economist.com. Jun 19th 2008

The pro-wind lobby always dismisses the externalities of wind power when discussing it. No other form of power requires quite so much space to create so small an amount of energy, an average of between 22.4 and 34.5 hectares per MegaWatt. [i]  In some countries that may be an appropriate use of land but in many others it is simply a waste of space. It is interesting that those countries that have moved toward wind energy – Denmark, Spain, Germany, Portugal and Ireland – are all in Europe. Geographically small nations with economies that can support an interesting experiment and with an infrastructure that allows for diverse additions to their power supplies.  Wind is simply not a serious option for most of the world, it is a rich nation’s toy. In most nations, either where land is a premium or where development costs for the transition between technologies are prohibitive, wind cannot be the solution.  [i] Denholm, Paul et al., ‘Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States’, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, August 2009, p.10

Wind energy provides for price stability in the long-term, wind will be with us for the duration  The critical, and increasing, issue of a reliance on fossil fuels is that the price is not only increasing but is doing so in an unpredictable manner. Oil and gas in particular are subject to the political whim of some of the world’s most unpredictable regimes. Wind, by contrast, is produced domestically or, where it is exported, is produced in stable European nations.  Given the choice between negotiating with Chavez’s Venezuela or Putin’s Russia for oil and gas or with Belgium or Germany for wind energy is really not a difficult choice.  Critically, in addition, any form of mineral-dependent energy is based on a resource that will deplete – be that coal or uranium. Wind, by contrast, is the ultimate sustainable resource.

Both tidal and geo-thermal are untried technologies and have significant environmental implications in their own right.  It also seems highly unlikely that deploying nuclear as a ‘bridge’ technology would be anything like that, certainly the history of energy production does not suggest that industries are likely to plan for their own extinction in favour of more environmentally sensitive technologies.  This is especially true of nuclear power; it simply is not a short-term technology as the reprocessing and containment schedules are enormous. A decision to use nuclear even for a matter of decades would have implications that would run for longer than the history of human civilization to date.  Wind, by contrast, is a developed technology that has no implications for future generations.

Nobody disputes that any energy strategy will have to include a shift away from the way much of the developed world depends on energy. Clearly energy conservation must be part of the process, but so should micro-renewables. In both categories wind power is the best available option – cheap to build and easy for small scale energy users to use as an when they need it and when built in the right place is reliable, in the UK wind energy is generating 75-85% of the time. [i] Moreover any worries over reliability can be alleviated by building numerous wind farms over a wide area as the wind is always blowing somewhere. [ii]  Battery capacity is easier to build on a smaller scale and surplus can be exchanged internationally relatively easily. All power supplies require backup [iii] . Power outages apply just as much in the supposedly stable world of fossil fuels; surplus capacity is built into any system.  [i] RenewableUK, ‘Wind Energy’, 2010  [ii] Green, ‘Wind Power Unreliable? Build More Turbines’, New York Times, 20 January 2010  [iii] Wind Energy Myths. “Wind Powering America Fact Sheet”. May 2005.

Wind turbines represent a threat to the local wildlife habitat  Although the issue of the impact on bird populations has been somewhat exaggerated there is no doubt that wind farms has an impact on bat populations and some impact on birds [i] . [ii]  There are also indirect impacts on local populations of wildlife as a result of the disturbance caused to otherwise remote wildlife communities as a result of the construction and maintenance of wind power sites.  Wind farms impact on migratory routes as they need to be based in areas where there is little human habitation or activity. This is simply humans as a species taking over land which has been the preserve of other creatures which already have few enough areas to live in, away from the voracious implications of human consumption.  [i] ScienceDaily, ‘Why Wind Turbines Can Mean Death For Bats’, 25 August 2008  [ii] Bat Conservation Trust. “Wind Turbines”. February 2007.

The financial support required to further develop wind technology would be better deployed in more consistent processes such as geo-thermal and nuclear  Realistically, there is a set pot of funding to deal with this energy crisis and it is essential to use on technologies that have long term benefits. Several environmentalists have talked about the difference between ‘bridge’ technologies which can provide a temporary solution and long term, sustainable technologies.  There is a broad agreement that nuclear fills the first category and geo-thermal and tidal powers fulfil the latter. Wind simply doesn’t feature.

Wind energy is unreliable and provides only an irregular source of supply – and even then only in some countries  Wind will only ever be a useful additional technology to provide extra capacity at time of high demand. We know it to be both unreliable and unpredictable. We know that unreliable technologies are fraught with expensive difficulties. As a result relying on such a technology would be reckless.  To take one example, the only way of building in a capacity for wind into a regular energy network would require the construction of ‘battery capacity’ such as hydro-power. Developing such a capacity would be both hugely expensive and unreliable – it’s useful if the wind fails to blow for a few hours, if the doldrums last for a few days, then everything grinds to a halt.

Experience teaches us that the natural environment responds to changes in human activity and rebalances itself. By contrast a shift in the entire climate, driven by human activity, would have devastating implications for all species. We know that migration routes can change over time and that, for example, bat colonies can move. However, a shift in climatic process would destroy migration patterns [i] and cause untold damage to wildlife populations.  Dealing with the effects of climate change is not just a responsibility that humanity needs to take on for itself but for all species on the planet. The tiny impact of individual wind farms on local populations is as nothing compared to the catastrophic implications of a significant and mostly unpredictable shift in the climate of the globe.  [i] Alasdair Fotheringham. “Is this the end of migration?” The independent. 18 April 2010.

Quercioli et al (2012)’s study on the relationship between investing in private health care and mortality does not come to clear conclusions about the best course [1] . The results show investments in public sector health services is associated with a 1.47% reduction in ‘avoidable’ mortality. Investing in the public-sector is more cost-effective, and achieves faster results. The rate of return from private investment is slower.  Privatisation is not necessarily best for maternal care.  [1] The research was carried out in Italy.

Improving health care for mother and child  Private-sector investment will provide crucial training for health professionals, infrastructure, and resources to improve maternal and child health care. Providing affordable maternal care acts as a means for promoting gender equality, and empowerment.  Jacaranda Health [1] operate on a business model, meeting the demand, and need, for affordable and high-quality maternal care in East Africa. Through mobile clinics and new maternity hospitals Jacaranda Health is empowering women and children. Within the first year Jacaranda Health provided care for 4,000 women, and changed the lives of 20,000 families.  Additionally, free maternal care holds negative side-effects. As Burundi shows, the social policy ideas implementing ‘free’ maternal health care resulted in overburdening the health resources and understaffed facilities; and putting vulnerable children at greater risk (IRIN, 2013).  [1] See further reading: Jacaranda Health, 2013.

Although mobile technology is introducing innovative approaches, location and physical access is still often required. Disparities cannot be alleviated until the private actors are willing to invest in remote areas. Not all health problems can be dealt with by a mobile conversation with a doctor.  Further, it remains debatable as to whether rural environments receive worse health-care. Debates have been raised as to the extent of an urban bias - do urban populations hold an advantage or penalty in health [1] ? Frequently neglected by private-investors, the urban poor have been identified as vulnerable groups. Investment, planning, and intervention, is required within slums and for the urban poor.  [1] See further readings: Goebel et al, 2010;

Funding solutions to combat disease  Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 24% of the global disease burden; but only 1% of global health expenditure and 3% of the world’s health workers (McKinsey and Company, 2007). $25-30bn is required to invest in healthcare assets in the next decade to meet needs (McKinsey and Company, 2007). Public resources are not available, so the private-sector is critical.  The private sector can help fill this funding gap; private-sector actors - including Actis - are planning to invest $1.2bn into Adcock Ingram to provide and supply drugs [1] . The investment will provide key funding to enable research; and the availability for ART [2] within Adcock Ingram’s Anti-Retroviral Portfolio. To combat HIV, and other diseases, investors are required for R&amp;D and the distribution of drugs. In 2012, only 34% of the people living with HIV in low and middle-income countries had access to ART showing how necessary such investment is [3] . Furthermore, the private-sector have established partnerships to implement training programmes, improving qualified treatment for HIV, TB and malaria [4] .  [1] See further readings: Private Equity Africa, 2013.  [2] ART (Anti-Retroviral Treatment) involves drugs which prevent the progression of HIV; reduce transmission and mortality.  [3] According to the WHO 2013 guidelines of people eligible for ART. See further readings: UNAID, 2013.  [4] See further reading: AMREF USA, 2013; AMREF, 2013.

In order to combat disease equality needs to be a central component. Drug distribution, new training schemes, and facilities, targeting disease prevention and treatment are influenced by market economics and feasibility. Treatments by Anti-retrovirals should not just be for those who can afford private healthcare.  Further, when considering health care private actors need to broaden horizons. Although funding remains uneven and below target, the specific inclusion of HIV, TB and Malaria within the MDG has distorted the focus on disease. Investment is required in neglected tropical diseases and non-communicable diseases something the private sector has yet to be willing to invest in.

Alleviating rural-urban disparities  Private health is enabling improved access to health services in neglected areas and reducing disparities in access to health.  In Sub-Saharan Africa rural-urban disparities in health-care have received increasing attention. Private investment is bringing services to remote locations. The potential role of technology companies bringing healthcare to areas without it is showcased in Samsung’s investment in mobile solar-powered clinics in rural South Africa [1] . Mobile technology is providing crucial innovations [2] ; used as tools by private investors, mobiles mean individuals can be updated on health status and preventative practices without physical access to doctors, or nurses.  [1] See further readings: All Africa, 2013.  [2] See further readings: Deloitte, 2013, Graham, 2012; Knapp et al, 2010.

Having the government only paying for some health care for those who can’t afford private healthcare is still better than the government paying for all. Competition between both public and private will help raise standards in both.

In seeking to make private health care affordable new models are being introduced. The new models introduced tackle issues over affordability from a demand and supply perspective.  First, multiple health financing schemes have been rolled-out across Sub-Saharan Africa. A range of financing and insurance options are being built, from investing in health providers [1] to including bottom-up approaches. Community based health insurance, as found in Rwanda and Ghana, are ensuring a move towards universal coverage (see USAID, 2012).  Secondly, in tackling supply issues, low-cost private clinics models are being constructed. In Kenya, the Avenue Group provides a positive example working to provide affordable private health care. Risk-pooling, by members, is accepted as a method of payment. Costs are reduced by working with patients, whilst a regular payment source is provided for the caregiver (see Avenue Group, 2013).  [1] The IFC recently announced a $4mn investment in AAR East Africa, expanding out-patient care (see AVCA, 2013).

Unregulated health-care  With the incorporation of a diverse range of private actors, both formal and informal, can health-care still be regulated? Quality and staff need to be regulated, with standards and prices set, but who will enforce regulation and how can we ensure rules are followed? Just treatment is required. Public-sector delivery protects patients from poor, dangerous, treatment.  When looking at regulation in health care, the relationship between private healthcare provision, efficiency and quality is variable. Outcomes depend on the institutional settings (economic, political, and social) and what private actors are involved. Private health providers have a profit incentive to cut corners and provide the cheapest care they can while charging high prices. The theory of a virtuous cycle is far from the reality.

Ideas and interests in a neoliberal model  The ideas driving private health need to be deconstructed. 65% of expenditure received for health care was from the for-profit sector (USAID, 2012). Health care is not a business or market - patients become customers and needs become sidelined by competition when in the private sector. Private health care involves adopting a neoliberal approach to care; competition is central and markets volatile. The market logic focuses on what is a good investment, will the elderly be included when they are a high risk population? This is why even in private systems like in the United States the elderly need public funding.  The privatisation of basic services, across Sub-Saharan Africa, has been shown to be a failure [1] . Access to health care should be based on need, rather than ability to pay.  [1] See further readings: UNDP (2007).

The missing MDG: inequality  Privatising health care cannot be discussed without raising concern over inequality. The privatisation of health care promotes exclusive health care, and is failing to bridge the gap between accessible care for low-income groups and the elite. The model remains unaffordable for many, and therefore ineffective. Even where affordable options are available the quality of care deteriorates. Quality assurance, and affordable care, is needed.  For example, taking the case of South Africa. Health care is provided through both public and private systems. However, the pricing of private health care: whereby better facilities and speed of treatment are found, leaves a majority out-of-pocket and excluded (All Africa, 2013). Prices need to be controlled and affordable options made available. Although formal employers have been involved in supporting access and coverage to health insurance schemes, to prevent a two-tier health system, a majority work within formal employment. If everyone has a ‘right’ to adequate health care, privatisation neglects their rights to health [1] .  [1] See further readings: War on Want (2013).

Being part of a brand ensures investors maintain a standard, and ensure infrastructure, drugs, and medical practices are met. Building franchises for health-care ensures familiarity and is setting standards to follow. Blue Star is a case in point. The Blue Star Network has been rolled out across Africa, and the franchise provides family planning resources and training on sexual and reproductive health. Once the private clinics have completed training, Blue Star recognition is awarded [1] .  Including the private sector in health care provision means a structural shift in the model of care: improved efficiency, quality and methods of care.  [1] See further readings: Marie Stopes International, 2013.

Whether rehabilitation reduces crime more than prison has been the subject of considerable debate for more than a century. [1] Not all treatments work and the twelve step model used by most rehab clinics does not work and almost all the success in treatment for addictive substances (in this case alcohol) comes down to the willpower to initially take treatment rather than the treatment itself. [2] Obviously those who are sentenced to drug treatment programs rather than prison are not making that crucial first step so the programs are unlikely to be very successful.  We also should remember that many of those who are in prison who are addicts are also violent criminals [3] and those who commit criminal acts should got to prison to prevent them being a threat to others as well as to punish that act. Treatment as a sentence is only a sensible alternative if the offender’s only crime is possession of drugs.  [1] Cullen, Francis T., and Gendreau, Paul, ‘Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects’, in Policies Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, 2000, pp.111-113.  [2] Johnson, Bankole A., ‘We’re addicted to rehab. It doesn’t even work’, The Washington Post, 8 August 2010.  [3] ‘Breaking the Cycle of Drugs and Crime’, 1999 National Drug Control Strategy, 1999.

Judicial and Penal reform is needed  Short of a nationwide restructuring of drug policy, the president’s ability to affect the everyday implementation of drug laws is limited. So far, President Obama has emphasized much needed judicial and penal reform. Currently the United States incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other country in the world, and 22 percent of those incarcerated in federal and state prisons are drug offenders. Obama hopes to begin to address these numbers. He has supported alternatives to current detention strategies both in principle and as a cost-cutting technique. Specifically, he supports establishing of special drug courts [1] and sentencing offenders to drug treatment programs rather than prisons. [2] This is necessary because so many crimes are committed while people are high or to fund the habit. For example more than half of people arrested in San Diego had illegal drugs in their system. [3] As a result treatment rather than prison will reduce the numbers of crimes committed. Obama also signed into law the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduces the disparity in sentencing of crack cocaine users as opposed to sentencing for cocaine users. It also eliminated mandatory minimums for possession and increased penalties for traffickers. [4]  These judicial policy changes are cost-effective, pragmatic toward the goal of reducing drug use, and just. Incarceration costs approximately $30,600 annually per inmate, so treatment programs and reduced mandatory minimums for sentencing will save taxpayer dollars. [5] The RAND Corporation (a government-supported non-profit think tank), among others, has found repeatedly that drug policies prioritizing treatment over punishment are more effective, while costing less. [6] [7] [8] Finally, Obama has made US drug policy more just by reducing a sentencing disparity that had unduly punished African Americans for decades. [9]  [1] ‘Drug and Veterans Courts’, Office of National Drug Control Policy.  [2] Obama, Barack, ‘National Drug Court Month’, The White House, 23 May 2012.  [3] Fudge, Tom, ‘Tests Show Majority Of People Arrested In San Diego Are High On Drugs’, KPBS, 6 September 2012.  [4] One Hundred Eleventh Congress, ‘Fair Sentencing Act of 2010’, Government Printing Office, 5 January 2010.  [5] Sabol, William J. et al., ‘Prisoners In 2008’, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 8 December 2009.  [6] Everingham, Susan S., and Rydell, C. Peter, ‘Projecting Future Cocaine Use and Evaluating Control Strategies’, RAND Corporation, RB-6002, 1995.  [7] Caulkins, Jonathan, ‘Cost-Effectiveness of School-Based Drug Programs’, RAND Corporation.  [8] Rydell, C. Peter et al., ‘Enforcement or Treatment? : modelling the relative efficacy of alternatives for controlling cocaine’, RAND Corporation, RP-614, 1997.  [9] CNN Wire Staff, ‘Obama signs bill reducing cocaine sentencing gap’, CNN, 3 August 2010.

Presidents are meant to lead not simply open up national discussions and follow whatever the public wants. While discussion is always welcome it is unlikely to actually provide any answers except telling us what the public wants – most people may consider the war on drugs a failure but that does not mean that they have any idea of what policies they want to replace it. A dialogue also simply kicks the problem down the road; how long is a national discussion going to take? If it is comprehensive this is likely to delay any decisions until after the next election.

The United States must find a ‘third way’  President Obama’s Director of U.S. National Drug Control Policy—or Drug Czar—R. Gil Kerlikowske has rejected the term “War on Drugs,” stating, “the Obama Administration supports a ‘third way’ approach because balanced drug policies such as those in Sweden have accomplished much for the countries that have implemented them.” Nearing the end of the administration’s first term, however, the rhetoric has changed more than the policy. In his Fiscal Year 2013 budget, Obama requested $25.6 billion for drug enforcement—the highest annual total yet. [1]  Despite this if reelected, Obama would take further steps to scale back the so-called War on Drugs. Rejecting the term is a symbolic start as it moves the issue away from being an issue of national security that the term ‘war’ implies it is. A third way would mean reducing the securitization of the issue; changing the view of drug addiction from being a moral crime to being a treatable disease so focusing on education and health. This may eventually mean decriminalising some drugs such as marijuana as happened in Seattle [2] while not actually legalising drugs. In addition to Drug Czar Kerlikowske’s rejection of that term, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also acknowledged that the United States holds much of the responsibility for the ongoing violence in Mexico. [3] Obama has since expressed willingness to collaborate with Mexican leaders to change policy, but has not proposed a detailed plan to do so.  [1] ‘The National Drug Control Budget: FY 2013 Funding Highlights’, Office of National Drug Control Policy, February 2012.  [2] Good, Chris, ‘Obama’s Drug Czar Stumps for ‘Third Way’ Policy’, abc News, 1 May 2012.  [3] Clinton, Hillary Rodham, ‘Digital Town Hall at TecMilenio University’, U.S. Department of State, 26 March 2009.

Saying you want a third way is simply attempting to find a way to dress up moving away from prohibition as being a new and innovative policy. If there was a golden third way between prohibition and legalisation that prevents crime while allowing choice it would already have been found. While treating drugs as a public health issue may help reduce the number of people who are locked up for possession it does nothing to break drugs cartels or reduce the problem of supply so it is unlikely to be of much help to Mexico as the policy will mean reducing the help provided to Mexico while it is unlikely to have an effect on demand at least in the short to medium term. In short this would mean leaving the door open to the cartels.

The War on Drugs has failed and there needs to be a new dialogue to decide on the course forward  The Obama administration has indicated that it will publicly address the failures of the War on Drugs if it wins a second term. [1] In terms of the direction of drug policy as a whole, several Obama “aides and associates” have indicated that the President will bring drug policy to the forefront of the national discussion if he is reelected, but it is unclear what specific steps he would take, going forward. This would be welcome to most Americans; only 10% of people believe the policy of the war on drugs has been a success against 66% who consider it a failure. [2] A national discussion is the only way to determine whether there should be a fundamental shift in policy.  [1] Ambinder, Marc, ‘Exclusive: In His Second Term, Obama Will Pivot to the Drug War’, GQ, 2 July 2012.  [2] AngusReid, ‘ Americans Decry War on Drugs, Support Legalizing Marihuana’, 6th June 2012.

This makes it sound like the US government does not currently have an education program on drugs, this is not true. The current program is making very little difference to drug use. [1] So Romney’s policy is really the same failed policy being recycled again; more border security and a few measures that will make little impact on the demand side. The White House has been highlighting that it has been spending $5billion on reducing drug use while also increasing border security this is not a change so how can we expect an improvement? [2]  [1] Hanson, Prof. David J., ‘Ineffective DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Program Remains Popular’, State University of New York.  [2] Napolitano, Janet et al. ‘Administration Officials announce U.S.-Mexico Border Security Policy: A comprehensive response &amp; commitment’, The White House, 24 March 2009.

Privatising prisons does not work – of course it will result in more prisons but it will also result in more convictions and soon those new prisons will be full too. This is because if prisons are privatised they become an industry, often literally meaning the prisoners manufacture goods for as little as 17 cents an hour, [1] and those engaged in law enforcement have a stake. The local sheriffs often run these for profit facilities and so have a financial incentive to keep the prisons full so as to keep the money coming in. [2] It is not correct that the three strikes rule in California have caused crime to fall, it has been similar to declines in states that don’t have the rule, instead there are other explanations for why crime has fallen such as a reduction in the consumption of alcohol. [3] The Punitive policy towards drugs has been tried; it has resulted in one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and little appreciable drop in crime. It is time to change the policy.  [1] Bowie, Nile, ‘Profit Driven Prison Industrial Complex: The Economics of Incarceration in the USA’, Centre for Research on Globalization, 6 February 2012.  [2] Talbot, Margaret, ‘Prisons, Colleges, and the Private-sector Delusion’, The New Yorker, 14 June 2012.  [3] Miller, Bettye, ‘Three-strikes Law Fails to Reduce Crime’, UCR Today, 28 February 2012.

Allowing drug use is wrong – Prohibition must remain  Romney also has a record of preferring prohibitory policies over those that allow drug use with the intention of making it safer. For example, as Governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill to allow the sale of syringes without a prescription. [1] He has not since stated that he would take a different approach as president, and his position on marijuana use suggests that he would continue to support prohibitory laws.  Romney has staunchly opposed calls to legalize and regulate marijuana, making a moral argument against such a change by claiming that pot legalization is simply a pet issue of a “pleasure-seeking generation that never grew up.” [2] While President Obama has not supported the legalization of marijuana, Romney is stronger in calling for harsh penalties for marijuana users in order to demonstrate the seriousness of the crime. He has also gone further than Obama in his opposition to marijuana by coming out against the legalization of the drug for medical use. [3]  [1] U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘Massachusetts: Needle Sales OK’d After Legislature Barely Trumps Veto’, The Body, 18 July 2006.  [2] ‘Mitt Romney on Drugs, Former Republican Governor (MA); presidential nominee-apparent’, On The Issues, 2012.  [3] Mooney, Alexander, ‘Romney confronted with medical marijuana issue’, CNN, 8 October 2007.

The United States can reduce domestic demand for drugs through education  Like Obama, Romney has indicated a willingness to talk to Mexican leaders about collaboration and has admitted the need to address large-scale demand for drugs in the United States. When asked how to improve the War on Drugs, he stated, “We gotta stop the demand here in this country.” [1] And that demand is immense, it is estimated that there are 22.6 million Americans aged 12 of over using illegal drugs. [2] Additionally, he told the Hispanic Leadership Network that along with preventing demand through education, the United States needs to improve its control of the Mexican border. [3]  Romney will try to control domestic demand for drugs by prohibiting their use, educating young people about their harms (as exemplified by his record as Governor of Massachusetts) [4] , and punishing those who break the law. Through education and regulation, the United States can win the War on Drugs, rather than appease drug growers, traffickers, dealers, and users.  [1] Romney, Mitt, ‘Romney Rally Pinkerton Academy Derry, NH’, Youtube, 7 January 2012.  [2] 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.  [3] Romney, Mitt, ‘Mitt Romney Remarks at Hispanic Leadership Network’, C-Span, 27 January 2012.  [4] Harclerode, Kelsey, ‘What Would President Mitt Romney’s Drug Policy Look Like?’, the Atlantic, 2 March 2012.

Drugs policy must be punitive  Governor Romney would not scale back the War on Drugs, as he supports the punitive approach that characterizes drug policy in the status quo. Romney supports punitive strategies toward criminal justice in general, such as “three strikes and you’re out” laws, which impose mandatory sentences for people who have committed three offenses. [1] These policies can be effective in reducing crime, in California after three strikes was implemented the crime rate declined by 43% although the three strikes was only one factor. [2] Romney maintains that those who break current laws should be punished, and therefore has proposed that states should contract with for-profit prison companies to continue expanding prison populations in order to keep up with current rates of incarceration. If larger prisons are necessary in order to keep drug users and dealers off the streets, then they are a necessary cost.  [1] ‘Mitt Romney on Crime, Former Republican Governor (MA); presidential nominee-apparent’, On The Issues, 2012.  [2] ‘A Primer: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade’, Legislative Analyst’s Office, October 2005.

Dismissing drug users as a ‘pleasure-seeking generation that never grew up’ almost concedes the point. These people have a right to make the choice for themselves whether to use drugs – the government should make sure the risks are known, and the substance priced accordingly but ultimately there is nothing wrong with seeking pleasure.  Romney further muddies the waters by not allowing the sale of syringes as this is an act that would save lives. A study in the lancet estimated that with a needle exchange program in the US between 10000 and 20000 HIV infections could have been prevented between 187 and 2000. [1]  [1] Lurie, P. and Drucker, E. ‘An opportunity lost: HIV infections associated with lack of a national needle-exchange programme in the USA’. Lancet. 1997 Vol.349 pp.604-608.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.  While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Other taxes try to change behaviour  Taxes that try to change people’s behaviour on things that are not liked have been used since the 16th century, and are commonly applied to alcohol, smoking and gambling.  In the US, when cigarette prices went up 4%, use dropped by 10% [11]. As this worked with tobacco, which creates similar health problems to obesity, this tried and tested strategy can work.  Research has shown that when the price of unhealthy food goes up, people eat less of it [12]. A fat tax would make people healthier.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.  Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Being fat causes problems for everyone  Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems.  Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment.  This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity’s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can’t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].

The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse.  It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs.  Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.

Unhealthy food is cheaper  A reason why people eat unhealthy foods is that it’s often cheaper and easier than cooking something with fresh ingredients. Studies have shown that not only is junk food cheaper, its costs are less likely to increase due to inflation [14]. This was confirmed by research in Australia that showed that while healthy food became more expensive, junk food got cheaper [15].  Obesity is more common amongst poorer people. Because junk food is so cheap, it is eaten more. The best way to change this consumption pattern is to tax unhealthy food so that the healthy option is also the cheaper option.

A fat tax could be offset by subsidizing the price of healthier foods so that the overall food budget is unaffected. No one will be forcing the poor to pay this tax as the intention is to have them change their eating habits.  The families that would be affected by the tax most are those affected most by obesity related disease. Spending some money now on food would save a lot more later in health care. It will also make them more productive at work, meaning a better economy and hopefully higher wages to help compensate. [21]

This is a very limited view of government; today everyone agrees that the government should be allowed to tax things that harm us such as alcohol and tobacco. These, like fat, only indirectly harm others.  Attitudes towards fat are changing as the problem becomes much greater. It is now accepted that when people do things that harm others indirectly the government must have a role. The rise in healthcare costs creates just such costs by increasing the cost of the healthcare system as a whole which is either paid for by everyone through taxes or passed on through higher insurance premiums.

Such a tax would not work  A fat tax would only produce a slight change in behaviour. Research by the London School of Economics said that “those on the very poorest diets will continue to eat badly. [16]”  People like fast fatty food because it is quick and tasty. Eating is something we need to do to live – it solves a specific need quickly, and people are happy to pay for it. [17]  Obesity has many causes. It is not something that can be solved with something as simple as a fat tax. Things like healthy food vending machines, more exercise and better education would be more effective in the long run.

Costs more to those who can’t afford to pay  A fat tax will be a tax on poor people. It will hit the poorest, those who can least afford to pay it. It is the poorest who buy the cheapest food because they can’t afford otherwise and who are least likely to have the kitchen equipment necessary to prepare healthy meals. Because it is what they know they will simply end up paying more taxes and having less money to spend on anything else. The result will be attempts to save by eating even worse food, or cutting back on some other necessity such as heating. [19]  The impact of rising food prices and concerns that the result would be turning to worse food is what stopped Romania from introducing such a tax in 2010. [20]

Free choice  It is the government’s job to provide schools and courts not to tell people what to eat. The government should stop people harming each other. But it’s not the government’s job to tell people what to do to themselves. Consuming fatty food does not harm other so should not be subject to government control.  A fat tax would be like the government trying to prevent us from frivolous spending and getting into debt by being allowed to tax investments it considers to be bad.

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .  [1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Controlling domestic violence  By including men in family planning the ideas, and misconceptions, of what happens when women use family planning can be changed. Gender-based violence is a key concern that can be reduced by involving men in family planning decisions. If they buy into having fewer children then they are less likely to object to using contraception and condoms – something that has other potential benefits such as preventing STDs. The United Nations Development Fund for Women has found that one in four women is abused during pregnancy, teaching men about reproductive health and family planning can prevent this from happening.(International Women’s Health Program)  Although evidence is limited the MAP (Men As Partners) program in South Africa showcases the positive effect of including men. The intervention is changing men’s attitude and behaviors [1] .  [1] See further readings: Peacock and Levack, 2007; Engender Health, 2014.

The idea of family planning is wrong; and it reflects the unequal power structures operating in society. Within African cultures families are polygamous, extended, and far from the ‘normal’ neutral family structure. Therefore by enforcing family planning we are failing to understand what the family is across Africa.  Family planning is simply seeking to limit choice about the structure of the family. Just including man and wife rather than any more extended family is itself encouraging a certain structure that not all Africans agree with or desire for their family.

Gender equality in family planning  By including men in family planning programs and the decisions made concerning family structures equality is enabled. The decisions made, and responsibilities, concerning the ‘family’ are no longer solely the burden of the woman. Men are provided with a voice, and therefore responsibility and obligation to act upon caring for the family.  By introducing men into family planning a platform is provided enabling negotiations on the family to be discussed between man and woman. Men are key actors in decisions made; therefore their inclusion is fundamental. This also means that the man is also much more likely to take on other responsibilities in terms of caring for the family or doing things the woman would have done in the past like collecting medicine (Wasswa, 2012).

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?  Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

Involving men is the best way to ensure family planning works  By including men fast action can be taken to control the size, and growth, of families. The patriarchal power structures mean men have a key voice in household decisions. Therefore the involvement of men in family planning is enabling perceptions of what the family should be to change. The cost of raising a family is realized, and intervening methods are being used to have fewer children. Family planning means planning how one can cope with having a child – mentally, emotionally, financially, and physically, and sensitizing couples as to what kind of life standard they want. With the young generation of Ugandans a new culture of a smaller family can emerge [1] .  Men often have limited knowledge about family planning so it is necessary that they are included in learning and the transfer of knowledge (Kaida et al, 2005). When both partners are knowledgeable and involved family planning is far more likely to become a reality.  [1] Wasswa, 2012.

Reducing the cost of family planning; making more contraceptive resources and materials available around the clock; and distributing commodities to hospitals does not ensure access. There is no point increasing funding for programs that will not get used due to a lack of popularity or continued ideas of family planning and management. Improving the ‘alternative essentials’ can only work if those using reproductive resources are supported and in a patriarchal society this means needing the involvement of both men and women.

By including men in family planning programs a new respect emerges towards sex and what men expect women to do. By being made aware of the reproductive costs and demands men are able to respect the bodies and choices of women. Women no longer become passive, but recognized and respected as having their own sexual desires, preferences, and constrains. Family planning does not suppress sexuality, if anything through encouraging the use of contraception and condoms encourages it.

The need to include the wider family  Decisions on how big, or small, a family should be; and how it should be structured are not solely the decisions of husband and wife, or man and woman. Extended family members play a key role. For example, research carried out in Nigeria by Smith (2004) indicates decisions remain influenced by cultural norms and pressures. The pressure for a high fertility, amongst Igbo-speaking Nigerians, is shown to be a paradoxical factor of patron-clientalism and the culture of ‘people power’. High fertility and subsequent kinship networks enable state legibility, resource access, and the continuation of ‘tradition’. Elder family members aim to maintain traditions. A crucial distinction therefore emerges, as it is not simply a rational choice when it comes to family planning but rather influenced by political-economy factors and wider family demands. Therefore including men in Uganda does not necessarily allow an understanding of what role the wider family plays. Decisions on family planning are not simple, or always open for discussion.

Alternative essentials  We should not be focusing on including men, but rather alternative essentials such as funding, resource distribution, and awareness. For example President’s Museveni’s recent commitment to raise government funding for family planning from 3.3 million to 5 million is vital [1] . Further, by improving the supply and distribution of contraception, into the health service sector, President Museveni has drawn attention to the financial constraints in family planning.  [1] Advance Family Planning, 2014.

Family planning is wrong: controlling sexuality  The idea of family planning involves controlling, and suppressing, sexuality. Sex becomes understood as purely a source for reproduction, and women and men in Africa (or Uganda) requiring control.  Additionally the ‘normal’ relationship is identified between man and women. Freedom to express sexuality is repressed by understanding sexuality as heterosexual. The idea of the family is maintained as a heterosexual reality

When it comes to family planning the extended family has little power over intra-household decisions. Extended family members will not be attending clinic meetings, collecting contraception, or engaging in intimate action. The power in family planning returns to man and wife. Additionally, the inclusion of men into family planning will change ideas of reproduction for all. If men are included at all levels ideas will change, and overtime pressures will change. As all men and women learn about family planning they will become much more sympathetic to it within their extended family.

Most athletes can only compete at the elite level when they hit their peak. And the ‘big’ competitions, like the Olympics, don’t come around very often.  So because a coach, in a team they’re not part of, used harsh training methods, they now miss their only chance to compete in the highest competition possible and receive the biggest payout (in terms of wage and sponsorship) opportunity of their career.  Now, this may not weigh against the harm suffered by a beaten athlete, but when you multiply that number out and consider how many people you’re taking this opportunity away from, the harms stack up.

The suffering of those who are treated to harsh training outweighs banning the team  This ban is, admittedly, highly punitive and may be called harsh. It will punish hundreds of athletes and coaches who aren’t implicated in cases of abuse. Yet, on a balance of harms, the disappointment those people feel can’t be compared to the suffering of an athlete who is beaten and starved and conditioned into a mode of thinking where they accept this without putting up a fight.  According to Melanie Lang of Metropolitan University harsh and over intensive training “removes the element of fun that first attracts so many youngsters to sport. It can inhibit bone growth, cause physical and mental burnout and increase the potential for injury and dropout.” [1] And worse the coercion can lead to injury and even death; American gymnast Christy Henrich became anorexic and as a result died weighing only 3st 5lb while Chinese gymnast Sang Lan was paralysed after being cajoled into attempting a vault. [2] It’s more important to ensure all athletes can train in a safe environment free from physical and mental abuse, than it is to safeguard against the disappointment of professional athletes who want to compete. Given that there are major sporting events annually or bi-annually, usually, it’s not as if those forced to miss out can’t compete again soon.  [1] Cassidy, Sarah, ‘Olympic swimming training ‘too hard on young athletes’, The Independent, 4 September 2008,   [2] ‘Beijing Olympics: The Games are not child’s play’, The Telegraph, 16 August 2008,

This simply shows that it is the coaches that are to blame and therefore it is unfair to punish the athletes for what their coaches are persuading them to do. Young manipulatable, athletes do not necessarily know what their coaches responsibilities are and what should be considered abuse. Instead this is the responsibility of the coaching team who therefore are the ones who should be penalised.

Banning countries with harsh training measures from competing would be a strong deterrent  This measure introduces a strong deterrent against those who allow and facilitate abusive training methods.  Firstly, it incentivises national athletic and sporting bodies to diligently check the background of coaches before their employment and continue to investigate them throughout the year. It is now in the interest of every single member of national sporting bodies and teams to ensure abuse doesn’t continue. In most it is currently in your interest to keep quiet, lest you risk disturbing the national programme or being ostracised by your federation.  As a result coaches are far less likely to think these training methods will help them achieve success. Since it could see their athletes banned from the competition and lose their medals it makes using harsh training methods an immense risk to take. It would also mean they’re unlikely to ever get hired again if caught.

This isn’t necessarily true. Consider that currently coaches already are already disincentivised by the use of these training methods by the threat of losing their job. For example in South Korea fourteen Ice Skating coaches resigned after allegations of beatings. [1] Yet these practices continue.  Deterrents rarely work because people don’t think they’ll be caught, and focus on the short term benefit of what they are doing. For example, even if you explain to someone that smoking kills, they may still take a cigarette because they assume they won’t be the one that gets cancer and so the short term benefit can be taken guilt free.  The kind of coaches who already think like this and risk their job are unlikely to change as a result of this proposal. In this case, coaches are unlikely to think they’ll ever get caught, even if people like them are caught and punished, so they’ll think it is pointless to abandon the training methods they think will guarantee them success.  [1] MacIntyre, Donald, ‘Breaking the Ice’, Time Magazine, 15 November 2004,

First this is not all the responsibility of the IAAF to police; the same guidelines state “Athletes must be instructed in health and safety practices and must bear a large degree of responsibility for their own welfare”. [1] The IAAF has already passed laws about what constitutes ‘proper training methods’. [2] The IAAF has therefore done what it needs to do to protect athletes. This duty of responsibility does not extend to a right to impose collective punishment.  Most people wouldn’t argue with the fact that we should try to reduce the amount of harsh training methods being used, where we can. The debate is about how appropriate and effective this punishment is. This policy may lead to less whistleblowing, while simultaneously punishing lots of athletes unfairly. So no matter how high the IAAF’s moral burden is, this policy should not be enacted.  [1] “Principals and Ethical Guidelines”, IAAF,   [2] ‘Principles of Training’, International Association of Athletics Federations,

Athletes are vulnerable to their coaches  Athletes dedicate their lives to their sport and becoming the world’s best at what they do. They are willing to put their body and minds through all sorts of punishment to do this. As such, they’re not in a position to judge what is and isn’t an acceptable training method. If they’re told that starvation makes them more likely to win gold then their intense desire for Olympic glory often clouds their judgment and ability to make rational choices for themselves. Their coaches are authority figures who assumed to have their best interests in mind, and most athletes also assume their coaches know more than them about how to achieve glory. So, if a gymnastics coach tells her athlete that she needs to starve herself to win gold, the athlete will think themselves a bad athlete if they refuse. [1] This is shown by the long history of drug use in the Olympics where both coaches and athletes know it is wrong to use drugs but still do so in the hope it will bring them gold. [2]  Because of this, the IAFF has to make this decision for them. It also means that the chance of whistleblowing is low, since athletes cannot rationally consider whether the training methods are acceptable. So it has to set an incredibly punitive deterrent to make sure coaches aren’t tempted to use a training method they probably won’t be caught for.  [1] Harris, Paul, ‘Secret world of a gymnast: starvation, sex and fear’, The Observer, 27 April 2008,   [2] ‘Historical Timeline History of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports’, ProCon.org, 28 February 2012,

The IAAF and the Athletics commission have the highest burden to protect their athletes.  Just as an employer has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees, the IAAF has a duty to provide a safe environment for their athletes. The sports medical team is responsible for ‘preventing illness and injury’, [1] clearly something that is caused by harsh training. As do all those who are involved in sports.  These athletes only exist in a professional capacity because bodies created the positions for the athletes to exist. If the world wants to pay people to perform and compete for them, then once that offer is made they have a moral duty to ensure that work is safe, since they are culpable in creating that work.  Moreover, we give the IAAF power in the promise that by giving up localised power of judgement over sport, they can better protect athletes and creating a fairer sporting environment.  Abusive training methods are a huge failure on the part of the IAAF and as such they must use the most powerful disincentive possible to them.  [1] “Principals and Ethical Guidelines”, IAAF,

It’s simply untrue to claim that ‘unconnected athletes’ have done nothing wrong. It is the responsibility of every member of the national team to ensure standards are met, because abuses only go tolerated so long as they are allowed by athletes and other coaches to continue. In the case of the victim if they did not whistleblow early then they clearly are responsible for allowing that abusive practice to continue. It is the victim who the harsh regime was supposed to benefit through driving them to glory and if they acquiesced to the treatment then this is likely the reason.

Firstly, this argument assumes consent on the part of the athlete. That’s somewhat unfair as most of these ‘harsh’ training camps are fairly secretive. We know this because even though the Karoyli’s were called out, no punishment could be made due to the difficulty in obtaining conclusive evidence. So it is unlikely athletes really know what they’re getting themselves into.  You can’t consent to abuse, not like this, we wouldn’t let you sign a contract to allow someone to starve you. Moreover, just because athletes would do anything to get gold, doesn’t mean we should let them. Some people would happily sell an organ for money, but we stop them doing that and morally are right to do so. Individuals don’t always know what’s best for them, that’s in-part, why the state exists.

The policy is counter productive  If your goal is, ultimately, to reduce the amount of coaches using this method, this policy is massively counter-productive. For people to get punished, you need athletes to report abuse, this policy makes that less likely to happen.  The athletes being abused won’t want to report their coaches as the abuse is happening, because that means they and their teammates all lose their chance at and competing in the biggest sporting stages which in turn is likely to reduce their chances of ever achieving glory or getting a big payday from sponsorship. It is already the case that sometimes whistleblowers suffer for calling time. In India Dr Sajib Nandi was first removed from his position as a medical officer and then beaten up as a result of whistleblowing about doping. [1] This policy simply makes the stakes and the risks of whistleblowing much higher.  At least now after they’ve been abused athletes come out and report abuse. Why would an athlete do this under this policy? It damages their stock as they become the one responsible for shaming sport in their country. Also, they’re likely to personally know and have training with people still on national programmes, so they’re not going to want to ruin their friends chances of earning more and competing for the top prizes.  [1] NDTV Correspondent, ‘Dope mess: Whistleblower doctor attacked, Sports Minister assures a meeting’, NDTV Sports, 13 July 2011,

Collective punishment is unjust  Under this policy the victim is punished for the crimes of coach. This seems unfair, why should someone have their professional dream denied to them because somebody else did something wrong? Banning an entire nation from a sporting competition expands this, individuals with no or little attachment to cases of abuse will also be punished and suffer, when they have taken no steps that deserve punishment.  Punishments should fit the crime and this means punishing those who are responsible not innocents. It is right that the punishment should be harsh as it needs to deter coaches but this deterrent should be through steep penalties for the coach not for others.

Harsh training methods aren’t necessarily abusive.  Consider that athletes already subject themselves to the kinds of environments that most people actively avoid, and would probably be considered ‘harsh’ by the average person. These routinely involve long days, week after week, often planned out years in advance, practicing special diets and routines [1] and in some countries this may mean being isolated from home and family for years at a time.  Athletes consent to having very harsh training in order to reach the prize, they’re used to putting themselves in extreme discomfort to achieve their goal. To the average person these things may seem abusive but an athlete considers these physical and mental demands differently.  Communist teams used these kinds of training methods frequently and achieved lots of Olympic success, [2] why can’t an athlete choose to emulate these methods in the pursuit of their professional and personal dreams?  [1] Dusen, Allison Van, ‘How To Train Like An Olympian’, Forbes, 8 July 2008,   [2] ‘Olympics: planned economies and the need to succeed’, euronews, 20 July 2012,

The reason athletes don’t report the abuses is because they don’t think the abuse is worse than losing their place on the team. This policy changes that by sending a strong message out. Athletes will attach the gravity of the punishment to the crime and might finally begin to understand that this kind of treatment is utterly unacceptable.  It’s also fairly easy to get around the worry of being blamed for the repercussions by having anonymous tip-offs or witness protection.  The IAAF can compensate for lack of earnings too, but ultimately actually this potential makes abuse less likely to happen. If everyone knows what a risk using harsh methods is, then that’s a good thing. Athletes will be less likely to take it and allow it to continue, and coaches won’t want to risk using them.  Currently it’s worth everyone’s while to shut up and let abuse continue, these changes would mean the risk is too high to let that happen.

Unlike hate speech or defamation, when some burns a flag no one is actually hurt. Some people may feel their sensibilities offended by such acts, but making people feel uncomfortable should not be illegal. The act of flag burning is in itself neutral. The direction of the message the act is meant to convey is what must be considered, not the act itself. Prohibiting flag burning is in this sense pointless. Furthermore, it should be within someone's rights to challenge the values of the nation and to destroy the symbol of those values as evidence of their disagreement. If people cannot challenge those values then society is not free at all.

The First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and expression, does not extend to particularly inflammatory types of speech and expression, which includes flag burning  Freedom of speech and expression is an important right, which is why it is listed first in the Bill of Rights; it is central to a fair and free democracy. However, it has limits. Some forms of speech are contrary to the values of democracy, namely when they infringe upon or violate the ability of others to enact their own rights and freedoms. This is why such things as incitement to hatred, other violence-promoting speech, as well as defamation and perjury are legislated against; they are expressions that infringe the rights of others, by causing fear and increasing risk of harm in case of hate speech, and by harming reputations and the effective administration of justice in terms of defamation and perjury respectively. Rights stop where harm to others begins. In the case of flag burning, as the dissenting opinion of Justice William Rehnquist on the issue says, the act is an extremely visceral one, and is often perceived as a direct attack on the core values of America itself, which many consider to be representative of those values, leading to feelings of anger and violation1. It is an infringement of these offended people's rights when flags are allowed to be burned.  1Goldstein, Robert. 2000. Flag Burning and Free Speech: The Case of Texas v. Johnson. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

The flag of the United States is its primary symbol of nationhood, with a unique importance in the eyes of most Americans, and thus should be protected  When destroying the flag of the United States it is the values of the United States that are under attack. Since the birth of the nation the flag of the United States, the eponymous "Star-Spangled Banner", has been flown proudly in all parts of the country. It has become an endemic fixture in American culture and has come to be seen by people all over the United States, and the world, as a representation of the spirit and identity of nation. It appears on every seal of public office, is flown outside every public building and a flag-shaped pin is worn upon the breast of virtually every public figure. The flag has been imbued with a special significance by the citizens of the United States, and is viewed almost universally with extensive reverence1. It has come to be seen as emblematic of all the values and virtues of American society. In a way it is the physical sublimation of those values; at least that is how it is often treated. For this reason, to destroy the flag is to destroy the values they represent, and thus the flag must be protected in order to protect the values of the nation the flag represents.  1Miller, J. Anthony. 1997. Texas v. Johnson: The Flag Burning Case. Berkeley Heights: Enslow Publishers.

The values of the United States are what should be protected, not the flag. One of those values is the upholding of freedom of speech and expression. The right to express ones views and opinions must be held inviolable to an extent. While there is a case for defamation and hate speech laws because they have a very real and direct impact on people, the flag is only important insofar as people ascribe meaning to it. It is foolish to make illegal a view contrary to the mainstream that may not value the flag so highly.

Popular support is not reason enough to deny people their constitutionally protected rights. The framers of the Constitution were wary of popular opinion, having a justifiable fear that the majority might try to circumscribe the rights of the minority. This is why there are so many check and balances within the Constitution and is exactly why the Supreme Court has defended citizens' right to expression irrespective of the will of the legislature or of the majority of people to enforce their views upon a minority. Popular opinion should not concern fundamental rights.

Flag burning does not serve as an effective method of conveying a message, since it is always met only with outrage and sometimes even violent public unrest  It is highly questionable whether burning a flag can be considered a speech or expressive act at all. It seems to offer up no new concepts or true opinions to the "marketplace of ideas". Nothing is genuinely expressed by the act that could not be done through words or other, less fiery means. The act of flag burning does nothing to help the advancement or elucidation of truth, which is why people have the right to freedom of expression in the first place. Rather, it clouds the issue supposedly being furthered by the act. It welcomes the rhetoric of "un-Americanism", whereby critics and commentators question the protestors' general patriotism, not the validity of their underlying cause, which can eventually lead to the same criticism of their cause itself. Anger clouds the discussion, with people viewing the cause in terms of unpatriotic people supporting the cause, and thus calling for patriots to oppose it. Examples of this problem can be seen clearly in the various protests during the Vietnam War in which misguided protestors burned flags to show their opposition to the war and killing of innocents. The response to these protests, however, were accusations of lack of patriotism on the parts of those involved and gave a powerful rhetorical tool to the political groups still supporting the fight1. Furthermore, when anger and rhetoric cloud all discussion of an issue, it can lead to unmeasured, even violent responses from authorities and concerned citizens. Flag burning is thus counterproductive as a tool of protest, since it stops the message being propagated and pollutes the forums of discourse from being able to search for answers reasonably.  1 Amar, Akhil. 1992. "The Case of the Missing Amendments: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul". Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository.

The popular will calls for a prohibition of flag burning  All national polls conducted in the United States have shown a majority popular support for banning flag burning1. State and federal laws, passed by democratically elected representatives, have for decades passed popularly supported laws aimed at protecting the flag from desecration. The Supreme Court, however, has struck down these laws as being contrary to the rights to free speech, by a narrow 5-4 vote2. Yet popular support for such laws has not diminished. This has led to attempts to pass a Flag Desecration Amendment to the Constitution, which would then necessarily have to be accepted by the Court. In 2006, the House of Representatives passed such an amendment by the requisite supermajority, and it died in the Senate by only a single vote3. Clearly, the vast majority of citizens and legislators actively support legislation to protect the flag. Law should reflect the will of the people and prevent the desecration of the nation's most sacred symbol. Failing to do so gives precedence to the rights of a small minority to perform an act that does not hold any major sway over their lives over the democratic rights of the democratic public.  1 CNN. 2006. "Flag-Burning Amendment Fails by a Vote". CNN. 2Miller, J. Anthony. 1997. Texas v. Johnson: The Flag Burning Case. Berkeley Heights: Enslow Publishers. 3 Hulse, Carl and John Holusha. 2006. "Amendment on Flag Burning Fails by One Vote in Senate". The New York Times.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

Burning a flag may grab attention, but it will invariably be attention of a kind unwanted by the ones doing the burning. If individuals desecrate a flag with the intent of gathering attention to their cause they will be disappointed when they see that public opinion is turned against them not because of their cause, but because of their methods. An attack on the flag is often seen, and is often portrayed in the media, as being an attack on America itself. For this reason flag burning is almost universally counterproductive to the furtherance of a cause, whether legal or not.

The act of flag burning can be done for patriotic reasons, when an individual considers the government to be doing something unworthy of the national ideals represented by the national flag  Burning a flag may not be an act of "un-Americanism", in the sense of opposing widely held principles considered emblematic of the United States, at all in many cases. Often the flag can be burned as an act of patriotism. When individuals feel the state is doing something contrary to the ideals of the nation, and thus those that the flag represent, burning of a flag can be symbolic of the state's non-adherence to the values it is meant to defend1. The act of burning thus serves to connect the cause of the protestor to the very ideals of the nation, and shows that it is central to the discourse of what the nation's values are and how they should be maintained, rather than simply being the ancillary opinions of a few people that can simply be discarded.  1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction.

The right to free speech and expression must include the expression of ideas through means not shared by the majority, including flag burning  For society to be free and democratic it must have provision for the expression of views contrary to the mainstream, and even directly oppositional to it. This must furthermore extend to the means by which to convey such messages. Public disgust is certainly not justification enough to deny the right to expression. The exercise of a right can only be denied to someone when there is a direct harm to others by exercising that right. In terms of free speech, the words or expressions used by someone must result in actual harms to others, harms that outweigh the inherent harms of denying someone their rights, which is itself a kind of violation. No such harm exists in the case of flag burning1. Some people have an irrational attachment to the symbolic significance of the flag, but it should not be expected by law that everyone share that view. The flag, like all symbols of beliefs and groups, is not inviolable, nor is anyone's piece of mind or health so attached to its wellbeing that the desecration or defacing of it could cause any true harm. Furthermore, the patriotism of individuals watching a flag burning is not affected by it. This view is upheld, for example, by Supreme Court opinion in Texas v. Johnson, when the opinion argued that there could be no better response to a flag burning by someone opposed to such an action than waving their own flag or saluting and paying respect to the burning flag2. People can thus show their opposition peacefully without infringing the right of a protestor to burn a flag. Banning flag desecration on account of a sense of moral disgust, or of the threat to public order caused by angry counter-protestors, is the prohibition of an otherwise lawful act for the reason that others will commit crimes in response. Clearly, these are not justification for banning flag burning.  1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction. 2Eisler, Kim. 1993. A Justice for All: William J. Brennan Jr. and the Decision that Transformed America. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Banning flag burning effectively bans questioning of what it represents, and thus bans questioning of the widely held values of the United States  When an individual's views are particularly opposed and contrary to those the national flag is customarily considered to embody, there can be no more valuable way of showing opposition. Should views be judged outdated or in error, people must have a way of showing it in a visceral way that will gain attention and spark discourse. Conventional patriotic views deserve to be challenged, if only to be reaffirmed by the public in the ensuing debate. The problem with prohibiting the act of flag burning is that it necessarily sends the message of banning discourse on the subject of what the flag represents1. It makes those values inviolable, but a free society should be able to question and change its values. Banning flag burning thus essentially bans dissent from the prevailing view. Yet banning something on the basis of majority opinion and their easily offended sensibilities is little more than a heckler's charter. If views are banned simply because the majority disagrees with them, it is little more than the tyranny of the strong over the weak, and thus clearly unjust2. The very reason there are checks and balances in the United States government is to prevent such tyranny. This is exactly why the Supreme Court has stood against the laws passed by the federal and state legislatures banning desecration of the flag; they protect the rights of citizens with a minority opinion from the majority seeking them away3. Flag burning is a form of free speech that helps people question what the United States should be. Banning it only serves to corrupt society.  1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction. 2Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty. London: Penguin Classics (1982). 3Eisler, Kim. 1993. A Justice for All: William J. Brennan Jr. and the Decision that Transformed America. New York: Simon and Schuster.

The power of the act of flag burning generates considerable attention making it a very effective tool of expression and protest  Flag burning is such a powerful and useful method of protest for the very reason that it is a visceral expression to which many people will respond. Jarring statements grab attention, and force discourse on the issue1. A conventional protest can be overlooked, but images of a flag being burned immediately drags in media attention and starts a commentary. While some commentary does center on the issue of flag burning itself, it also necessarily brings it to the cause as well. When protesters are called to explain themselves, they get a chance to explain their views and promote their cause to a much wider audience than they might well not have been able to reach otherwise. Thus flag burning can be very valuable for gaining attention, and if done thoughtfully, to generate support.  1Epstein, Lee and Thomas Walker. 1998. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.

The prevailing will of the majority can outweigh that of individuals with regard to free speech in some instances, namely when there is harm to people from the acts of individuals. Such is the case with things like hate speech, and certainly does so in the case of flag burning. This is because the American people have such a universal attachment to it that the desecration of the national flag is internalized as a personal attack on themselves. This is certainly a serious and real harm that makes the prohibition of flag burning entirely justified.

Regardless of the reasons a protestor chooses to burn the flag, the act of burning is a violation of the nation's ideals and an attack upon the people who uphold them. No intelligent discourse is created regarding the behavior of the state when a flag is burned, but rather is simply counterproductive, as the state is able to declare the opinions of the protestors to be as unpatriotic as the act of burning a flag in protest itself, thus shifting public opinion against them.

It is important not to confuse two issues. The ongoing ‘Battle of the Brands’ between, for example, Coke and Pepsi or McDonalds and Burger King are the focus of the sponsors. It really seems unlikely that the directors of McDonalds lose a lot of sleep over competition from a family butcher in Dorset. The problem has come because the butcher is caught in the crossfire. It’s worth noting that that butcher has received the sort of media coverage that money really can’t buy, so he’s probably not complaining too much. It may have been wise to draft the legislation so that it only applied to companies of a certain size but, in reality, it only affects large-scale efforts to circumvent the rules. [i]  [i] London 2012: Organisers clarify rules on branded clothing for spectators. BBC website. 20 July 2012.

Those unable to respond will be worst hit  Smaller businesses and other organisations see their freedom of expression worst hit by laws that prevent them from associating themselves in any way with major events, to the detriment of their communities. Free speech is not relative or conditional and certainly should not be determined on the basis of the thickness of someone’s chequebook. In this regard, freedom of information is a very real issue. Those organisations without access to huge legal departments are hardest hit, further disadvantaging them against corporations who can already outspend them on advertising. Free speech means that in the world of words and ideas, at least, there is an even playing field and undermining that runs against a sense of natural justice.  Sponsors are simply using this to increase an already fairly unfair advantage; many people supported Britain’s bid for the games on the basis that it would offer great benefits to local businesses, legislation restricting their ability to use their geographical and cultural association with the event make that pledge look extremely hollow.  One of the noticeable failings of the Games is just how little positive impact they have had for small business in East London where most of the events are being held added to this, 62% of small businesses think the games will have no impact while 25% believe the impact will be negative [i] and business outside the capital have actually suffered as a result [ii] .  The major sponsors already went into this situation with massive advantages over small traders who had the sole advantage of the geographical proximity to the events. The idea that, for example, Coca Cola can prevent street vendors in the Olympic Village from selling Pepsi is absurd. Coke isn’t planning to make their money back on direct sales of their product around venues but on the prestige it brings them as a global brand.  [i] FSB News Release, ‘Olympics legacy will be damp squib for small firms’, Federation of Small Businesses, 9 January 2011.  [ii] Now Retailers Outside London Suffer From Olympics Effect. Simon Neville. The Guardian. 3 August 2012.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

Governments and corporations have been complicit in an effective ‘privatization of language’.  Recent developments in IP legislation, particularly in the UK, have given corporations a carte blanche with regards to protecting their claim on associations with events they are sponsoring. The Olympics, for example, has required vastly more investment from the taxpayer than from any sponsor [i] [ii] and yet those very taxpayers have been prevented from using associations with the event to their advantage. The build-up to the games saw the international media full of stories of small businesses and others banned from using the logo or name of the games for their own advantage [iii] . Sponsors may have ploughed in millions but the taxpayers has invested billions, many of them will see precious little return on that investment and this is exacerbated by the official sponsors buying those terms. Effectively government has conspired with corporations to own chunks of language which morally, linguistically and financially can be said to belong to the public.  Nobody would challenge the right of sponsors to proudly promote their bought association with an event they are sponsoring and to use all of the means at their disposal to declare that association to the world, which they have done. However, there is a world of difference between the positive right to proclaim a particular association and the negative right to prevent anyone else from proclaiming theirs. Of course sponsorship should provide bragging rights and privileged access but that is a world away from buying the silence of others.  [i] London 2012 Olympic Sponsors List: Who Are They And What Have They Paid? Simon Rogers. The Guardian. 19 July 2012.  [ii] London Olympics Could Cost Taxpayer $17Bn. Fred Drier. Forbes Magazine. 10 March 2012.  [iii] Even Sausage Rings Are Put on The Chopping Block. Jere Longman. New York Times. 24 July 2012.

It is a massive overstatement to say that recent events are equivalent to the privatization of language. Were people to be charged every time they used the word “Olympic”, say, that would look like the privatisation of language, this is merely sponsors protecting the association with an event that they paid for in the first place.  Additionally, to portray this as a conspiracy raises the question of, “To what end?” Government works with major organisations as partners all the time, precisely because it saves the taxpayer money to do so. Although the taxpayer has footed a significant bill for the games, it would have been that much larger without sponsors and it is the taxpayer, not the sponsors, who receive the infrastructural benefits, which is what they paid for. The sponsors receive promotion for their brands, which is what they paid for. It’s a simple quid pro quo. Other companies trying to muscle in on the act have paid for nothing – and that is just what they should get. [i] .  [i] London 2012. Olympic Legacy Website.

This creates a dangerous precedent  The idea that corporations can, effectively, buy words and phrases set a pernicious precedent similar to their ability to own genes. There are certain things that, self-evidently, are the property of the people. They are held in common and in trust for future generations. They cannot be sold because they are not owned. Attempts to evade that reality have, generally, been seen as pernicious by history – even where they have not been rectified. European settlers laying claim to land used by indigenous people would be one example.  Recent attempts by pharmaceutical companies to purchase genes [i] and now other Corporations to own chunks of the language – or at least rent them from governments and NGOs that also don’t own them in the first place - seems to come in a similar spirit.  Who can reasonably be said to own, for example, the phrase “London 2012”? If anybody could make such a claim, Londoners living in the city in 2012 would seem to be the obvious answer. However, there is a far more satisfying answer that nobody does.  The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 extends the scope of protection given to the Olympic and Paralympic Games by making it an infringement of the “London Olympic Association Right” (LOAR) to do anything which is “likely to create in the public mind an association” with the London Olympics [ii] . [iii]  The fact that this is happening in relation to the Olympics makes the precedent particularly troubling as the idea that the Games are for all mankind is at the heart of the Olympic ideal. It is an aspiration of our common humanity and all that entails. If chunks of that are for sale then it raises very real concerns about what else could go under the hammer.  [i] Noonan, Kevin ed., ‘This House would allow the patenting of genes’, Debatabase, 2011.  [ii] International Trademark Association.  [iii] Davies, Malcolm, ‘Intellectual Property and the London 2012 Olympic Games - What businesses need to know’, Intellectual Property Office, November 2009.

All of the other inconveniences mentioned by Opposition have been mitigated as much as possible by the organisers. For example local government and transport bodies have been providing advice and encouragement on arranging different routes and minimizing the need to travel at all for months in advance of the games. In this matter however, the organizers and elected officials have come down firmly on the side of sponsors. The very inconveniences outlined by Opposition are already hurting some traders as people choose to work from home or take the opportunity to leave the city altogether. Denying those traders every opportunity to recoup the lost revenue from their regular clientele is, as a result, doubly unfair.

It would be nice to think that, at least at some level, sponsors offer sponsorship out of a desire to give something back to the customers who create vast profits for them but perhaps that is naïve. Ultimately, however, this exercise in ownership has been counter-productive. It would be difficult to imagine an ‘ambush advertising’ action that would come close to inflicting the damage on corporate reputations that the bad press surrounding this issue has generated. From the point of view of sponsors, this was a real example of the best getting in the way of the good. The net result has been that nobody has benefitted as they could have if the sponsors had not been so set on exclusivity of association.

There is a clear difference between protecting commercial interests in terms of association with a sponsored event and ‘owning words’.  It would be both illegal and impractical for a sponsor to ‘buy’ the word “London”. The rules make it clear that they are not attempting to infringe on, for example, the right of journalists to report the Games nor on people to discuss them. A simple Google search will bring up thousands of articles – like this one – using the Olympic rings, the phrase “London 2012” and many of the others words and phrases that concern Proposition. At no point have the news organisations concerned been asked to pay. There is clearly a world of difference between an existing magazine running a feature about the event – indeed several features – and the creation of a one-off special publication stuffed full of advertising for a direct competitor of the event.  An equivalent would be paying for a meal in a restaurant only to see that everyone else was eating for free. That is the infringement of natural justice. Sponsors have paid to have a certain association with the Games and it is both fair and reasonable that they should get that association in a way that does not allow their competitors to get a free lunch.  It is ridiculous to suggest that this is tantamount to ‘owning words’ as Proposition has done. To start with the preclusions cited here are temporary, additionally they are only in reference to this event. It would seem to be in everyone’s interest for sponsorship of sport and the arts to continue, for that to happen, they sponsors need to get something in return.

Sponsorship is necessary to host major sporting events  It is in the interests of communities and countries to attract sponsorship for events on this scale, as with other areas, such as transport, that requires a little sacrifice. Hosting major events, inevitably, requires some degree of inconvenience for those living in the area trying to go about their daily lives. These inconveniences are tolerated because there are wider benefits. In the instance of the Olympics, a core part of the initial bid was the assumption that hosting them would produce long term benefits for the city in the form of tourism [i] and regeneration. [ii] Whether that proves to be the case remains to be seen although, given the number of historic venues used for events [iii] , it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose that it may be likely.  To ensure these future benefits, there is an understanding that there will be some disruption caused and some inconvenience, allowing sponsors a degree of autonomy is comparable to that inconvenience.  LOCOG argues without the sponsors “investment the Games wouldn’t happen.” [iv] Without the Games the future benefits wouldn’t happen – quite the reverse if they simply fell apart after the bid had been won. The smaller traders who feel aggrieved now are exactly the people who will benefit for years to come as people make use of the new facilities or see London as a tourist destination they would not otherwise have considered. It’s a simple quid pro quo.  [i] Woodman, Peter, ‘London 2012: Olympic boost to retailers and tourism new figures show’, The Independent, 6 August 2012.  [ii] ‘Regeneration and economic growth Olympics legacy’, Communities and Local Government, accessed 9th August 2012  [iii] London Olympics: Some Events Set Amid Historic City Landmarks. LA Times. 27 July 2012.  [iv] London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Limited, ‘Rule 40 Guidelines’, July 2011, p.6.

Sponsors pay for the privilege  Sponsors pay an enormous amount of money to support events such as the Olympics, it is only fair that they can protect themselves against ‘ambush advertising’ by competitors. This is an issue of simple financial reality. Although there have been some unpleasant – and probably unwise – accounts of smaller traders getting caught up in the crossfire, and opposition concedes that should be rectified in future events – the purpose of this kind of legislation and the regulations it spawns is to prevent direct competitors of sponsors finding ways to ambush the event [i] .  The issue of concern is not really a lone athletics fan wandering into the final of the Men’s 100m with a can of Pepsi. The intention is clearly to prevent representatives of that company standing outside the venue handing out thousands of free T-shirts.  There have been some problems with the implementation of this legislation but the principle remains sound and serves to the benefit of all. The alternative would be both Coke and Pepsi reps handing out T-shirts outside and the organisers of the event not getting a penny from either. It is only fair that those who pay the piper to a certain extent get to call the tune.  [i] London 2012: Coe Sparks Olympic Sponsorship Row. Shiv Malik. The Guardian. 20 July 2012.

There are examples of Journalists running foul the Olympics and its partners. The most famous being Guy Adams, whose Twitter account was suspended following criticism of NBCUniversal’s coverage of the event. Although NBC are a media partner rather than a sponsor, they paid $1.8bn for the media rights and the principles of belligerent protectionism would still seem to apply [i] . Even if it is just for the duration of the Games, even if it is for one day of them, or one minute of them, this would still be an attack on the freedom of speech of the individuals concerned. By its nature, freedom of speech is indivisible, we either have it or we don’t; the pretence that it is possible to say that ‘people are free to say whatever they like, apart from this’ completely misses that point.  [i] Journalists Twitter Account Restored After Suspension. BBC Website. 30 July 2012.

Let us say, for the sake of argument that the opposition had tabled a motion of impeachment – which would have even less impact in the long run. Would it still be inappropriate to report? What if the allegation were corruption, a partisan approach in Mexico’s interminable and bloody drug wars? Would it still not be correct to report it?  Clearly something which is widely discussed in political circles and, if true, would have grave implications for the political direction of the country should be reported. Aristegui did so with all of the tact and professionalism available.

Aristegui was fairly obviously played by the opposition; she should not have provided the coverage they desired.  Opposition parties in every democracy in the world produce stories or actions calling on those in power to do or say something ridiculous or making unfounded allegations just to get some coverage and damage their opponent’s credibility. Viewers and readers expect journalist to use their professional judgement in choosing where to give real stories the oxygen of publicity and when to ignore something as a publicity stunt. Unfurling banners in parliament is clearly the latter.  As a result journalists are able to present their audience with something they have good reason to believe is true. Instead Aristegui, effectively, came up with “well, some people said these, it might be true, it might not, someone should find out.” That ‘someone’ should have been her.  An equivalent would be the difference between sharing some gossip about someone at work with a colleague and sending a memo about it to that person’s boss [i] .  By mentioning this at all on air, the rumour is given credibility that it did not deserve and the President’s reputation was unfairly sullied.  [i] William Booth (Washington Post). Mexico buzzes over Calderon’s alleged drinking. Printed in the San Francisco Chronicle. 12 February 2011.

The three examples prop cites come from a quite different period in history. President Sarkozy’s personal life, in contrast to his predecessors, received massive scrutiny in the domestic and international press.  Furthermore, alcoholism is a rather different case to measles if, as has been alleged online, Calderón has been drunk to the point of incapacitation at official functions, that impacts on the image of Mexico in the world. This can be shown by the laughing stock that Boris Yeltsin became around the world. [i] It should also be noted that the President having a relatively minor ailment may have been an issue as his secretary highlighted in response to the allegations "During the four years of his administration, he has never missed any event because of health problems". [ii]  [i] BBC News, ‘Boris Yeltsin: Master of surprise’, 31 December 1999  [ii] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011

The journalist in question failed to produce any evidence that this affected Calderón’s job performance.  There is no public interest issue here, otherwise that would have been the main thrust of the story, moreover other news media would have picked up on the story as well. Instead this is a simple case of intrusion into a public figure’s private life, apparently for no reason other than it being a fairly easy story. This is exactly the kind of story that a reasonable distinction between public and private issues is meant to avoid. There is was evidence of alcoholism by President Calderon presented by the banner waving opposition [i] so a good journalist should have either found evidence as if it was affecting Calderon’s ability to govern then there would be evidence that could be found or else she should have dropped the story rather than reporting rumour and insinuation.  The fact that by doing so she endangered not only her own reputation with the president’s office but that of the show and the company clearly makes it a disciplinary matter. Intruding on anyone’s private life unnecessarily is unpleasant invading the privacy of a figure with whom one is likely to need to work in the future is professional stupidity.  On both of these grounds, this particular intrusion was unnecessary. This has nothing to do with Aristegui’s freedom of speech and everything to do with Calderón’s right to privacy [ii] .  [i] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011  [ii] Fox news website. Mexican president denies rumoured drinking problems. 10 February 2011.

It has to be accepted that a person accepts a certain loss of privacy when they stand for office. Beyond that, the issue at stake here is not whether this is good or bad journalism but whether it is journalism. By any reasonable definition a protest staged by leading members of the national legislature and concerning the character of the president would seem to qualify. As Aristegui herself argues “The health status and degree of equilibrium of a president is a matter of clear public interest.” [i]  [i] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011

Alcoholism is a disease, if the story was that the president had measles, it wouldn’t have got a mention.  Let’s take an historical example of the ‘well-being of the head or state’ in ‘democracies around the world’. A majority of US citizens were unaware that FDR was wheel chair bound – even after his death. [i] The fact the Churchill hit the bottle early in the morning was never mentioned to voters in the UK, even at their “darkest hour”, and still remains a matter of debate. [ii] The French have long ignored the streams of mistresses wandering in and out of the Élysée Palace throughout the history of the Fifth Republic. [iii]  All of these things were well known by the journalists of their time but there was no need for the story to be revealed. The allegation of the opposition was that Calderón was a drunk, this then became a suggestion that he was an alcoholic – they’re different things. This rather suggests that now research at all was undertaken into the allegation but that a slur was repeated as though it were news.  Because of popular confusion between the two, it was repeated, presumably, because it was salacious. Hardly the highest standards of journalism [iv] .  [i] Anderson, Stacy, ‘FDR made 'tacit agreement' with public about disability’, The University Record Online  [ii] Richards, Michael, ‘Alcohol Abuser’, The Churchill Centre and Museum at the Churchill War Rooms, London, 19 January 2009  [iii] Rocco, Fiammetta, ‘Widows in weeds, mourning mistresses - plus ca change to the French’, The Independent, 14 January 1996  [iv] UK National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Conduct. The NUJ code is widely seen by British journalists as the final word on journalistic ethics. It is also widely ignored in practice.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

It’s not a news story, it’s a stunt. A news story would have required the journalist in question to do some work and either substantiate their claims or disprove them. Either could be done by finding evidence of wrongdoing by the president or skulduggery by the legislators. For example “Opposition resort to baseless claim in political fights” would also be a significant story if it were backed up with evidence.  As the story was presented, it was just speculation put in the national media in the full knowledge that mud gets stickier and dirtier the less material it has inside it [i] .  The point about the Paxman incident, as was later demonstrated, is that it was true – and the journalist in question knew it and could prove it.  [i] Guillermo Gustavo Pérez Lara. El president Felipe Calderón, el alcohol y sus secuelas. Suite 101: Política y Sociedad. 8 February 2011.

The job of the reporter is to report the news not to decide what is news and what isn’t.  Any political reporter has a duty, first and foremost, to report on the issues being discussed by political leaders on all sides. The whole point of a democracy is that the people get to chose what and who they believe. The electorate in many countries have proven themselves remarkably willing to turn a blind eye to the peccadilloes of politicians as long as unemployment is low, wages are on the rise and housing is affordable. So for example the electorate ignored Tony Blair’s daliances with the property market and famously Bill Clinton was reelected despite already being plagued by scandals and reached his highest approval ratings after the Lewinski scandal. [i]  However, others will make decisions on the basis of the perceived character of the candidate or elected official [ii] . Many politicians are keen for the virtuous aspects of their private lives – families, personal achievements, sportsmanlike activities – to be shared with a usually uninterested public, it seems only reasonable that their inner demons should enjoy the same publicity has the angels on their shoulders.  Aristegui was doing her job to the letter – reporting the issues exercising the political class of the day and leaving it to the voters to decide what mattered to them and what did not.  [i] ‘Poll: Clinton’s approval rating up in wake of impeachment’, CNN.com, 20 December 1998  [ii] Matthew D’Ancona. Politics in this age of austerity will be a contest of character. The Daily Telegraph. 12 May 2012.

Even accusations affects reputations and therefore ability to do the job  Even if this were only gossip, the fact that the perception existed that the president was an alcoholic would affect how other politicians interacted with him – it is, therefore, a matter for public concern. [i] National leaders are left politically weakened by plenty of things that aren’t true. They are further undermined by things that are true but apparently trivial if they are kept secret. If that is actually what members of congress believe then it will affect their interaction with the president. By contrast, if that is not what they truly believe, then it speaks a great deal to their character that they are willing to resort to the politics of the gutter. Either way Mexicans have a reasonable right to know that the argument is going on.  Aristegui did just that. It is far more worrying that a news organization would even consider dismissing her for doing her job – presumably because it inconvenienced or embarrassed someone powerful [ii] .  [i] Seymour-Ure, Colin, ‘Rumour and politics’, Politics, Vol.17, No.2, 1982, pp.1-9  [ii] Kate Katharine Ferguson. Column: Politicians’ private lives make a difference. We should pay attention. Thejournal.ie. 1 August 2012.

The protest by the opposition was a news story in its own right.  A protest by opposition members of parliament alleging behaviour unbecoming of the office of president is clearly a news story. They have the right to say it – and the media should report it as just that; a claim made by the opposition. A protest with a large banner unfurled would make the news in almost any country.  The British journalist Jeremy Paxman confronted newly elected Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy over his drinking. Much of the media feigned outrage over the action right the way up until he was dumped by his party – as a result of drinking too much. [i]  There is a myth that it’s okay for a privileged few within the professional elites of politics and journalism to know these details about leading politicians but their constituents, the people who ultimately employ them and whose lives they control should be left in the dark that their representative is an addict.  Most people wouldn’t hire a plumber who was known to have a drink problem, why should they be expected to hire a parliamentarian or president in the same situation.  [i] Campbell, Menzies, ‘How drink destroyed Charles Kennedy, by Menzies Campbell’, 14 February 2008

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.  In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

Blasphemy laws are unlikely to promote social harmony as readily as the proposition side claims they will. Accusations of blasphemy can enflame tensions between antagonistic groups. Telling people they no longer have recourse to words to voice their disagreements and discontentment might push them to resort to violence instead. Communities with diverging beliefs are unlikely to engage in discussion and negotiation if statements aimed at promoting peace can easily be used to launch expensive libel prosecutions. Exchanges and debates between different communities will not take place if participants fear that they might be arrested if an audience member choses to take offence at their words.  Anti-blasphemy laws would undoubtedly control group violence of the sort that followed the publication of the “Mohammed cartoons”. But they would also spur further social division, and deepen misunderstandings about religion. Anti-blasphemy laws would remove debate on religion from the public sphere and leave both bigots and zealots to propagate their distorted interpretations of religious belief unchallenged in private. To the case more simply, debate and discussion on the nature of religion and the nature of the sacred will always occur. Even if the proposition side successfully extend hate speech laws to encompass blasphemy, they will not be able to prevent private discussion these concepts without abolishing democracy wholesale and advocating the creation of a surveillance state. A blasphemy law would only serve to prevent groups with differing ideas from being brought together to engage in debate and conversation. Contact between groups would cease, because of concerns that allegations of blasphemy might lead, at the very least, to unwelcome and intrusive police and prosecutorial investigations. But discussion of controversial ideas about other faiths would continue. In the absence of dissenting voices, closed and concealed dialog would be vulnerable to manipulation and inaccuracies.  While words can be powerful it is preferable to allow people to speak freely, even if what is said is not always constructive. The alternative is to make the courts and justice system complicit in creating a culture of victimhood and vexatious litigation.  Debate is also likely to suffer under this mechanism. By allowing a group that has been the target of a religious slur to feel victimised and justified in deploying the force of law against their opponents, we disincentivise these same religions from engaging with blasphemers and offering clear and robust justifications for the offence they feel.  The argument that blasphemy laws would bring different parts of society together is nonsense; firstly such laws tend to favour the largest religion in a society which would be to the detriment of minorities but also just because certain discourse is blocked does not mean that individuals will inherently become more educated about other cultures and beliefs. This is the case for example in Pakistan where minorities are rarely protected by blasphemy laws and are often persecuted by it, buts being a member of the Ahmadi sect is synonymous with being blasphemous to Islam and without having to prove intent the law is therefore used to persecute them and other minorities. (Mehmood, ‘Pakistan blasphemy laws retake center stage’, 2011)

Social cohesion and hate speech  Laws combating discrimination- such as the blasphemy law that the proposition side are advocating- promote social cohesion and stability, both important policy objectives in increasingly mobile and cosmopolitan societies.  The United Nations General Assembly in 2006 argued “defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights.” (United Nations General Assembly, ‘Combating defamation of religions’, 2006). Coexistence between communities with radically different creeds, values and viewpoints needs to be carefully supervised in multi-cultural societies. Too often the uncertainty that accompanies migrant life can serve to inspire to give too much credence to the views of zealots and fundamentalists. To prevent communities deliberately isolating themselves from their neighbours; to prevent communal violence, it is necessary for the state to create an environment in which disputes can be resolved by impartial and properly trained prosecutorial authorities. Discrimination laws are instrumental to building peaceful social realities. They signify a welcoming society, in which it is unacceptable to offend entire segments of the population by debasing what they hold most precious.  Blasphemous statements have a power that reaches far beyond “ordinary” hate speech. Acts covered by this law would include intentionally provocative publications such as the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that featured prominently in a Danish newspaper in 2005. These images led to widespread protests and violence in both western states and majority Muslim countries. The offensive content of the cartoons gave credence and legitimacy to sects and clerics espousing absolutist ideas that have no space for compromise or understanding. Further, the protests also brought individuals who would ordinarily have considered themselves moderates into contact with violent extremists. Neither of these outcomes does anything to promote a culture of free and frank discussion within the societies affected.  The legal measures that side proposition supports do not oblige free thinkers to remain silent in the face of zealotry and bigotry. However, they does require writers, journalists and artists to apply their reason and their sense to content that they want to publish for mass consumption. Much like laws that prevent the negligent operation of businesses, anti-blasphemy laws would set a minimal standard of responsible conduct in order to ensure that publications did not cause a dangerous level of offense to significant numbers ordinary and rational religious believers. Legal definitions and enforcement of standards of responsibility do not preclude individuals from pursuing dangerous or entrepreneurial business ventures or public works. They need not prevent the creation of controversial and challenging forms of free expression either.

Blasphemy a free expression  Blasphemy cannot be shielded by the rationale which is used to defend freedom of speech. Blasphemy constitutes an attack on the religion it is targeted at. Beyond its ability to shock and offend, blasphemy exposes religious believers to ridicule, and perpetuates lies and falsehoods about their faith. Moreover, blasphemy also drives conflict and exclusion within particular faiths, deepening schismatic divisions and encouraging believers to become more hostile to those who do not share their religion.  Blasphemy occupies a distinctly different position in public debate and discussion than civil, respectful discourse about religion. The forms of blasphemy law that were maintained in the legal systems of western liberal democracies throughout the twentieth century criminalised only the most extreme and intentionally provocative forms of religious expression – images of religious figures involved in humiliating or sexualised scenarios; statements about a religion that amounted to hate speech; and words that were intended to mislead and deceive the naïve, credulous or doubting. The English blasphemy case of R v Boulter drew on the conclusions of the sixth report of the commissioners on criminal law, which had observed that a criminal charge could only arise when “irreligion” took the form of an “insult to God and man”. The judge in the case remarked that “if the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked with tout the writer being guilty of blasphemy.”  Ruling in the case of Whitehouse v Lemon, heard in 1977, a senior English judge remarked that blasphemous libel, although thought to have fallen into disuse and irrelevance remained useful in safeguarding “the internal tranquillity of the kingdom.” This principle appears to be an antecedent to the public order justification for hate speech legislation – speech that spurs people to commit violent or disruptive acts should be curtailed to protect public safety. That case restated the idea that “It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent in temperate language.”  This is the sense in which the proposition side will discuss the term “blasphemous”. The proposition side does not intend to limit free speech, but has every intention of ensuring that free speech is not undermined or delegitimised by allowing the unobstructed broadcasting of hateful and provocative statements. We protect freedom of speech in our society not as a good in and of itself, but because through debate of even the most improbable propositions, socially valuable ideas may emerge and concerns that might otherwise be hidden can be expressed. By contrast, language aimed solely at offense has no redeeming value and does not contribute to any wider exchange of ideas and concerns. Blasphemy does not appeal to reason, and by being directly exclusionary and offensive, it limits that ability of believers and non-believers to engage in structured debate.

Blasphemy can be a valuable act of expression. It is misleading to try and conflate blasphemous statements with statements that lack intellectual merit, are bigoted or hateful. The proposition side attempt to exclude “decent and temperate” questioning of religious values from the scope of anti-blasphemy laws, but they fail to recognise that language is a broad, imprecise and malleable tool. Words that may be understood as temperate and even-handed by one speaker may deeply shock another. Even a simple and plainly stated denial of God’s existence was interpreted as tantamount to blasphemy by the early liberal philosopher John Locke. Locke saw acceptance of the core truths of the Christian bible as being a vital indicator of and individual’s trustworthiness and willingness to comply with social norms.  It is easy to envision scenarios in which adherents of certain religions may find any attempt to dispute the historical and philosophical foundations of their faith deeply offensive, no matter how calmly and respectfully the dissenting position is communicated. Discussions of natural selection have become one such battleground. Despite the measures taken by philosophers and scientists to highlight the compatibility between religious faith and scientifically informed ontologies, despite the measured and carefully regulated court cases that have been used to decide this issue, many Christians regard discussion and teaching of evolution as part of natural history threatening and offensive.  Even irreverent humour or mockery can sometimes be used to make valid and useful observations about the structure and values of religions. For example, the act of angering someone by ridiculing their deity, or the tenets of their faith, could make the point that a particular religion is closed-minded or too hidebound. Important aspects of our characters are revealed when we are invited to adopt aggressive or defensive attitudes. It is not for a government to decide whether blasphemous statements contribute to social discourse; it is up to the individuals engaged in that exchange. It is not acceptable, in the absence of an intention to expose a particular group of people to a real risk of physical harm, to allow debate and free speech to be curtailed by the use of legal force.  The meaning of words need not be plain and obvious, either. Implication and allusion play an important role in language. Implied meanings and innuendos have done much to complicate the legal processes used to protect individual reputations against slurs and falsehoods. In a criminal, rather than a civil context, similar principles are likely to make blasphemy prosecutions expensive, unwieldy and inconsistent.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.  Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.  Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

Oppression within religious communities  Blasphemy laws can be used to enforce oppressive and exclusionary practices within religions. The proposition side have gone out of their way to highlight the harm that can be done to religions by actors external to the religious group. However, this analysis does not fit so comfortably with the problems that occur when a member of a religious community wishes to make controversial and divisive statements about their own religion.  Dissenters within a religious group may often face exclusion from their communities and hostility from friends and family. The current law of western liberal democracies ensures that social disapproval does not transform into threats or violent conduct directed at these individuals. In this way, liberal democratic states recognise the right to speak freely without fear of violent or disproportionate repercussions, irrespective of the social and cultural standards enforced by the community that an individual might belong to.  By criminalising blasphemy, proposition run the risk of discouraging religious dissent within religious communities. Heterodox thinkers who want to share their views on their religion with other believers, must now run the dual risks of effective exile from a social environment that they consider to be their home and prosecution by the state. Anti-blasphemy laws would give communities the ability to indirectly harm and intimidate anyone holding controversial opinions, by directing state power- in the form of prosecutors and the police- against them. Further, anti-blasphemy laws might simply discourage free expression of this type, the prospect of prosecution being sufficient to discourage controversial statements and discussions.  Religions- even if based on divine revelation- develop through human debate, thought and discussion. The proposition position would harm the development of religions if it were realised. It would balance the environment of collective discourse within a religion in favour of conservative and reactionary thinkers.  It should also be noted that it is the state which drafts the law and its organs then apply it, deciding which cases will or will not be prosecuted. It might be enforced unevenly by the government, thus favouring certain religions and victimizing others. It could be used to limit the expression of unpopular ideas, which are the ones that need the most protection, as has happened in the past with the work of artists criticizing the social and political mores of the time with previous cases showing their books being banned from libraries or their paintings from art galleries. Take for example the banning of Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses in numerous states around the world. (Bald, M. 2006)

Language and subjectivity  “Blasphemy” is a very subjective term. The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed referred to above were regarded by many as blasphemy, but to others they were a form of incisive commentary. (Badkhen A. 2006). Side proposition seems content to trigger a prosecution for blasphemy based on ideas of offence that might be confined to only a very small group of religious believers. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to determine how wide spread a sense of offense must be before a comment moves from being insulting to actively blasphemous. Zororastrian, Bahai and Yezidi religious communities exist in vanishingly small numbers in the UK, but members of each of these faiths have been subject to continual historical persecution. Should their experience of victimisation entitle them to more robust protection than the (relatively) large and wealthy Anglican church? Similarly, should the size of these communities mark them out as vulnerable, and deserving of some sort of legal advantage that allow them to more easily access the protection of anti-blasphemy laws?  Religious groups can often become divided over the correct response to attacks and crises. If the guiding principle is what the recipients of a certain type of speech will find offensive, that will vary widely from person to person even within the members of a certain religious group. Legal responses to this conundrum would run the risk of appearing to be arbitrary and failing to properly represent the diversity of views within a religious community. Further opportunities for division and dissatisfaction may also arise during the process of making a complaint and assisting the prosecutors pursuing it. Cases will, necessarily be heard in public and will require participants to repeat the slanderous and controversial statements that caused such offence, possibly spreading them amongst a wider audience. The public nature of court cases may even make them attractive to individuals who wish to draw attention to offensive views linked to particular religions.  This is problematic, because it would fail to provide guidance to citizens with respect to what the law requires of them. Blasphemy prosecutions would offer only the most cursory and indirect forms of redress to alleged victims of blasphemy. Moreover, discussions over the handling of blasphemy prosecutions would likely produce division with religious communities. Many believers might be reluctant to see the blasphemous statements that caused an official offensive reaction repeated in court.

While it is true that blasphemy laws could be open to misuse, this is also true of many other laws that are currently overseen by the state. Liberal democratic legal systems operate safeguards to ensure that laws cannot be abused or used for purposes at odds with fundamental democratic freedoms. On the whole the majority of countries around the world are fair and liberal place that maintain strict separation of judicial, legislative and executive competence. Their courts are capable of recognising vexatious claims and ensuring equality-of-arms between the state and defendants through mechanisms such as legal aid.  In totalitarian nations such as those described by the opposition if blasphemy laws did not exist, authoritarian states would simply find different ways in which to censor that which it deems unfit. In China where religious freedom is severely curtailed, free speech remains subject to significant limitations. It is misleading, then, to associate the intrinsic failings of a political system with a law that might attract opportunistic litigants. On the whole blasphemy law in liberal nations would be handled in a fair judicial manner.

The need for increased capacity on travelled lines can be addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, highways still can be expanded. Highways are much more versatile than rail services as they enable people to get from a single destination to another without any transfers. Given then that highways can be improved, it makes very little sense to not do so and improve the rail system later when this extra capacity created begins to fill up. [1]  Given that cities have different requirements of transport, it makes more sense to allow transport planning to remain decentralised. For example, California is creating a high speed transport system on its state budget because it has need, assuming that other cities do when their governing structures have not determined that is the case is irresponsible and unneeded. [2]  [1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010   [2] “On the wrong track: Why high-speed trains are not such a green alternative.” The Guardian. 29/04/2010

Highspeed Rail is Better than Upgrading Old Infrastructure  rovements to existing rail networks would ultimately fail to be viable as a replacement for highspeed rail. As British Transport Secretary (now reshuffled) Phillip Hammond states, "Opponents of the project have asked why we cannot simply upgrade our existing infrastructure to deal with this capacity challenge. But no upgrade of existing infrastructure can deliver the huge improvements in journey times and the transformation of our economic geography that a new high speed network would bring. Reliability would also deteriorate as we tried to squeeze ever more capacity out of existing, mixed-use lines. And another major upgrade to the West Coast Main Line would deliver years of disruption and huge economic cost." [1] Upgrading infrastructure may be an answer in some places, but not in all. There may not be the existing infrastructure to upgrade. The United States for example just does not have lines that could take both large numbers of passengers and the large amount of freight they already take. Moreover any upgrade of these existing lines would end up with a rail system which is uncompetitive with road and air transport, exactly why rail passenger transport ended in the 1930-50s in the United States despite having been running faster than Amtrak trains do today. [2]  Further, railroad tracks permit a far higher throughput of passengers per hour than a road the same width. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, with one track for each direction. For the Eurostar the typical capacity is 15 trains per hour and 800 passengers per train (as for the Eurostar sets), which implies a capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction. By contrast, the Highway Capacity Manual gives a maximum capacity for a single lane of highway of 2,250 passenger cars per hour (excluding trucks or RVs). [3] Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people, [4] a standard twin track railway has a typical capacity 13% greater than a 6-lane highway (3 lanes each way), while requiring only 40% of the land (1.0/3.0 versus 2.5/7.5 hectares per kilometer of direct/indirect land consumption). This means that typical passenger rail carries 2.83 times as many passengers per hour per meter (width) as a road. [5]  [1] Hammond, Phillip. “High Speed Rail: the case for.” The Telegraph. 26/11/2010   [2] “Ask Trains from November 2008”, Trains, November 2008,   [3] Elefteriadou, Lily, “Chapter 8 Highway Capacity”, Handbook of Transport Engineering, 2004,   [4] U.S. Department of Energy, “Vehicle Occupancy by Type of Vehicle”, Fact #257: March 3, 2003,   [5] High Speed Rail, Railsystem.net

Whilst rail systems can be environmentally friendly, the higher the speed of a system the more fuel said system consumes. Whilst high speed rail might be useful as a transport system, owing to its high speed nature it does not reduce carbon emissions to a significant extent. Further, high speed rail is of limited popularity and as such it will not get enough drivers off the road to have any significant contribution to the environment. [1]  [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009

High Speed Rail is Better Than Air Travel  Currently intercity travel within the U.S. tends to favour air travel. This is often due to the large distances between cities within the U.S. which mean that driving is not a viable strategy should there be time constraints on travel. However, air travel has significant constraints as well such as long boarding times. This causes problems for those people who frequently commute and high speed rail is set to solve these problems.  High speed rail provides a large number of significant benefits over air travel in this regard. This is because high speed rail can travel to city centres. Where airports, due to their size and the noise pollution they cause, are limited to the outskirts of a city, trains are not limited in the same way. As such, people can arrive in a much more central area, cutting large amounts of time off their journey.  Secondly, high speed rail has no limits on wireless communication or internet in the same way that air travel does. As such, high speed rail is significantly more useful for anyone who wishes to work on the journey.  Finally, the weather is incredibly problematic for air travel. This is especially true in the U.S. where a number of areas can be subject to unexpected snow or storms. By comparison, High Speed rail remains comparatively unhindered. [1]  [1] “Convenience of High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association.

High Speed rail is unlikely to work in the same way as air travel. Whilst some areas are more convenient, it remains a slower method of transport than air travel and with quoted prices for high speed rail it seems evident that the majority of consumers will simply continue to opt for air travel as it is a significantly faster method of travel to their destination. As such high speed rail will not provide significant extra benefits to consumers. [1]  Further, if the problem with air travel is the location out airports outside of city centres, then that problem is easily solved through the creation of better transportation methods between airports and city centres. With the time saved, a plane ticket that also encompassed a ride to the city centre would still be faster and would probably end up being significantly cheaper than a ticket on high speed rail.  [1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010

High Speed Rail is environmentally friendly  Trains are the most sustainable and green form of transportation. Electric high speed rail is the most energy efficient of all trains. This is because trains have significantly high capacity but have very low power requirements in order to work by comparison to the number of passengers that they carry. Although this is to some extent dependant on how the power is generated the Eurostar (where power comes from French nuclear plants) emits only 11g GO2 per passenger kilometre from London to Paris compared to 180g for a car containing 1.2 passengers and 150g for a short haul flight. [1]  A national high speed rail system would be the centrepiece of a sustainable America, and would significantly reduce congestion and America’s dependence on cars and the oil that fuels them. This would result in large cuts to carbon emissions. Any new system could be powered by renewable energy including wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean/tidal in order to make it even cleaner. High speed rail could be integrated in to a sustainable network including local commuter rail and tramways so providing public transport networks that solve serious mobility, energy, environmental, economic, health, and social problems simultaneously. [2]  [1] Pearce, Fred, “Greenwash: Time for rail to raise its game and cut emissions”, Greenwash guardian.co.uk, 22 January 2009,   [2] “Sustainability.” US High Speed Rail Association.

The US High Speed Train Association has found a significant number of benefits for high speed rail that mean that it would be beneficial regardless of its success as a business.  Firstly, high speed rail would foster transport oriented development:  "Transit oriented development (TOD) is the exciting new fast growing trend in creating vibrant, compact, liveable, walkable communities centered around high quality train systems. TODs can be stand-alone communities, or a series of towns strung along a rail line like pearls on a string. TODs are the integration of community design with rail system planning. High speed rail is the backbone of a rail-based transportation system. When combined with regional rail, light rail, metro systems, streetcars and trams, a complete and integrated rail network is achieved enabling easy, fast mobility throughout the system. Coordinating and encouraging compact, mixed-use development around the rail stations completes the system by enabling people to live, work, and play along the system without the need for a car much of the time. Together, these save time, money, energy, and lives."  And further, high speed rail would also help businesspeople be more productive:  "High speed rail delivers fast, efficient transportation so riders can spend less time traveling and more time doing business. High speed rail delivers people quickly to their destinations in city centers. Fast boarding times, no security delays, and no waiting for baggage (or lost bags) adds up to much less time spent getting to and from meetings. Adding to these savings, there's also little or no down time - people can be far more productive and efficient during a trip on a train, than flying or driving, and return to the office sooner with a shorter turn-around time. High speed rail allows people to continue working the entire trip using laptops and cell phones. Flexible meeting space is available on the train. Because of the reliability of trains and the reduced total trip time, an overnight stay is not always required - saving additional time and money. High speed rail offers great flexibility to plan last minute trips, purchase tickets on short notice, and make changes to schedules without huge penalties." [1]  And further to all of this high speed rail also frees up existing rail lines for other purposes, such as freight services as well as for commuter services, helping people in the economy to a significant extent. Given that this is true, it seems prudent to subsidise high speed rail even if it is costly as a business. Further, the motor industry already sees incredible subsidies in the U.S. and does not provide nearly as much social benefit as high speed rail is likely to.  [1] “Productivity Gains with High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association.

This is simply untrue. Yes, if a crash occurs it is likely to be significantly more dangerous than a crash at lower speeds, but this is also the case with cars travelling between cities on highways and even more so with aeroplanes. Exactly because a high speed crash can be so catastrophic high speed rail systems have very high safety standards.  The Japanese Shinkansen high speed rail system is famously safe. During 46 years of commercial operations having taken 7 billion passengers there have been no passenger fatalities or injuries due to train accidents such as derailment or collision. [1] It is also not the case that damage to the track will take the rail system out of operation for years. The Tohuko Shinkansen restarted operations only 49 days after the Tōhoku Earthquake. [2]  [1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’,   [2] “How Japan’s Rail Network Survived the Earthquake”, Railwaytechnology.com, 28 June 2011,

High Speed Rail is Not Currently Economically Viable  The economic investment required for a high speed rail system to be implemented in the U.S. is substantial. Currently, the American deficit is at a level that is bad enough that S&amp;P has downgraded the rating on American debt. Given that this is true and that the public spending required for high speed rail is substantial and a situation is caused where the American government would have to increase the flow of money out of its coffers. Even the lowest estimates by the California High-Speed Rail Authority are around $45 billion and it is likely to be much higher. [1] As such the deficit level within the U.S. could stand to increase from a system that would not provide benefit for another five years at least, if it provides benefit at all. At this time, investment in such an area is not needed when the result of such investment could be greater repayments on American bonds that reverse any economic benefits that the system stands to give. [2]  As such, extra spending within the current economic climate needs to show significant long term benefits as well as show at least some signs of being able to immediately help the economy, otherwise there is too great a risk that comes from extra public spending.  [1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’,   [2] “US loses AAA credit rating after S&amp;P downgrade.” BBC. 06/08/2011

High Speed Rail will not be a successful long term business investment.  The issue with high speed rail is that it is a case of a government providing what is essentially a private good. The market that will use high speed rail will be people who wish to commute between cities quickly, generally rich businesspeople. As such, the market for such a product is incredibly niche. Further, the price of high speed rail will still be higher than plane and the journey times between most cities that aren’t very close together already will still be longer. As such, it seems that there is an incredibly small market for such a product. The reason a market for this product does not exist already is that no private company could ever make a profit from the product owing to the low demand among consumers for it. [1]  Therefore, the only way to make the product work would be to ensure that the product is significantly cheaper than the competition. Unfortunately the only way to do this would be through large subsidies for train use, meaning that high speed rail would continue to make a net loss for the U.S. government for years to come.  Further, any benefit in terms of jobs created for people in local communities will be incredibly low, for example with automatic barriers very few staff are needed at stations. Instead for the same amount of money, the government could easily implement policies which placed solar panels in every home, allowing them to generate and export their own power. Whilst this wouldn’t create jobs, it would increase income for people in the area and would likely help the environment to a significantly greater extent. [2]  [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009   [2] “High-Speed Rail and the Case Against Private Infrastructure.” The Atlantic. 16/07/2010

High Speed Rail is Dangerous  Owing to the extremely high speeds of high speed rail, should there be a problem with the trains the chance of a catastrophic accident is greatly increased. This is because there would be no reaction time for the driver. Further, should there be a derailment the impact of the crash will be significant greater owing to the speed of the train.  Should these accidents occur, the damage to the trains will obviously be catastrophic, but also the damage to the lines themselves will be incredibly significant. Should there be an accident and it is likely that if enough time passes there will be, the entire rail system in the area would require years to be able to regenerate. After the Hatfield Crash in the UK large sections of the whole network were shut down for up to a year. [1]  [1] Pook, Sally and McIlroy, A.J., “’Danger’ rail lines may be closed’, The Telegraph, 21 October 2000,

Within an economic climate that is in recession, the best way to avoid recession is to increase public spending. This is because the extra jobs created through public spending stimulate the economy. This is because the spending results in the employment of a number of people who otherwise would have remained unemployed and on a lower wage. As such, these people are more able to consume and more able to spend their money on consumer goods.  In this way, the economy is pushed out of recession as this initial wave of spending means that the people who sold the products to the consumers now have more money themselves to spend elsewhere.  Whilst this is fairly basic Keynesian analysis of the markets, the reason that the spending here is not susceptible to causing inflation and hence negating the effect is that markets take time to adjust to stimuli. The inflation rate will only increase appropriately once the market has reacted to the stimulus. As such, the initial year or two following a stimulus results in a temporary boost to the economy and then results in inflation later. Given that the recession is likely to be over in two years, dealing with inflation in the future is something that the economy can handle in response for a stimulus that might push it out of recession. [1]  [1] “Keynesian Economics.”

It will not give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching. Teaching is a calling, not something you choose for the money. Teachers are what we call 'intrinsically motivated': they want to realize an ideal, in this case, educating and raising responsible citizens. Recasting this ideal into a financial reward system actually demotivates teachers who feel the inherent value of their work now suddenly has become sullied by chiefly monetary rewards, which is why performances pay hasn’t worked in many places. [1]  [1] White, Performance pay for teachers is a terrible idea and here’s why, 2011

It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching.  For decades now, teachers have been remunerated based on 'seniority'. This means that they don't have an incentive anymore to improve themselves, no matter how motivated they were at the beginning. Why try to improve yourself if you have nothing to gain from it? Adding a financial reward for exceptional performance will motivate teachers to do their utmost to develop the knowledge and talents of their pupils. [1]  [1] Muralidharan and Sundararaman, “Teacher Incentives in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from India”. Podgursky and Springer, “Teacher Performance and Pay” 2007

It will not attract more teachers. As said above, teaching is a calling. Many of the expected new teachers will be motivated solely by the increased pay, not by any intrinsic motivation. Because they are not intrinsically motivated, they will underperform. They might leave again after a year, but in that year they will have taught a class without the requisite skills and inspiration, possibly spoiling the educational experience of an entire class for the rest of their lives.

It is fair to reward teachers on the actual results they achieve.  Just as in the private sector, workers should be judged and rewarded on the actual results they achieve. Whether it's through sheer talent or through hard work, some teachers consistently deliver better results than other teachers. Those teachers are more effective and efficient at providing societal value: with the same amount of work-hours they manage to more effectively educate children. It is therefore only just that their pay is differentiated according to the results they achieve.

It is unfair to reward extra achievements on top of the base level. To provide societal value from education, the base level of performance in education is already set very high. This means that even teachers who perform at base level are already working very hard to provide the societal value we require. Any difference above that already very high level is likely the result of luck and talent, both on the part of students and teachers themselves. Rewarding fortunate individuals for something they themselves didn't create is unjust and can only make other jealous.  Moreover, many students may enter the school system- at various stages- accompanied by a range of external advantages and disadvantages. A student’s home environment is a major influence on their ability to achieve when in the school environment. Although a teacher’s pastoral role is growing, there is little that they can do to address poor parenting, or to encourage the engaged, stimulating parenting that produces some of the most able pupils.

Competition will diminish the quality of education across the board. Teamwork is essential for the effectiveness of schools. Making differences in performance more visible will hamper teamwork because it will create perverse incentives. For instance, teachers who have devised a successful method for teaching a particular subject area will be less likely to share this because sharing it means eroding their 'strategic advantage' in the 'marketplace for teachers'.

It will attract more teachers  eaching salaries for years have remained steady or even declined. This made teaching as a job unattractive and so the influx of new, talented teachers halted. Although the effect of fiscal changes on teachers’ pay has been minimal (controlling for the consequences of the financial crisis), high productivity has become central to many private sector pay schemes. As a result, the contrast between non-responsive pay for teachers and high rewards for talented private sector employees has become more pronounced.  With the opportunity to increase income through performance, teacher pay can rise, making it a more attractive profession financially.

Competition improves the overall quality of education.  Measuring teachers' performances will create a transparent market for teaching talent. Underperforming teachers will be selected out because they are less in demand, unless they adapt and learn from what their competitors apparently do better. So, the overall quality of the teacher pool will rise and this will increase the quality of education for all students.

It will not create uncritical 'learning drone' students. Creative and critical thinking begins with the basics: literacy and numeracy. Even learning to the test will result in literate and numerate students who can then move on to much more critical thinking. We can then define successful criteria that measure general critical thinking skills, like have students write essays or pass oral exams.  Narrowing of the curriculum is a concern in later stages of education, but the growth of a critical approach to humanities subjects has ensured that rote learning has been de-emphasised in these areas. Critical outcomes, nonetheless, remain measurable.

Teachers are the single biggest influence on student performance. Even though many factors influence student performance, the teacher is still the most important schooling factor. For example, having an effective versus and ineffective teacher has been shown to be equivalent to a class size reduction of 10-13 students [1] and can make the differences of more than a full year’s learning growth. [2]  [1] Rivkin et al, “Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement”, 2005  [2] Hanushek, “The Trade-off between Child Quantity and Quality.” 1992

Teachers will attempt to cheat the system  Cheating is inevitable in any bureaucratic system that holds educational institutions accountable- in any way- for the outcomes of the educational processes that they supervise.  Teachers will have an incentive to cheat the system, for example by altering students' test results or giving them easier tests. [1] On a more 'macro' scale, teachers will have an incentive to only want to teach at 'good' schools with 'advantaged' students who have both the will and the ability, because their chances of a good performance there are higher.  [1] Jacob and Levitt, “Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating”, 2003

It is impossible to implement.  Students come from very different backgrounds and have very different skill-sets. This makes the attempt to define a measuring system that covers all cases a bureaucratic nightmare. Even if this succeeds, it is still very difficult to define what a 'good performance' is, because a student's individual performance is determined by many other factors than the teacher and also because an individual student's 'performance' is actually a complex set of attitudes, skills and abilities which are in and of themselves hard to operationalize in a standard test. And even if this succeeds, then the questions is how much of a student's performance is attributable to what specific teacher: oftentimes, at least in high school, students will have many different teachers, making it impossible to gauge what teacher was responsible for what test result.  Finally, it should be noted (per the argument included above) that merit based education does not encourage the dissemination and normalisation of best practice. A merit-based pay scheme is likely to collapse when too many of those who work under it meet its criteria for bonus payments, making it too expensive.  Once merit based pay becomes part of the structure of an institution, it will become hard to attract and retain staff if it is removed. Concurrently, performance at the same level will be expected by the public, although an institution may not be able to afford it. For the reasons stated above, good ideas are unlikely to be shared by teaching staff under a merit-based status quo, for fear that they may be giving away a competitive edge over their colleagues.  It might be better to raise standards in education by investing sustainably in improved training for teachers and improved facilities in schools, rather than creating an unsustainable merit-based reward system.

It will create uncritical 'learning drone' students.  Teachers will start 'teaching to the test' to ensure their classes make the grade. Independent, creative, self-reliant thinking will therefore be discouraged as the teacher focuses on getting as high test results for their pupils as they can regardless of whether they really understand the concepts behind what they are doing. If the primary goal of education is to create critical thinking citizens, then merit pay may hinder rather than help achieve that goal.

It is unfair to reward teachers for results they can’t influence  The success of a student depends on many factors, like innate talent, the ability for hard work and concentration and socio-economic background. This means that any progress that a student can make is largely outside of a teacher's control. This will result in some teachers being rewarded just because they happen to teach in a good environment to 'advantaged' children whereas other teachers who do a good job in a bad environment to 'disadvantaged' children are just unlucky.

It is possible to implement. Testing students is not that difficult. After all, we have been examining students with all kinds of standardized test ever since formal education began. Similarly, we can know what teacher is involved in what result: the biology-teacher is relevant for biology, not French or arithmetic.  The economist Dale Ballou, in his 2001 article “Pay for performance in public and private schools” determined that the prevalence of merit-based pay in private schools demonstrates that it can be cost effectively implemented in complex institutional settings [1] .  [1] Ballou, “Pay for performance in public and private schools.” 2012.

Cheating can be prevented by ensuring that the person giving and grading the test is not the same as the person preparing the students for the test. Likewise, the 'macro'-problem can be prevented by designing good measurement systems. If performance is measured as comparing results of individual students across time, then it doesn't matter whether a student comes from a 'disadvantaged' background. The same goes for innate talent: we can design a measurement that rewards any improvement in significantly less talented children sufficiently high to ensure that teachers are motivated in teaching them.

The existence of slums and favelas and their increasing criminality in Latin America cannot be explained by the lack of social subsidies. In fact, quite the opposite is the case: the leftward turn in Latin America with an increase in state subsidies that promised to help poor communities has yet to ease the problems of criminality. Subsidies not only do not help or provide only weak temporary relief, but they are also used to manipulate political opinions and influence the poor particularly around election time. The successful presidential campaigns of Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela have been run precisely on promises to the poor that for the most part were left unfulfilled. Because government subsidies are not efficient, the large problem of social unrest is not avoided.  Furthermore the poor communities in the suburbs of Paris were already receiving state subsidies for housing and education, but this did not keep them from rioting. Therefore subsidies do not guarantee a reduction in crime.

Poor communities create criminality  The longer suburbs sectioned off for the economically vulnerable are in existence, the more likely they will turn into real slums, creating long lasting problems such as the ones currently experienced in the cities of Latin America. Latin America contains 13 of the 20 countries with the highest intentional homicide rate (Global Burden of Armed Violence, Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, 2008). Brazil is one of the most criminalized countries of the world with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents, muggings, robberies, kidnappings and gang violence (The Economist, ‘No End of Violence’, 2007). These areas have become a haven for criminals and drug lords, who both have a clear interest in keeping these communities poor so that they can continue to exert their influence on them and use them as a hiding and recruiting ground for illegal activities. Subsidies would help people escape poverty and as a result break the cycle of crime.

This kind of idealism and desire to make the world an equal place has already gotten us into quite a bit of trouble, ruining a large part of the world under the rule of communism. The idea that we could solve all the world’s problems through redistribution of wealth through government subsidies is not only naïve but also dangerous. Being committed to new human rights and wanting to offer help to the poor is not the same thing as imposing subsidies. Indeed, in many countries subsidies for particular activities end up favouring well-off landowners and the urban middle classes. Examples include agricultural subsidies in the EU (Financial Programming and Budget, 2011) and the USA, subsidies for power and water in rural India (Press Trust of India, ‘World Bank asks India to cut ‘unproductive’ farm subsidy’, 2007), and subsidies for water or Higher Education in much of Latin America. In each case the well-off benefit disproportionately, while the poor end up paying via the tax system and through reduced economic growth (Farmgate: the developmental impact of agricultural subsidies, ukfg.org.uk). It would be much better to price these activities at commercial levels and to develop economic policies aimed at growth and job creation.

Subsidies are the most efficient way for a state to redistribute wealth within its borders.  Poor communities, often concentrated in rural areas or around large cities, carry a large risk for social instability, whether through epidemic illnesses, crime, drug abuse or political and social revolts. Even the most developed countries find it difficult to deal with these communities without paying proper attention to their development. The suburbs of Paris have recently been in the attention of the press for the violent riots led mainly by poor, unemployed, young men from immigrant families who felt abandoned by their own government (BBC News, ‘Timeline: French Riots’, 2005). France is by no means the only country dealing with such problems, and in order to avoid such high-risk behaviour, the state should be encouraged to create new subsidy schemes that address these communities in particular. For example, employment could be subsidised by paying companies to create new jobs in such deprived areas.

While we do not concede that subsidies are the most efficient means of redistributing wealth even if they are then is this redistribution something we want to see? Poor communities should instead be shown how to pull themselves up rather than having subsidies spoon fed to them. Giving those in poor communities the education and means to better themselves is a much more effective long term solution. Redistribution of wealth through subsidies is simply discouraging the poor from working hard towards the betterment of their lives both because the state is already giving them enough to survive and because they know the state will begin taking what they have earned away if they do manage to work their way up.

Rich communities have a disastrous effect on the environment as well. The question of whether development is possible without manipulating nature and the environment is again entirely separate from the question of subsidies. Ultimately, the problem is one of resources and the best distribution and management of those resources, particularly natural resources. Getting people to understand that forests, water and land are essential resources that need to be preserved is what should be done (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies have in fact often created more environmental problems by investing in poorly built infrastructure and housing, and by encouraging people to stay in areas that could otherwise not support them.

Subsidies create a sense of social equality  Subsidies help create the equality and non-discrimination that is essential in the new multi-cultural states of today. With more and more people moving across the globe and the clear realization of inequalities in lifestyles, creating this sense of equality is essential. If we are serious about our commitment to universal human rights, including the right to equal survival chances and opportunities, then we need to consider using subsidies to promote these values. Many of the poorest areas have a disproportionate number of immigrants or ethnic minorities, Seine-Saint-Denis for example has the largest percentage of immigrants in France(Wikipedia, ‘Demographics of France’) and is one of the poorest department’s(Astier, ‘French ghettos mobilise for election’, 2007) so these communities are where the state needs to show that it is committed to non-discrimination by helping with subsidies. Without such a commitment to equality, problems like the unrest in the suburbs of Paris, the reaction to the flooding of New Orleans, crimes in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro and South Africa will simply become uncontrollable.

Substandard living conditions have a broad environmental impact  Unless we do something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and their effects are long lasting (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009).

The change from an agricultural or rural economy to an urban one does not preclude subsidies as a way of lifting people out of poverty it simply means that subsidies have to be more targeted. As most cities continue to grow and attract more and more people from rural areas, the state needs to find a way to address the problem of urban migration, which is closely linked to the formation of poor communities particularly around cities. Illegal immigration also contributes tremendously to this problem, particularly in areas such as the Mexico-California border. Targeted subsidies can slow the pace of migration, by giving those in the countryside and in poorer countries a better standard of living where they already live.

Rather than criticising the inefficiencies of current subsides we should put efforts into improving subsidies so they work efficiently. This is clearly a very complex issue and would involve taking each poor community as individual with different needs. One specific example of where this has been efficient is subsidising housing in poor communities, such as the Gautreaux program in Chicago. This project involved the CHA (Chicago Housing Authority) handing out 7,500 housing vouchers out to residents of deprived communities (thus providing a housing subsidy to those residents). The project was widely considered a success and was supported by the government until its completion in 1998. Longitudinal studies suggested that participants where ‘pleased to be living in safer neighbourhoods with quality schools and greater job opportunities’, which all occurred as a result of the Gautreaux project (Fisher, Gautreaux Assisted Housing Program, 2005). This project shows that subsidies can be successful if we look and attend to at the particular needs of each poor communities.

The risk of creating dependence  Always looking at the state for solutions makes these communities dependent on the government in a world in which the state will continue to gradually lose its power. On an individual level increases in people taking disability benefits over the long term are a good example of dependency, in Australia for example between 1972 and 2004 those receiving the Disability Support Pension rose fivefold well above the increase in the disabled population(Saunders, ‘Disability Poverty and Living Standards’, 2005, p.2). Putting more pressure on increasingly weaker states is probably not the best idea. While strong social-democratic states such as France might be able to handle it, developing countries or unstable states will never be able to withstand these pressures. We need to look for solutions elsewhere, and we need to accept the fact that there might not be one solution for all. Each community, facing different kinds of problems, will have to be addressed differently. The new rise in the field of corporate social responsibility signifies that corporations are looking to take over some of the responsibilities of the state.

Communities should be engineered to be self sufficient  As the introduction and opposition argument 1 explain, subsidising poor communities involves taking money away from wealthy communities. It is unfair to make the wealthy members of a community pay for the benefit of the poorer members, when the poorer members should be putting in the effort to raise and support their own communities. Those who are wealthy have earned their wealth by working hard. If they wish to be subsidizing poor communities they can give to charities that work in poorer areas.

Social change  As modern societies are clearly moving away from an agricultural economy to an industrial and post-industrial economy, new demographic challenge arise with high concentrations of people in urban areas where jobs are available. From 2008 more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities meaning that poverty is now growing faster in urban than rural areas (UNFPA, ‘Urbanization: A Majority in Cities’, 2007). The solution here is not subsidies, but rather the spreading of jobs across the whole economy, including rural areas, and the re-education of those who need to fill these jobs. These are structural problems that every society will need to address, regardless of how many subsidies the state is providing or not.

Government supervised redistribution of wealth is inefficient  Given that in general state taxation and redistribution systems have been under fire for being inefficient, it is doubtful that subsidies, as a particular form of tax redistribution would be more efficient. Not only is a bureaucratic mechanism for creating and distributing subsidies a nightmare, but the effects of such subsidies have often been questioned as well. Fuels subsidies to keep prices down for example might help the poor to heat their homes but they also encourage wasting fuel and not getting the most efficient heating systems so more fuel is used resulting in more need for subsidies (Jakarta Globe, ‘Subsidies a Costly, Inefficient Crutch’, 2010).  The needs of poor communities, such as the immigrant communities in the suburbs of Paris, as often much larger than the state can provide, and patch solutions are often no solution at all. Subsidies will not be able to solve the problems of unemployment and the concentration of the poor and immigrants in particular areas. Other solutions are required for such problems and oftentimes, the involvement of the private sector has proven to be more efficient. Encouraging a more competitive, dynamic economy by reducing the burdens of taxation and regulation is the best way to provide a route out of poverty, especially if improved educational provision and meritocratic hiring policies are also implemented.

Telling poor communities they should help themselves is not the answer; they already want to help themselves. Poverty often occurs in a cycle, meaning that for many it is inescapable. Education in poor areas is often worse, leading to people being less qualified for higher paying jobs, stuck in badly paid work, therefore living in undesirable housing that often has inadequate education, and thus the cycle continues for their children. The only way for people to escape this cycle is with government subsidies. Some would argue that forcing people to live in these conditions while others live in wealth is more immoral than asking the wealthy to help the poor.

While getting the private sector involved might indeed be a more effective solution, the reality is that many of these poor communities are groups of outsiders. They often discriminated against by the rest of the population, including decision makers from private business. For example in France employers databases often have the abbreviation BBR or NBBR to indicate if someone is white.(SOS Racisme, ‘Discrimination, Présentation’) These communities often find themselves abandoned, and at the mercy of the state. Despite its inefficiencies, the state remains the main organisation capable to reaching out to all different communities, of gathering funds and redistributing them, and of making new investment opportunities in places where the free market would not otherwise have created them. At the risk of some inefficiency, this problem does require solvency, and while ideally things might run otherwise, this is the closest solution to the problem at hand. Governments have also been creative with their subsidies schemes, often getting the private sector involved by providing them with incentives such as tax breaks.

This is exactly what makes HS2 a bad scheme. Yes there is overcrowding but the worst overcrowding is on peak services travelling into London – commuter services – not on long distance trains. It is notable that the operator that is most over capacity is First Great Western which covers a route – to Reading and on to Bristol, South Wales and the West country - which will be unaffected by HS2 which goes north.

More capacity is needed on Britain’s railways  Capacity on the railways is a big problem in the UK. Due to growth since privatisation Britain’s railways take as many passengers as it is physically possible to do; more than a fifth of rush hour passengers have to stand. [1] Growth is almost certain to continue as the roads too are at capacity and population continues to rise. The result is more railways are needed. Rail freight meanwhile if forecast to double by the 2040s. The West Coast Main Line is a particular bottleneck for freight with 40% of UK freight services using the line; any increase would have to come at the expense of passenger services. [2] Transferring the main rail services to the high speed line would free up the WCML to increased freight and commuter use so HS2 would not just mean an increase in long distance capacity.  [1] BBC News, ‘London-bound train overcrowding: 100,000 have to stand’, 24 July 2013,   [2] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013,  , p.50, 54

The UK is densely populated and concentrated in one part of the country so has less need of high speed connections. Other countries having a large number of high speed route miles should not be considered evidence that the UK needs more or that the UK is somehow ‘behind’ as conditions vary between countries.

Faster travel between British cities  The most obvious benefit from high speed rail is that journey times will be less. From London the journey to Birmingham will be reduced from 84 to 49 minutes, Leeds from 132 to 82 and Manchester 128 to 68. [1] While faster journeys provide some economic benefit the are as much a social benefit of making more places accessible by allowing individuals to spend less time traveling and more doing what they want to when they get there.  [1] Hs2, ‘facts, figures and journey times’,

Bridging the north south divide  The UK has a north south divide in terms of wealth and income. London and the South East has for the last few decades done much better than the north; while industry and mining in the north has declined financial services in the south have boomed. The result is inequality between regions. High Speed Two will help to solve this inequality by increasing connections between north and south. The government “suggests that HS2 could provide a boost to the Birmingham city region equivalent to between 2.1% and 4.2% of its GDP. For the Manchester city region the figure is 0.8%-1.7%, for the Leeds city region 1.6%”. [1] This is because businesses will be more likely to invest there when there is better infrastructure, companies based in London in particular will be much more likely to see the benefits of investing in, or partnering with businesses in the north when they can easily reach those cities.  [1] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013,  p.99

This makes the strange assumption that Leeds and Manchester, or even Birmingham is the north. In pure geographic terms they are not even half way up the country from London – what about Newcastle and Scotland?  The evidence for the possibility of a high speed railway helping to solve regional inequalities is decidedly mixed. Theoretically if one region has comparative advantage then providing it with better transport infrastructure should mean that region simply expanding its market – in this case London would likely have the comparative advantage so increasing inequality. [1] While this has not happened with all high speed links what will happen is that the regional hubs may grow but it will likely be at the expense of surrounding towns that are not connected and areas further away from the line. The government’s own figures estimate the cost to the North East of Scotland would be £220million per year. [2]  [1] Puga, Diego, ‘Agglomeration and cross border infrastructure’, European Investment Bank Papers, vol.13, no.2, 2008, pp.102-24,  p.117  [2] BBC News, ‘HS2 ‘losers’ revealed as report shows potential impact’, 19 October 2013,

This is not going to be the case with all cities for example journey times to Scotland could be reached for much less. With using tilting trains on the East Coast and upgrading to 140 mph running the journey time from London to Edinburgh would actually be marginally faster than using HS2. [1] The figures for the journey savings notably exclude the possibility of faster journeys on the existing routes so the savings would not be as big. [2] Because Britain’s big cities are not particularly far apart journey times are already not long by comparison to many countries. Trains from London to the second city of Manchester take just over two hours, because of the much longer distance from Paris to France’s second city even with the TGV the journey time is about the same while from Tokyo to Osaka takes 2hours 25 minutes.  [1] Webb, Jonathan, ‘East Coast Pendolinos could deliver faster journey times than HS2 for Anglo-Scottish services’, Global Rail News, 2 August 2013,   [2] Millward, David, ‘HS2 time savings exaggerated critics say’, The Telegraph, 29 October 2013,

Estimates and guesstimates. We don’t know exactly how much HS2 will benefit the economy and still won’t even if it is built because we will never know how well the alternative spending of the money would have affected the economy.

Britain is behind the rest of Europe on high speed rail  The United Kingdom has been somewhat of a laggard when it comes to high speed rail. In the first half of the century Britain’s railways were the fastest in the world (still holding the world speed record for steam). But since what we would now consider to be high speed started with the launch of the Shinkansen in 1964 the UK has only marginally upgraded its own railways to 125mph. This means the only high speed line the UK has is the link to the channel tunnel which does not serve a large number of internal passengers. The UK therefore has 113km of high speed rail against 1334 in Germany, 1342 in Italy, 2036 in France and 3100 in Spain. Even much smaller countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium have longer high speed lines. [1]  [1]

HS2 would benefit Britain’s economy  Big infrastructure projects often provide a big boost to the economy. HS2 will do this in two ways; the first will be in the economic activity created in building the line and the estimated 3100 jobs staffing the railway. Much more important however are the wider economic benefits. On a cost-benefit basis HS2 is considered to be ‘high value for money’ because it will have a 1:2.3 cost:benefit ratio. This ration however could be considerably better if ridership keeps increasing for longer or faster than expected. The overall benefit to the economy is estimated at £53 billion. [1]  [1] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013,  , p.31

The spending for HS2 would not contribute to the deficit as it is investment that will pay back the money over time and will also be creating assets that can in extremis be sold. The high cost by comparison to other high speed networks is almost entirely due to high land prices; this means that any big transport project is going to cost a similar premium.

Some of these costs have already been included in the cost:benefit ratio such as the impact of pollution and greenhouse gases. Moreover there have already been changes made to ensure that the high speed line runs in tunnels through areas where the damage would otherwise be significant. More than 50% of the route to Birmingham will be in tunnels or cuttings and much of the remainder will have barriers to prevent noise pollution. [1] Given the number of tunnels it is wrong to consider the railway one long barrier to wildlife. If it is considered a serious problem then solutions would not be immensely costly – tunnels under the tracks could be constructed for example.  [1] Railway-technology.com, ‘High Speed 2 (HS2) Railway, United Kingdom’,

There are other options  There are plenty of other options that don’t have the disadvantages of HS2 (high cost, environmental impacts etc.) but do meet most of the requirements like increased capacity. First because it is capacity on main commuter lines that is mostly needed it makes more sense to lengthen platforms and trains, and if that is not enough raise bridges to allow double deckers on the busiest routes. The government rejected such an option in 2007 due to the cheapest option costing £2.4billion, which seems cheap compared to HS2. [1]  Similarly if the capacity problem is for freight as a chunk of the business case is then reopening the Great Central Railway could be the answer – most of the track bed still exists. It has been proposed as a useful freight corridor that would help take the load off the West Coast. [2]  Finally terms of faster journey times as already noted there is little need for more speed in the UK but even without HS2 journey times will improve as East Coast and Great Western are to be upgraded to 140mph. And in terms of capacity on intercity rail the better option has been suggested as being lengthening trains and reducing first class – which has been estimated as having a benefit of £6.06 for every pound invested, 2.5times that of HS2. [3]  [1] Millward, David, ‘Britons squash plans for double-decker trains’, The Telegraph, 16 September 2007,   [2] ‘Great Central is the way to go’,   [3] Doward, Jamie, ‘HS2 not the best value rail option, says government report’, 14 January 2012,

Does not easily connect to the continent  Would it not be nice to be able to travel from Edinburgh straight through to Paris without having to stop in London? This was part of the initial dream of the Channel Tunnel with proposals for regional Eurostar services. [1] Unfortunately HS2 will not provide this option. There is a proposed link but it is currently single track and unlikely to be enough even to meet demand for domestic services running around London let alone international services from Birmingham and Manchester. [2] The much more sensible option of not having a terminal station, or at least some through platforms, has been ignored.  [1] BBC News, ‘Regions ‘cheated’ over Eurostar’, 27 January 1999,   [2] Railnews, ‘Rethink urged over 'absurd' HS2-HS1 link’, 1 June 2013,

High speed rail never makes a profit  The UK already knows that it is difficult to make rail services pay their way, currently fares from passengers despite regular criticism of them being too high, only cover 65% of operating costs. [1] High speed rail is no different in this regard; most of China’s high speed lines make a loss [2] indeed the only lines to have made a profit are Tokyo-Osaka and Paris Lyon. [3]  [1] ‘Rail ridership hits new highs as will regulated rail fares from January 2014’, Rail.co.uk, 19 August 2013,   [2] Wan, Zhang, ‘High Speed Train Too Expensive’, Chienglish.com, 1 April 2013,   [3] Feigenbaum, Baruch, ‘High-Speed Rail in Europe and Asia: Lessons for the United States’, Reason Foundation, 2013,

HS2 is too costly  HS2 is already looking very costly. California’s San Francisco to Los Angeles High Speed rail is 520 miles at a cost of $68billion (£42bln), [1] HS2 will only be 33miles but is already expected to cost about the same £42.6billion. [2] The cost has already grown and there are regular claims even by respected economics analysts such as the Institute of Economic Affairs that it will eventually rise to £80 billion. [3] Britain is only just recovering from a long recession and does not yet have its deficit under control, can it really afford such an immense cost? The money could be spent on a great many other things, not just upgrades to the existing network but schools and hospitals too.  [1] AP, ‘No One Knows Where The Money Will Come From For California's $68 Billion High Speed Rail Plan’, Business Insider, 3 April 2012,   [2] Hs2, ‘Route, Trains &amp; Cost’,   [3] Leftly, Mark, ‘The wrong side of the tracks: Lobbyists for HS2 rail line funded by the taxpayer’, The Independent, 25 August 2013,

This is not a particularly big problem for the project and could easily be fixed by doubling the track later if there proves to be sufficient demand to justify it.

HS2 would damage the England’s green and pleasant land  Railways are supposed to be green – they produce less greenhouse gas emissions than cars or planes. Yet many of those benefits are sacrificed by the desire for high speed which makes these trains much less environmentally friendly than normal trains due to the extra power necessary to reach such speeds. The impact on the British countryside will be immense. The railway will run through four Wildlife Trust reserves, 10 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), more than 50 ancient woodlands, and HS2 will run through 13 miles of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The result will be the fragmentation of populations of insects, bats, birds and mammals. The Wildlife Trusts argue “The very last thing we should be doing is creating new linear barriers to the movement of wildlife.” [1]  [1] The Wildlife Trusts, ‘HS2’,

We should not just be considering fares as the be all and end all. Successful rail companies elsewhere don’t tend to make a profit on ticket sales but instead through diversification. Tokyu, one of Japan’s private railways, has revenue of $2.63 billion and profits of $587millio but only a third of the revenue comes from rail fares with real estate bringing in about the same amount and much of the rest from retail. [1] Franchises make this difficult to operate in the UK but HS2 might have tracks/land/stations and operating trains integrated so providing an opportunity. Moreover it is wrong to suggest that only a couple of lines have made a profit as this is only a couple of lines have made a profit including the immense construction cost on the loss side of the balance sheet. Most high speed lines at least break even without subsidies after a few years of operation, as has been the case in Taiwan [2] – which is better than Britain’s other railways.  [1] Jaffe, Eric, ‘The Secret to Tokyo’s Rail Success’, The Atlantic, 18 May 2012,   [2]

None of the alternatives is a comprehensive solution and particularly not to the capacity problem. What happens once the double decker trains are at capacity? Then you are back to thinking of building new lines. Upgrading existing lines would require 14 years of weekend closures to allow the needed capacity increases. This would be “a patch and mend job that would cause 14 years of gridlock, hellish journeys and rail replacement buses. The three main routes to the north would be crippled and the economy would be damaged.” [1]  The difference between HS1 and the upgrade to the West Coast Main Line should also be mentioned. HS1 was a stand alone line that was on time and on budget, [2] WCML on the other hand was £6 billion over budget, four years late and caused immense amounts of disruption to passengers, what’s worse is the proposed upgrade part of the plan to make the line 140mph capable was abandoned. [3]  [1] Syal, Rajeev, ‘HS2 alternatives could require 14 years of weekend rail closures’, The Guardian, 28 October 2013,   [2] Major Projects Association, ‘Delivering High Speed 1: the successes and the lessons’, 7 February 2008,  p.4  [3] All Party Group for Excellence in the Built Environment, ‘A Better Deal For Public Building’, cic.org.uk, September 2012,  , p.24

Grey imports limit a company's control over its own products. Many manufacturers/distributors wish to control their distribution outlets for sound commercial reasons, for example, to protect the image of their brand. This becomes very difficult, possibly impossible, to do if grey imports are allowed, as this circumvents their planned distribution network. It becomes much harder for a manufacturer/ distributor to track their products where they have been used in a grey importation. This can lessen their effectiveness when they need this information, such as for a safety recall. "It is unclear whether adequate mechanisms are in place to adequately recall parallel trade medicines. Batch number recording is not consistently applied throughout the supply chain and in practice may make comprehensive product recall difficult, creating a risk to patient safety". 1  1 Trade and Industry Committee, Eighth Report, 29 June 1999

Allowing grey goods breaks down monopolies and passes on lower prices to consumers.  Allowing grey imports means that manufacturers do not concentrate economic power in a monopolistic way which can be damaging to free trade (even Adam Smith1believed certain monopolies were antithetical to free trade). Banning them is tantamount to granting a licensed monopoly or cartel on a country-by-country basis, which inevitably means higher prices for consumers. As manufacturing has increasingly been relocated into a smaller number of offshore countries, rather than in the country of purchase, it makes sense that other parts of the supply chain should make a similar move so that they too can realise the efficiency benefits of a globalised economy.  1 Smith, Adam, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" 1776

It may be impossible to completely stop such imports however the vast majority of shops will not import these items while they are not allowed to. Opening the market up will simply lead to a flood of imports with a resulting effect on native manufacturing.

Buyers benefit from grey imports, in the form of greater consumer choice.  Consumers benefit from grey imports. The economics of grey importation drives sourcing to low-cost economies. Even if retailers take some of this benefit as improved profit margins, typically at least some of it will be passed on to consumers in the form of reduced prices. Grey imports also allow consumers to buy products that may not yet be available in their own market, because they have not yet been released, or because in their market the manufacturer feels there is insufficient demand. Thus, grey imports expand consumer choice.  Many films, DVD's and video games are released in one region months before others, and grey imports allow enthusiasts to access their favoured products earlier than they otherwise would1.  1 Bun, Mara and Horrocks, Steve, 'In Support of Parallel Imports of CDs', Australian Consumers' Association, February 1998

Consumers do not really benefit overall from grey imports. Although manufacturers may reduce prices in some (typically, richer) countries, they are at least as likely to raise prices in less developed economies, depriving consumers there of access to international brands and luxury goods, and so depriving them of a real choice and in some cases the full product.1 In addition, they will still have to pay all the taxes and the losses from lack of regulation which have been avoided in some way or lose the services those taxes provide. The loss of revenue from grey imports can mean that production is limited or even halted going forward, even though there is market demand for more products from the manufacturer. The film industry shows this clearly. Manufacturer protections of their products (for example region specific DVD's and PCs) actually increase costs for all consumers.  1 Etherington-Smith, James, '"Grey" imports: The black and white of it', mybroadband.co.za, 14 December 2010

Free trade involves a principle of free will. The buyer should be able to decide to whom he wishes to sell and on what terms, and if the seller does not accept those terms then the buyer should be able to refuse to deal with him. Manufacturers can have many good reasons for choosing to price goods at different levels in different countries, such as their wish to build a long-term brand preference by cheaper initial marketing in a developing economy, or their desire to maintain an aura of exclusivity in mature markets through high pricing and confining sales to specialist retailers. Grey imports result in the manufacturer/ distributor effectively losing some, and often most, control of their pricing and retailing strategy in the importing country. This reduces their capacity to position the brand as they see appropriate. In extremis, a company can be put out of business in one nation by its own operations overseas!

Impossible to Stop.  Governments might as well accept that allowing retailers to sell grey goods has benefits because government will never be able to completely prevent such imports. Government regulation may prevent most retailers from selling grey goods but it won't stop all. For example Tesco in the UK sold cut price Levi jeans for years, and fought Levi Strauss in the courts for four years to try and keep selling them.1 If even the biggest retailers are willing to sell grey goods unless stopped by the courts many smaller ones will be getting through the net. Moreover consumers will simply buy the goods elsewhere, particularly online. The government should instead legalise the import of grey goods so that it can make sure that these imports are of a high standard and do not break any other standards  1 BBC News, 'Tesco defeated in cheap jeans battle', 31 July 2002,

The free movement of goods is consistent with the basic principles of free trade  Allowing grey imports is consistent with the basic principles of free trade. (Free trade principles – WTO1) If a manufacturer/distributor is selling the same item at different prices in two countries, free market economics suggests that the rational purchaser will purchase in the cheaper of the two, presuming, for example, that the difference will not be wholly swallowed up by transaction and transportation costs or taxes. If this logic holds for a consumer choosing between two jeans shops in his town, it must also hold for a retailer choosing between a jeans manufacturer’s price lists in two countries. Until recently, there was an information asymmetry (rational markets requiring information symmetry), as the manufacturer knew about their differential pricing, but the purchaser did not; information technology has now changed the equation and allowed the market to operate more efficiently. Not only this, but consumers can already buy products from pretty much anywhere in the world, as long as they can pay the postage.  1 World Trade Organisation "UNDERSTANDING THE WTO: BASICS", WTO 2011

A free flow in goods is a desirable end in itself. The rational, efficient supply chain of grey imports reflects the ideal of the free market. Moving it from the shadows to a position of legitimacy would make it even more efficient, by reducing the effort currently employed to keep the imports' trail hidden, etc. There is also job creation involved in the distribution network. For example, the logistics and transportation activities involved in grey imports will create new work as the trade grows.

Grey imports benefit the importing economy. As some grey imports will be products originally targeted at a foreign market but which turn out to achieve some popularity in the host market, they increase foreign trade. In this way, grey imports act to internationalise consumer tastes and cross-cultural understanding. Through the downward pressure on retail prices, grey imports will also encourage industry to more efficiency, as ultimately factory gate prices will be expected to fall too. This leads to rising living standards in the cheaper economy as prices balance out, as we can see in for example China, with it's recent massive rises in living standards.1  1 Mortishead, Carl, ‘China’s rising living standard cranks up resource competition’ The Australian, 18 October 2007

Once a good has been sold, manufacturers have no business telling their customers how to use it. This includes selling that good on.  In general we do not accept as moral or socially permissible the idea that the makers of a good can tell their customers where and when they may use that good, who they may give it to, where and when. Car manufacturers do not sell cars on the basis you will only drive to the shops and back, clothes makers do not sell clothes on the basis you will only wear them on Sundays or every full moon. Limiting customer ability to resell items they have paid for in full is irrational and immoral.

Grey imports limit a company's control over its own products.  A free flow of goods is not always an automatic good. The extra transport and pollution involved in grey imports alone is a serious argument against it. Grey importers often do not make clear that products sold under the same brand name in different markets are in fact sometimes tailored to suit the local market environment. So, for example, one of the reasons for lower pricing in some products in particular countries is that they do not include all of the same ingredients as a product sold under the same brand name in another country. This can be, for example, because the performance needs (e.g. the climate), regulatory framework, or consumers' willingness to pay in the two countries vary. Accordingly, in the importing country, consumers may end up paying for a familiar brand that is not actually as well designed for their needs as the domestically marketed version. 1 There are many practical problems with grey importation. For example, consumers may not understand usage instructions.  1 Santos, Botchi, 'Why locally sold cars are still better than grey-market options, 26 January 2010

Grey goods come into the country, but money goes out, weakening the economy.  Grey imports damage the importing economy. By reducing the profitability of the manufacturer/distributor in the importing country, grey imports accordingly often lessen the amount of money that the company can invest in its operations in that country. This is a vicious circle which may reduce demand and so lead to greater inefficiencies in official importation. An acceptance of imports – especially of unclear provenance – hastens the demise of the manufacturing base of the importing country.1 The manufacturer will have less reason to support the brand locally through, for example, advertising, as the benefit does not show up in their local results and, in any case, grey imports tends to start focusing consumers’ minds on price rather than the brand identity. This can be detrimental to the advertising and media spend in the importing country, which for a premium consumer goods brand (e.g. perfume, clothing) could represent quite a significant economic benefit.  What is a loss for the economy is also of course a loss for the government. The United States Internal Revenue Service estimated 15% of workers did not pay taxes, a $345billion shortfall from what should have been paid in large part as a result of workers in the grey economy of which there are more than 140,000 in San Diego alone.2  1 Peacock, Louisa, 2010, ‘Go East, if you want that top job’, The Telegraph, 19 November 2010 ,  2 Calbreath , Dean, ‘Hidden economy a hidden danger’, Signs On San Diego, 30 May 2010

While we do not see limitations on reselling by customers in general, there are, in fact, a good few occasions where such limitations on reselling and use occur. Books and other media are limited through copyright laws in their ability to be legitimately re-sold, motor insurance is indeed sold at least partly on the basis of what you are going to do with your vehicle.

We need to be critical of the cumulative potential of the tax model proposed. Firstly, the theory of the state’s capacity and how it functions in practice differ substantially. The idea of taxation acting to enhance the productive capacity of a nation is based on assumptions that the institutions, human resources, and state-capacity, are already present. This is not always the case in Africa.  Corruption and bad governance are prevalent. Reforms in 1996 to curb corruption in the TRA were reversed due to misunderstanding the nature of corruption amongst tax officials and administration (Fjelstad, 2003). Tax-revenue performance remains comparatively low [1] , there is little reason to simply altering what taxes there are will change this.  Finally, alternative methods can be used to assist rural infrastructure projects, and enable national savings. For example, revising the role of agricultural marketing boards [2] .  [1] See further readings: Gray and Kahn, 2010.  [2] See further readings: Baffes, 2005.

Building productive capacity through increasing revenue  Between 2003-2009 the annual growth rate of mobile cellular subscriptions in Tanzania was 44.21%, higher than the average in Africa (Ondiege, 2010). Estimations suggest around 18bn Tsh [1] will be collected a month through the SIM card tax model (Rweyemamu, 2013). In 2012, Tanzania’s total GDP was calculated at ~45tr Tsh [2] - the tax could therefore provide almost 0.5% of GDP in taxes. Such a boost in government taxation will enable projects such as improving rural infrastructure (including potentially mobile phone coverage!) or help reduce the deficit. That one tax can raise so much shows the potential of this kind of taxation.  [1] Equates to ~11.2mn USD (January 2013).  [2] Calculated based on World Bank Data (2013) and exchange rate as per January 2013.

The SIM card taxation is an inequitable model for Tanzania’s poor. The tax fee proposed will have detrimental effects to low-income users, whereby the cost exceeds the amount of money they spend on their mobile. For example considering the cost of tax, living, and mobile phone usage, the poor may be placed in a vulnerable position. Evidence suggests 8 million out of 22 million SIM card owners will be affected - with the rural poor feeling the greatest economic burden [1] . The burden of taxation may simply mean the poor can’t afford a phone.  Taxation cannot be promoted without recognising the constraints on household savings and income. Universal benefits are debatable when the initial disposable income is polarised to start - the price tag is not-so-small for some.  [1] See further readings: BBC, 2013; Luhwago, 2013.

The importance of mobilising domestic resources  In order to sustain development and growth nations need to build domestic resource mobilisation capacities - through collecting tax and savings. Domestic resource mobilisation enables the transition into a capitalist mode of production - poverty can be targeted and sufficient economies built. Social and economic facilities can be provided. To meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and enhance performance capacity African nation-states need to improve the amount of funding they raise through taxes [1] .  In order for development to be assisted, international donors and intervention needs to focus on encouraging innovative models of taxation such as taxing mobile phones. Such taxes don’t have the track record of failure other taxes have providing a new opportunity to redesign the taxation system. Initiatives such as the mobile phone tax provide a trial for such a new model helping to gain support for future changes.  [1] See: UNCTAD, 2007.

Taxation remains a vital component of domestic resource mobilisation however focus needs to be placed on improving Tanzania’s top revenue sources before innovative new models. Although the performance of tax collection has improved - with tax revenues rising by a rate of 15.7% between 1996/97 and 2007/08 (AfDB, 2011) taxation does not reach many areas that could be taxed; despite increasing exports of minerals and natural resources,

A fair tax  The model is for rolling out a tax for all, on a commodity used by all. The cost is small and fair, only applying to individuals who are able to afford to buy and use a working mobile phone. Those who can afford multiple phones will be hit harder so this is a progressive tax.  Arguments suggesting the tax cost is unreasonable fails to look at the politics constructing such a discourse and manipulating what collected tax can do. Motivations for opposition are not necessarily emerging out of concern for individuals’ well-being, but rather have alternative motives. The MOAT (Mobile Operators Association of Tanzania) oppose the tax fearing profit margins may decline; and politicians may use fear over the new tax policy to gain political support for oppositional parties. The opposition of the operators however merely reaffirms that it is a fair tax and those who would support opposition to the measure can be won round through explaining this.

The SIM card tax is actually under-ambitious for potential change to be maximised. Nevertheless, the tax initiates a step in the right direction. Firstly, it will ensure reductions are made in tax avoidance. Secondly, the model shows the potential role the private-sector can play in tax collection. Decentralisation, and shifting responsibility, to independent providers means valuable resources can be collected outside of the criticised TRA structure. For example, the Association of Tanzania Employers may be granted greater involvement in enhancing corporate tax collection. Estimations suggest corporate tax exemptions resulted in annual revenue losses of 4% between 2011-2012 (Gaddis, 2013).  The SIM card tax indicates domestic resources can be mobilised by engaging in public-private partnerships. For progressive tax systems, Tanzania needs to utilise private actors.

With mobile phones now a crucial commodity for everyday life, the digital revolution will not be stopped by the SIM card tax. The initial reaction to the tax may result in a temporary decline in new subscriptions and SIM card set-up, however, in the long-run subscriptions will continue to rise. Many people are willing to spend large amounts on a new phone; the addition of a tax will not deter them.

Taxes cannot be justified while the network is poor  Can taxation be justified when the network remains poor, limited, and temperamental in numerous locations? Network coverage in Tanzania is 2G and geographically concentrated (see MDI, 2013). It must be improved before the government begins to use it as a tax resource. Tanzania’s Right to Information Act recognises that government transparency and public information is a right. Therefore increasing costs on how people access information, and failing to provide good service, neglects individual rights. A right to information is not just a right to information for those who can afford the tax.

Quick-fix policies: a failing model of implementation  Tax evasion remains a key concern across Tanzania. There remains a low tax base and high evasion. Imposing a quick-fix solution by taxing mobile phones fails to solve underlying issues. The model is widening the base of taxation, whilst neglecting the issue of tax evasion.  Therefore, to what extent will the model provide future benefits? Domestic resource policies need to ensure the taxation enables state-building and future capacities to impose tax more effectively and equally. The model relied on MOAT to collect taxes monthly, reducing the need for the TRA to construct a functioning tax-collection system or resolve social resistance to taxation. This then is effectively privatising a vital state function.

Halting the technological revolution  The tax creates disincentives when we consider the potential losses that will result in the technology sector. The technological revolution in Tanzania will be jeopardised. The growth of mobile phones across Tanzania indicates the emergence of a ‘network society [1] ’ but if the population stops buying mobile phones this will end. Taxing SIM cards may deter individuals from buying mobile devices, due to the additional cost. Further, alternatively if the manufacturers and providers attempt to take the burden of the tax to keep the price of a mobile down then supply will be affected. Currently individuals use multiple service providers to get cheaper phone call rates; however, this would no longer be a sensible option.  Taxing SIM cards will introduce costs to the entrepreneurship and service provision operating through mobiles. Technology holds great benefits within the twenty-first century; imposing taxation acts to exclude access and limit potential job opportunities. Mobiles have taken services to the people [2] - a vital resource for health services and information, aid distribution, banking, and commerce.  [1] See further readings: Castells, 2011.  [2] See Ondiege, 2010 on mobile banking. In Tanzania, where for every 100,000 people there is one bank, mobiles have enabled banking to penetrate across society.

The SIM card tax will provide positive knock-on effects for network expansion and improvement. By enforcing tax payment to individual users, mobile phone customers are able to demand better service quality and distribution. The public-sector have the obligation and responsibility to ensure tax can be justified so will encourage the development of the network – and if necessary use some of the taxes raised to pay for it.

Even though this point correctly presents a theoretical possibility, the reality is different. Europe has since come up with an alternative solution that means the need for unanimity does not always mean decision-making can be slowed by a spoiler; the opt-out. Countries can negotiate to opt out of further integration on areas where they believe their national interests are threatened. This then allows all the other states to carry on with integration without risking a veto from the states that do not wish to follow that path. What further corroborates this point is that since Luxembourg accord, nothing similar has ever occurred, and even the compromise allowing for invoking national interests to halt QMV is no longer used. Thus it is irrational to fear “empty chairs” now, when all the states are aware of the possibility of a stalemate, and would, perhaps, never wanted to be held accountable for such situation.

Unanimity requirement gives an enormous bargaining leverage to the hands of individual states  Unanimous voting provides states seeking additional gains with a tool to actually achieve their egoistic goals. In order for the whole Union to pass legislation that would be beneficial to all, a single state has power to negotiate further benefits for itself, thus holding up a deal and sometimes making it less beneficial for others. Similar concerns were expressed in the EU Commission White Paper on European Governance as consensus requirement “often holds policy-making hostage to national interest”. [1] What is more, such behavior sets dangerous precedents that nations can put national interests in front of communal, effectively deteriorating the cooperative spirit of the EU and eventually destroying it altogether. As Sieberson claims [2] , such was the case of French objections to the Treaty of Rome regarding the wider use of qualified majority voting in the fields of agriculture and the internal market. In the ‘empty chair crisis’ France boycotted Council meetings for seven months, until the deal called Luxembourg accord [3] was struck. “The Luxembourg accord is widely believed to have created a period of stagnation in the Community… Paul Craig describes this period as “the prime example of negative intergovernmentalism.” [4] It prevented consolidation of Europe and ensured the EC remained intergovernmental by effectively curtailing qualified majority voting as any state could veto by invoking national interests.  [1] European Governance, A White Paper 2001, Commission of the European Communities, pp. 29, viewed 29 September 2013, &lt;  .  [2] Sieberson, SC 2010, ‘Inching Toward EU Supranationalism? Qualified Majority Voting and Unanimity Under the Treaty of Lisbon’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 934, viewed 29 September 2013, &lt;  .  [3] Eurofond 2007, Luxembourg Compromise, viewed 29 September 2013, &lt;  .  [4] Sieberson, SC 2010, ‘Inching Toward EU Supranationalism? Qualified Majority Voting and Unanimity Under the Treaty of Lisbon’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 934, viewed 29 September 2013, &lt;  .

This argument is based on the premise that federalization is a great idea. But, is it? It is hard to assess the extent to which federalization of the EU help make it a better union. What is clear, however, is that there are a whole load of questions to be answered before a federal union is attempted. As Cocodia [1] concludes “…if it must be, [it] ought to be a very slow and cautious project which should not be embarked upon unless issues such as group relations, societal culture/language and trust have been properly addressed.” These group relations and trust require that individual members concerns not be ignored. A sustainable federal union would be able to coexist with a veto because it would mean interests are close enough together that it would almost never be used.  [1] Cocodia, J 2010, ‘Problems of Integration in a Federal Europe’, Crossroads, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 57-81, viewed 1 October 2013, &lt;  .

The requirement for unanimity is undemocratic  European Union has been based on principles of solidarity and mutual help. This means that sometimes, in order to ensure the ‘greater good’, one has to forgo a bit of his own self-interest. Because European Union holds together 28 culturally and economically different countries, qualified majority voting is sufficient to ensure that no state will be harmed by the decisions made on the international level. The fact that some states would like to retain their right of veto undermines the basic principles of the EU because no such process, where a single state is able to prevent majority from adopting a measure can be called democratic. It this system the minority, or individual state, can ignore the will of the majority indefinitely. Moreover, Zamora (in Sieberson, 2010) [1] states that “international agreement is impossible to obtain when any single participant can block a decision; to achieve unanimous consent… a decision must be diluted so as to please everyone,” concluding that such result is unsatisfactory and prohibits effective functioning of an international organization, mainly in regards to urgent, practical problems.  [1] Sieberson, SC 2010, ‘Inching Toward EU Supranationalism? Qualified Majority Voting and Unanimity Under the Treaty of Lisbon’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 932, viewed 29 September 2013, &lt;  .

This is not completely true. The EU’s very economically successful pre-crisis state suggests that many of the decisions adopted by the EU are not “diluted to the point of being ineffective” and that in fact, EU works quite well. Although there are stark differences between individual member states they are able to overcome them and work meaningfully as a collective when progress is necessary. States are willing to sacrifice their interests in some areas if they get something in return elsewhere, or believe they will in the future. Therefore even if we accept the assertion that unanimous requirement is undemocratic, in a society with knowledgeable individuals, the veto is only used as a last resort. Thus what happens is that the allegedly "undemocratic" process functions as well as democratic process, but on top has an additional check or balance to prevent anything that is found particularly egregious to pass.

Disposing of unanimity requirement would make it easier advance the long-needed federalization of the European Union  With Greece as a trigger, the Eurozone and the whole EU have significantly suffered in the last five years as a result of massive and still on-going economic crisis. The Euro currency is, damaged by the vast differences between individual Eurozone members, with respect to their fiscal and monetary policies. While some states (commonly referred to as PIIGS) do have bigger problems with their finances, it is unthinkable for the others to be held responsible when serious issues, such as an inability to pay the debts, arise. Nevertheless, this was the case with Greece, when tens of billions of taxpayers’ money were used to service debts of one irresponsible state. Despite more than 50% of private sector debt being cut down by creditors, the threat of Greece’s default still lingers in the air. Getting rid of the unanimity requirement would make Europe much more able to respond quickly to crises. In the long run it would make negotiations for a federal union much easier, eventually turning it into reality. Achieving political integration and the abandonment of the veto that would come with it would then enable solutions to economic problems benefiting the whole even it unpalatable to some. Such position is also taken by Jacques Attali, a French economist who argues that “the institutional reform towards a federal Europe is necessary to implement a common fiscal and budgetary system.” [1]  [1] Attali, J 2012, ‘Attali: A federal Europe is the only crisis exit strategy’, EurActiv, 18 April, viewed 29 September 2013, &lt;  .

Similarly to the first counter-point, it is arguable to what extent it is true marginalization of smaller states when these states comply with terms of agreements. Why do they not seek further steps to avoid being included in such “disadvantageous” changes, e.g. opt-outs? Also, if the marginalization was truly that apparent it is to be believed that these states would try to, for instance, change the QMV weighting. This has however not happened. Once again, does it not only prove that what is attempted to be satisfied is only selfishness and not common goals aimed towards improving life of the whole EU?

Federalization is a continual and on-going process. It does not happen overnight, and most importantly, it has been happening ever since the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) was founded. Therefore it is incorrect to think that there is anything like ‘hidden federalization,’ when its driving force are revisions of the common treaties which are agreed upon by all the member states. It is essential to point out that the EU is a democratic union, and member states joined the EU of their own accord. Becoming more federal would not affect this, there are many federal states that are democratic and not artificial such as Germany and the United States. Disposing of the unanimity requirement is not in any way harming the democratic principle of the EU as the changes will still have to be passed by Qualified Majority Vote. Strikingly, for many this is not enough, and other members have to understand that maybe without those who are not willing to move forward, the EU would be better off, what also means making tough decision of partially excluding those ‘backward’ states from further progress of the European Union. Concluding it in a single sentence, keeping the unanimity requirement intact servers only the egoistical needs of some specific nations.

The EU was based on the grounds of solidarity and the unanimity requirements ensures that no state will be repressed for the “greater good”  While understanding the need to compromise, members of the EU are very different meaning that hardly any important decision made will fit all universally. The unanimity requirement is needed only in few exceptional cases, such as for common foreign and security policy, which is completely understandable, since it is hardly imaginable that a successful union can act internationally as a whole without the consent of all members. Members clearly need to decide between them, as they do now, which areas need unanimity. It will then only be applied to issues where there should be no shortcuts when discussing and making decisions. The unanimity requirement provides states with a guarantee that they will not be left out of the debate and that their voice matters equally, whatever the size and international position of the state. Without this guarantee, it is beyond doubt that trust among the members would be eroded, damaging the union’s unity of purpose.

Qualified majority voting (QMV – an alternative to the unanimity requirement) favors big states and marginalizes the others  QMV in the Council before the accession of Croatia required 74.8% of the votes (258 out of 345). These votes are determined by an equation that takes into account size of population, e.g. Germany has 29 votes while Malta has only 3 votes. Also, a Member State may ask that the qualified majority represents at least 62% of the total population of EU. This system, as Novak puts it, may be potentially oblivious to the needs of smaller states as “the presidency and the Commission seek the support of big countries as a priority because they thereby achieve a qualified majority more quickly.” Furthermore, Novak continues that sometimes, small countries lack resources and large civil services “which seems to lead them pretty mechanically to rely on the Commission’s expertise, or, less often, on that of representatives of big countries.” [1] There we see that substituting unanimity requirement with QMV poses a real danger of marginalizing smaller states through a seemingly ‘democratic voting procedure’. While it is bad enough to foster such behavior regarding the common EU policies, it is unthinkable that this could happen during negotiations on important treaties (like common EU treaties).  [1] Novak, S 2011, Qualified majority voting from the Single European Act to present day: an unexpected permanence, Notre Europe, viewed 29 September 2013, &lt;  .

Disposing of the unanimity requirements is essentially only hidden federalization of the European Union  With the recent developments in the EU, the potential that some states may leave is a growing concern. People’s opinion towards the EU is becoming increasingly negative (trust towards EU has in 2012, compared to 2007, declined in all the nations except for Belgium). [1] This stems mainly from the fact that the EU is forcefully trying to invade the decision-making process of the sovereign members. Directives and regulations influencing lives within the nations agreed on at the supranational level, often it is felt without a democratic mandate, are not kindly welcomed. Therefore it is to no amazement that taking away the unanimity requirement, which is now used in the most important and controversial changes, would create huge pressure on the national parliaments to oppose such dictatorship. Fisher argues the idea of federal states “shows itself to be an artificial construct which ignores the established realities in Europe.” [2] Leaving would then be considered a feasible option, thus making the federalization completely counter-productive.  [1] Torreblanca, JI, Leonard, M 2013, The Continent-wide Rise of Euroscepticism, European Council on Foreign Relations, viewed 6 October 2013, &lt;  .  [2] Sieberson, SC 2010, ‘Inching Toward EU Supranationalism? Qualified Majority Voting and Unanimity Under the Treaty of Lisbon’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 929, viewed 29 September 2013, &lt;  .

Unlike the former Soviet Union, the European Union is no ‘jail’ and members can, even though such move would be unprecedented, leave the union at any time. It is therefore hard to define ‘oppressing for greater good’ when we realize that the state tacitly agrees to it by staying in the union, possibly because the membership is still beneficial, even if we consider the ‘oppression’ in question. In this case then are these ‘oppressed’ state not just lusting for something more rather than a reasonable concern regarding the national interests? Continuing in this line of thought, is this not the exact opposite of what the members should attempt to do? In cases where a state loses they should recognise that in some cases they will gain and others loose.

While African governments may be good at professing to want cooperation and integration the reality on the ground lags behind this considerably. No regional trade block has yet been really successful in creating a free trade area let alone a customs union and protectionism, restrictive trade practices and import bans often remain. [1] The effectiveness and chances of integration through free trade are also greatly reduced by almost all the potential member states having very similar economies that rely on the export of primary goods. This makes specialisation and a concentration on trade within the block difficult without a complete restructuring of countries economies. Moreover free trade requires effective infrastructure, something Africa is lacking. [2] Integration is therefore unlikely to go anywhere and even if it does it may have little effect.  [1] Gumede, William, ‘Saving Africa’s free trade area from failure’, Pambazika News, Issue 553, 20 October 2011.  [2] Goodridge, R.B., ‘Chapter 3: Factors Against Regional Economic Integration’, 2006, p.30.

There is already some African integration that can be built on.  While African integration has been slow there has been real progress in constructing the building blocks to allow further integration. African countries are already somewhat integrated: for example 14 countries in West and Central Africa use the CFA franc as currency [1] and there are regional blocks in West Africa and East Africa. The existence of these regional free trade areas the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the East African Community (EAC), Common Market for Eastern and Southern African Countries (COMESA), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) will eventually provide the springboard for further integration throughout the whole of Africa. [2] The latter three of these communities have signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on integration and harmonise areas such as trade. [3] More importantly, despite problems with the creation of a single currency, the EU remains a good model for the AU: no one would suggest that the EU is in danger of being disbanded. Though its members might have differences as to its exact structure, that debate is no different than in any other confederation.  [1] Musa, Tansa, ‘Cameroon, BEAC see no CFA franc devaluation’, Reuters Africa, 28 November 2011.  [2] ‘Developments in Regional Integration in Africa’, African Economic Outlook, 28 April 2012.  [3] ‘Memorandum of Understanding on Inter Regional Cooperation and Integration Amongst Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), East African Community (EAC) and Southern African Development Community (SADC)’, 19 January 2011.

Many of Africa’s wars are ethnic conflicts (i.e. Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, the Congo). These conflicts will not be dissipated by simply redrawing – or attempting to dissolve - national borders. Instead of integration if borders are the problem then Africa needs to be redrawn into smaller states based on ethnicity as in Europe. Secessionist would then movements would disappear, each state could have its own language so facilitating democracy, there would be no more identity politics and each state, though smaller would be stronger. [1] Only when this is done can these states begin continental integration.  [1] Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘Africa Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010.

The AU can bring peace to the continent  Integration can bring peace; just like the European Union has in Europe. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the UN has slowly changed its relationship with regional organizations. It is more willing and through its agenda for peace has been demanding that regional organizations be responsible for peacekeeping, state-building and humanitarian assistance. [1] Part of the reasoning is that these states are more sensitive to local customs, concerns and diplomacy. Already, the African Union has taken on several peacekeeping initiatives; first in Burundi in 2003m and more recently on-going missions in in Darfur, Sudan, since 2004 and in Somalia since 2007. [2] The AU also allows regional economic communities to take a lead in responding threats to peace so allowing action to be taken at the appropriate level. [3]  [1] Department of Peacekeeping Operations, ‘Cooperation between the United Nations and Regional Organisations/arrangements in a peacekeeping environment’, United Nations ,March 1999, p.6.  [2] Murithi, Tim, ‘The African Union’s Foray into Peacekeeping: Lessons from the Hybrid Mission in Darfur’, Journal of Peace, Conflict and Development, Issue 14, July 2009.  [3] Adebajo, Adekeye, ‘Strengthening Africa’s security architecture’, Utenriksdepartementet.

There is too much distrust amongst the AU’s membership already: Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone all accuse each other of backing rebel movements in their respective civil wars. The UN is asking regional organizations to shoulder some of its "peace and security" responsibilities out of desperation, as prompted by its failure in Rwanda, not as part of some strategy. In Kosovo, NATO had to intervene because Russia blocked any UN action at the Security Council. There are as yet no other successful examples of regional organizations (i.e. ASEAN, APEC, OAS) getting involved in a military conflict and successfully bringing peace.

Integration will fix the problem of borders  For some commentators, Africa’s biggest problem is that its countries are remnants of colonial empires. In the post-colonial period, borders were drawn between states randomly, creating ethnic tension and geographic dissonance. Qaddafi argued that peace will break out when Africa’s borders disappear. As Saadi Touval argued “The borders are blamed for the disappearance of a unity which supposed existed in Africa in precolonial times… The borders are considered to be one of the humiliating legacies of colonialism, which, according to this view, independent Africa ought to abolish”. [1] Though unification is the end goal, the short-term objective is to create an African free trade area with some semblance of regional organization. Most importantly, the AU has abandoned the notion of absolute "state sovereignty": it can "peer review" the human rights and political situation in any of its members. [2] The EU was established after WWII to assist in the rebuilding of Europe; why can’t the AU do the same in Africa?  [1] Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘Africa Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010.  [2] ‘About APRM’ African Peer Review Mechanism, 2011.

Africa also has advantages that Europe did not have; there is no cold war dividing the continent into opposing armed camps, there are now many successful examples of developing world countries industrialising to draw on, and organisations like the EU that have forged on ahead have shown up some of the potential problems for Africa to avoid. Kofi Annan has also noted that Europe too started integration with a devastated continent "That, Excellencies, should be our aim - to rebuild, as Europe did, after a series of devastating wars, uniting across old divisions to build a continent characterized by peace, cooperation, economic progress and the rule of law." [1]  Moreover some of Africa’s disadvantages could potentially be turned into advantages if integration is managed correctly. Africa’s lack of industrialisation for example means that member states can choose to specialise in complementary areas as they industrialise.  [1] Annan, Kofi, ‘Call for Leadership in Africa’, Business Day, 10 July 2001.

While it used to be correct that Africa prized sovereignty above everything else, including stability, [1] this is no longer the case. Just by signing up to the African Union states were showing that they were now willing to cede some sovereignty to the organisation as it involved ceding some power to the Pan African Parliament and the African Court of Justice and Human Rights. [2] Some sovereign power is also ceded to the Assembly of the AU, composed of heads of state and government, as while decisions are preferably by consensus it can also be by a two thirds majority, and the decision is still binding on the minority that disagrees. [3] Moreover the protocols establishing all of these bodies anticipate more powers slowly being transferred to them. In particular the Pan African parliament will slowly gain the power to legislate much as the European Parliament does.  [1] Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘Africa Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010.  [2] Wachura, George Mukundi, ‘Sovereignty and the ‘United States of Africa’ Insights from the EU’, ISS Paper 144, June 2007, p.3.  [3] Ibid p.4

African international organisations do not have a history of effectiveness  In its thirty-nine year history, the predecessor of the AU, the OAU is almost universally judged as an abysmal failure. [1] It failed to challenge any major dictator on the continent and stood idle while civil war, ethnic conflict, poverty and disease ravaged ordinary Africans. Idi Amin, the former Ugandan despot, even served as the OAU chairman for a brief spell. Its only success was in preserving the notion of sovereign borders in Africa. The AU suffers many of the old problems of the OAU; particularly its capabilities falling well short of the ambitious rhetoric. The institution still does not have mechanisms to enforce or even encourage compliance so cannot resolve conflicts. When conflicts arise there has been difficulty getting action from the AU due to a preference for consensus and even if there is agreement the Union does not have the capability to intervene. [2]  [1] Amoo, Samuel G., ‘The OAU and African Conflicts: Past Successes, Present Paralysis and Future Perspectives’, Institute of Conflict Analysis and Resolution George Mason University, May 1992, p.2.  [2] Williams, Paul D., ‘The African Union’s Conflict Management Capabilities’, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011, p.8, pp.20-22.

The role of leaders will prevent success  A pan-African organization must be willing to stand up to African dictators and military rulers, the real cause of bloodshed and poverty on the continent. So far the AU has failed in this mission: Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe is a charter member of the AU and the AU has done little to encourage him to relinquish control of his country. It continued this trend by being unwilling to recognise the Libyan rebels until after the capital, Tripoli, had fallen. [1] The conflict in Libya showed that are still happy to support autocrats and unwilling to champion democracy. [2] So long as this is the case the AU will be unable to pool sovereignty in the way the European Union has as these individuals are unwilling to give up power, whether that is in elections or to international organisations.  [1] Adedoja, Tokunbo, and Oyedele, Damilola, ‘At Last, AU Recognisis Libyan Rebels’, This Day Live, 21 September 2011.  [2] Tostevin, Matthew, ‘Has the African Union got Libya wrong?’, Reuters, 31 August 2011.

The AU faces immense challenges that did not affect Europe  The AU’s model, the EU, is a work-in-progress. Even in Europe, there is some concern that the EU will not hold and the Euro crisis has shown the difficulties in integrating economies. Even if the EU were a perfect model, it was established in a time of peace. In Africa, war still rages in parts of the continent; such as Somalia, Congo, and Mali. And in Europe, unification is broadly supported by international and economic heavyweights: Britain, France and Germany. In Africa, the comparable AU anchors are Nigeria and South Africa, neither of which can guarantee AU commitments by themselves.  Africa also has huge economic concerns that don’t plague Europe: most African countries trade with their former colonial masters rather than each other, Africas trade with itself is on average only 10% of trade, [1] and the standard of living varies widely across the continent (e.g. South Africa’s GDP is ten times that of Nigeria).  Finally it should be remembered that it took the EU forty years to establish a shared currency and a central bank – which is itself showing the strains created by doing so. How will Africa, home to some of the world’s poorest and most corrupt countries, do it any faster?  [1] Giorgis, Tamrat G., ‘Exclusive: Pascal Lamy, “Africa should strengthen trade within itself”, Afronline, 8 Frbruary 2012.

Africa prizes sovereignty  In Africa as elsewhere where there has been decolonisation the countries prize their independence. This is entirely understandable, but it makes it unlikely that they will be willing to forgo their sovereignty in the near future. Indeed notwithstanding the goal of integration one of the objectives of the AU is ‘To defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States’. [1] So long as there are internal conflicts and a need for state building then it is correct that this should come first before integration. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has noted, "no amount of aid or trade will make the difference" unless war ends on the continent. [2] Moreover the larger nations in Africa; South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya need to be on-board if any real union is to be effective. However sovereignty is more important to these states as they have real influence as independent nations and as a result they are the least enthusiastic about integration. [3]  [1] ‘African Union in a nutshell’, African Union.  [2] Annan, Kofi, ‘Call for Leadership in Africa’, Business Day, 10 July 2001.  [3] Soares, Claire, ‘Ambitious plan for a new Africa: Welcome to the U.S.A (that’s the United States of Africa)’, The Independent, 30 June 2007.

First of all Africa is becoming more democratic; in 1983 there were only three democracies in Africa but by 2010 this had increased to 23 and with this comes an increase in accountability and desire both for cooperation with neighbours and for economic liberalisation. [1]  While individuals certainly dominate African politics and often power is more concentrated in their hands than in more mature democracies this can be an advantage. If these leaders do want to move towards a closer union they can potentially do so much faster than countries where many more interest groups need to be taken into account.  [1] ‘Emerging Africa: How 17 Countries are Leading the Way’, Devprac.org.

We should not be tarring the AU with the failures of the OAU. The objectives of the AU are different than that of the OAU. To begin, it is modelled on the European Union, a successful blueprint for building regional institutions and alliances. Second, the AU has already accepted the need for more coercive measures and as a result used sanctions nine times between its foundation and 2011 in response to unconstitutional changes of government. [1] The common electoral standards already call for independent observers before and after any national election so encouraging good governance. And the peace and security council has the authority to send troops to stop crimes against humanity or war crimes. The buzzword at the AU is "people-centred" as opposed to the OAU’s focus on state sovereignty.  [1] Williams, Paul D., ‘The African Union’s Conflict Management Capabilities’, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011, pp.17-18.

These terrorist camps are the responsibility of a few within the Eritrean government, such as Colonel Tewolde Habte Negash, not the many. In other areas, Eritrea has been cooperative with the global war on terror. In 2012 Eritrea provided over flight clearance to the US air force in regional security operations2.  1) Connell,D. ‘Eritrea/Ethiopia War Looms’, 2 October 2005  2) Office of the coordinator for counterterrorism ‘Country Reports on Terrorism 2012 Chapter 2: Africa’ 2012

The government has supported terrorist organisations  Accusations have been made against Eritrea claiming that they have supported terrorist groups, particularly those operating in neighbouring countries. Eritrea has been accused of supporting al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group in Somalia who also operate in Kenya, as well as several other secessionist groups. Training camps have reportedly been established within Eritrea, several of which were attacked by Ethiopia in 20121. The attempts to destabilise East Africa have naturally led to international condemnation, especially from the USA whose “War on Terror” was contradicted by Eritrea’s action2. This would suggest that Eritrea’s own actions are responsible for their isolation.  1) Smith,D. ‘Ethiopian raid on Eritrean bases raises fears of renewed conflict’, 16 March 2012  2) BBC, ‘US sanctions on Eritrea spy chief Negash over al-Shabab’, 6 July 2012

Many states commit human rights abuse but still enjoy inclusivity in the international system. China has been associated with mass human rights abuse1, yet they are still a major actor in international relations. They also have one of the largest economies, a seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and positive relations with most of the world. Eritrea’s regional rival, Ethiopia, also enjoys fruitful international relations with many powerful states despite similar human rights abuses. The resettlement of the Lower Omo Valley by Ethiopia is one such example of continued international support despite killings, beatings and forced resettlement2. This demonstrates a double standard which is not necessarily Eritrea’s fault.  1) Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2013: China’, 2013  2) Hurd,W. ‘Ignoring abuse in Ethiopia: DFID and USAID in the Lower Omo Valley’ July 2013

Eritrea started the 1998 war  Eritrea was responsible for instigating the war against Ethiopia, making it liable for its increased isolation. Eritrea was officially recognised by an international Claims Commission as the initiator of the war1. The state invaded the region of Badme after a long diplomatic dispute over the border issue as they believed the territory was rightfully theirs2. They removed the Ethiopian presence from the state, compromising territorial integrity and incurred a reaction from Ethiopia. This marked Eritrea as the aggressor. An aggressor in a war cannot be seen as a ‘just’ actor and has therefore contributed to its own seclusion by acting in such a manner.  1) BBC, ‘Eritrea broke law in border war’, 21 December 2005  2) Briggs,P. ‘Ethiopia’ pg.30

Ethiopia provoked Eritrea into invading their shared border. The lands were technically Eritrean, as the boundaries commission would later state1. Through these circumstances, Eritrea was not infringing the territorial integrity of Ethiopia. Moreover, some have hypothesised that Ethiopia actually encouraged the war to happen by murdering several Eritrean officials near Badme2. This would create an excuse to make territorial gains, namely to regain access to the Red Sea and the potential trade that accompanied it3.  1) Lauterpacht,E. ‘Sixteenth report on the work of the commission’ 24 February 2005  2) Connell,D. ‘Eritrea/Ethiopia War Looms’, 2 October 2005  3) Shah,A. ‘Conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea’, 20 December 2000

Eritrea has never been fully self-sustainable and still accepts foreign assistance. The beginning of the 21st century has seen Eritrea open up to increasing numbers of foreign Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) providing aid. The country has now become a highly favoured aid recipient1. Even during the Eritrean-Ethiopian war, when most aid agencies were forced out of the country, some were permitted to remain.  1) Smith-Simonsen,C. ‘The pros and cons of self-reliance: Eritrea’s relations with aid agencies and NGOs’ pg.347

Human Rights Abuse  Eritrean isolation has been exacerbated by their poor human rights record. Claims were presented to the UN of ‘extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, extended incommunicado detention, torture, indefinite national service, and lack of freedom of expression, assembly, religious belief and movement’1. Eritrea’s President, Isaias Afewerki, has been accused of using the threat of invasion as a justification for the highly militarised and brutal nature of his country2. This has attracted international criticism, with a joint statement from 44 countries condemning Eritrea’s infringement of human rights3.  1) The Guardian, ‘Eritrea’s human rights record comes under fire at United Nations’, 25 October 2013  2) Blair,D. ‘Eritrea: the African North Korea which thousands will risk anything to escape’ 3 October 2013  3) Joint statement of 44 countries, ‘Human rights Situation in Eritrea’, Human Rights Council, 13 March 2012

President Isaias Afewerki has sought self-reliance  Whilst President Afewerki was fighting for Eritrean independence he became a proponent of the self-reliant state, which could sustain its own population with no external assistance. Since independence the President has rejected foreign aid to the country through claims that aid is a method of enslavement to international donors1. Numerous offers of assistance, including the free food distributions of the World Food Programme, have been rejected in favour of the domestic market2. Afewerki claims that as aid decreases, farmers will work harder to ensure that food demand is met. The lack of donors and trading partners has served to weaken Eritrea’s ties of the outside world, making the state responsible for its own isolation.  1) BBC, ‘Self Reliance could cost Eritrea dear’, 5 July 2006  2) Saunders,E. ‘Eritrea aspires to be self-reliant, rejecting foreign aid’, Los Angeles Times, 2 October 2007

Eritrea has acted in violation of international law numerous times through methods such as human rights abuse and deserves the UN’s condemnation. Despite these abuses, the UN still offers aid to the country1, demonstrating its commitment to re-engage with the country. Eritrea, however, has been increasing hostile to the UN over the issue of aid. Having refused assistance from the United Nations World Food Programme and other policies, Eritrea has weakened its links with the institution, isolating itself from the international community.  1) BBC, ‘Eritrea refuses food aid’, 3 January 2010

The US has attempted to maintain an equal level of support for both Ethiopia and Eritrea since the EEBC incident. Both states became military allies of the USA and joined the coalition of the willing which invaded Iraq in 20031. The US has also attempted to reach a permanent peace between the two state and has encouraged Eritrea to contribute to regional stability2.  1) Connell,D. ‘Eritrea/Ethiopia War Looms’, 2 October 2005  2) Bureau of African Affairs, ‘U.S. Relations with Eritrea’11 February 2013

Eritrea is surrounded by hostile nations  Eritrea has been forced in to isolation due to unfriendly neighbours. In its short history, Eritrea has been in conflicts with Ethiopia and Djibouti over border issues. Diplomatic ties with Sudan, while having improved recently, have historically been very poor as well. The hostility received from these countries has fostered a “bunker mentality” amongst Eritreans1. The previous and present security threats from their neighbours has ensured an ‘us against them’ attitude, which is evident in their wider international dealings.  1) Eshetu,S. ‘Eritrean Leadership’s “Bunker Mentality”’, 3 September 1998

The UN has done little to facilitate improvement  Rather than encouraging Eritrea to become more integrated in the international community, the United Nations has made the state’s situation worse. The UN has enforced sanctions upon the country for links that it claimed to find between Eritrea and al-Shabaab1 which served to weaken ties between Eritrea and the outside world. The intergovernmental organisation (IGO) has also regularly condemned Eritrea for its policies, which Eritrea believes is the result of hostile states ensuring the state is condemned by the international community2.  1) The Guardian, ‘Eritrea’s human rights record comes under fire at United Nations’, 25 October 2013  2) Ibid

The US has unfairly supported Ethiopia  The US is responsible for Eritrea’s isolation through its foreign policy. The United States has actively supported Ethiopia, Eritrea’s rival, in regional disputes. In 2002, the USA urged Ethiopia to disregard the Eritrean-Ethiopian Border Commission’s (EEBC) decision which stated that lands occupied by Ethiopia did belong to Eritrea. This was also a violation of their role as a guarantor for the agreement1. Continued support for Ethiopia’s counterterrorism role worsened US-Eritrea relations. Relationships deteriorated to the extent of which that the USA attempted to revoke Eritrea’s membership to the UN in December 2011. The US has therefore been unnecessarily provocative and exclusionary in its foreign policy.  1) Weldemichael,A. ‘Eritrea: Bringing Eritrea in From the Cold- We Need to UN-Break the U.S.-Ethiopia-Eritrea Triangle’ 17 January 2014

Eritrea has been responsible for the majority of this animosity. The country was responsible for aggressively attacking Yemen in 1996. In 2008, Eritrea attacked along the Djibouti-Eritrean border claiming the territory was rightfully theirs1. A theme emerges from these examples, confirmed by President Afewerki of Eritrea when he openly stated he has sought the removal of neighbouring regimes2. The excuse of adopting a siege mentality has also enabled the president to increase his powers and suppress internal dissent3. It is therefore more likely that the government, rather than external players, have contributed to Eritrea’s siege mentality.  1) Mesfin,B. ‘The Eritrea-Djibouti border dispute’, 15 September 2008  2) Eshetu,S. ‘Eritrean Leadership’s “Bunker Mentality”’, 3 September 1998  3) Blair,D. ‘Eritrea: the African North Korea which thousands will risk anything to escape’, 3 October 2013

Annan’s peace proposals do not provide cover for Assad; they call for Assad to stop fighting and single out the Syrian government as having to stop troop movements and pull back. Assad would have much more political cover without the proposal providing a benchmark by which to rate Assad’s cooperation.

The plan is just political cover for Assad.  The plan is simply being used as political cover by Assad, as long as he is signed up to such an agreement and other countries believe there is a chance that he will implement it the Russians and Chinese will not allow further Security Council action. Both the Russians and Chinese are showing that they are willing to support Assad by vetoing anything hinting at sanctions. [1] Therefore the only thing the Annan plan does is provide more time for Assad to go on killing his own people so that he can remain in power as is shown by his unwillingness to implement any of the plans provisions. [2]  [1] Bennetts, Marc, ‘Russia Says West’s UN Syria Resolution Supports Rebels’, RIA Novosti, 18 July 2012.  [2] Editorial Board, ‘Syria’s cover for murder’, Washington Post, 31 March 2012.

Ultimately unless one side wins decisively then there will have to be a deal. Both sides will have to shift their positions. There have to be on-going negotiations to be able to facilitate this.

The plan has failed.  The plan has clearly failed; its primary goal was to end the violence but a total of at least 13,000 Syrians have been killed since the beginning of the uprising. [1] Around 100 people are killed each day and even Annan himself has conceded the ceasefire is ‘failing’. [2] Assad clearly believes the Annan plan has failed having told his cabinet "When one is in a state of war, all our policies and capabilities must be used to secure victory" [3] this is not the kind of language of someone looking to take part in a peaceful solution. Everything in the plan relies on some kind of ceasefire; that has not happened and without it the rest of the points cannot be implemented. The plan must therefore be abandoned as Susan Rice the US Ambassador to the United Nations stated when creating the monitoring mission "If there is not a sustained cessation of violence, full freedom of movement for U.N. personnel and rapid meaningful progress on all other aspects of the six-point plan, then we must all conclude that this mission has run its course." [4]  [1] Barari, Hassan, ‘A road map for political solution to Syrian crisis’, Al Arabiya News, 1 July 2012.  [2] Blomfield, Adrian, ‘Syria: Kofi Annan claims peace plan can be revived’, The Telegraph, 9 July 2012.  [3] ‘Assad says Syria ‘in a state of war’, Aljazeera, 27 June 2012.  [4] Lynch, Colum, ‘Does Washington have the stomach to kill of Kofi Annan’s peace plan?’, Foreign Policy.com, 18 July 2012.

While the plan has not yet brought about a ceasefire this does not provide a good reason not to continue to use the six point plan as the basis to create that ceasefire. Deadlines may pass but that cannot mean we simply abandon the intention to create that ceasefire.

The Syrian opposition will never be willing to deal with Assad.  As a follow up to the six point plan on the 1st July in Geneva it was agreed that a transitional government would be set up which “could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent”. [1] Mutual consent however means both sides have a veto; Assad would have to agree and he is not going to agree to a government which he is not involved in. The opposition meanwhile argues “The country has been destroyed and they want us then to sit with the killer?” [2] With neither side willing to consider sitting down with the other it is difficult to see how Annan’s plan can ever get anywhere no matter how long it is kept on life support.  [1] Action Group for Syria Final Communiqué, 20 June 2012.  [2] Lee, Matthew, ‘Analysis: Plan to end Syrian crisis falls flat’, Associated Press, 2 July 2012.

Russia has vowed to veto any such western resolution arguing that "To adopt the resolution would be...direct support for the revolutionary movement… To pressure just one side means drawing [Syria] into a civil war and interference in the internal affairs of the state." [1] Moreover even if such a resolution was to get through the UN Security Council it would have little impact. Sanctions have a poor track record in bringing regimes to the table when they believe they are threatened. Sanctions have not worked against Iran [2] or North Korea, and the sanctions imposed against Libya last year in a similar situation clearly failed as armed intervention was needed. [3]  [1] Bennetts, Marc, ‘Russia Says West’s UN Syria Resolution Supports Rebels’, RIA Novosti, 18 July 2012.  [2] Sadeghi-Boroujerdi, Eskandar, and Sahmi, Muhammad, ‘The Sanctions Aren’t Working’, Foreign Policy.com, 5 July 2012.  [3] Farge, Emma, ‘Special report: In Libyan oil shipment, sanctions prove dumb’, Reuters, 16 May 2011.

There is little point in talks for the sake of talks if they are never going to get anywhere. There are other things that could be done that could help reduce the violence such as creating safe zones in neighbouring countries territories, establishing buffer zones in Syria, and creating an arms quarantine to prevent Russian and Iranian weapons flowing into Syria to help the regime. [1]  [1] Tabler, Andrew J., ‘Cut Off Assad’s Lifelines’, The Washington Institute, 30 May 2012.

Without the peace plan there will be further conflict.  Kofi Annan believes that peace can only be found together arguing all members of the Security Council "Either unite to secure your common interests, or divide and surely fail in your own individual way. Without your unity… nobody can win and everyone will lose in some way." Moreover a failure of the peace plan would “turn a humanitarian crisis into a catastrophe." [1] Without any prospect of a peaceful solution it is likely that Assad would escalate to using chemical weapons. Nawaf Fares, the Syrian Ambassador to Iraq who has defected, has warned that they would be used if the regime feels cornered. [2] If this were to happen Israel might be compelled to attack to prevent Syrian Chemical weapons being used against it or falling into the hands of terrorists. [3] This in turn would spark off a wider regional war.  [1] Beaumont, Peter, ‘Failure of Syria peace plan ‘risks wider regional conflict’, guardian.co.uk, 30 June 2012.  [2] Gardner, Frank, ‘Syria: Assad regime ‘ready to use chemical weapons’, BBC News, 17 July 2012.  [3] Fisher, Gabe, ‘Pentagon reportedly seeking to avert Israel strike on Syrian chemical weapons sites’, The Times of Israel, 19 July 2012.

Annan’s plan should be enforced.  Western countries such as Britain and France want attention to shift from monitoring to enforcement. William Hague argues the bomb that killed the Syrian defence minister “confirms the urgent need for a Chapter VII resolution of the UN Security Council on Syria… All the members of the UN Security Council have a responsibility to put their weight behind the enforcement of Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan's plan to end the violence.” [1] This enforcement would mean non-military sanctions if the regime does not withdraw troops and heavy weapons from populated areas within 10 days [2] – as called for in the second point of Annan’s plan.  [1] Hague, William, ‘Hague: ‘The situation in Syria is clearly deteriorating’, itvnews, 18 July 2012.  [2] AP, ‘U.K.’s Hague Urges Support for Peace Plan’, Wall Street Journal, 18 July 2012.

Annan’s plan is the only proposal on the table.  Both the options currently on the table are continuations of the six point plan. The western states such as the US, France and UK want to give the plan teeth by adding an enforcement mechanism while the Russians own plan simply involved extending the current monitoring mission. [1] There would be no point in starting from scratch on a new plan that would have to rebuild support from world governments and would likely end up at a similar position. Not only is there no plan B but any plan B would have to simply mean more of the same. [2] The Annan plan at least has a starting framework up and running and is talking to all parties.  [1] Lynch, Colum, ‘Does Washington have the stomach to kill of Kofi Annan’s peace plan?’, Foreign Policy.com, 18 July 2012.  [2] ‘U.N. chief: ‘No Plan B’ in Syria’, CNN, 24 May 2012.

This maintains the fiction that the current plan is somehow reducing the level of conflict in Syria; it is not, and that is the whole problem. Already the Red Cross has declared the conflict to be a Civil war. [1] The conflict is expanding regardless of the peace plan.  [1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘Exclusive: Read Cross ruling raises questions of Syrian war crimes’, Reuters, 14 July 2012.

Sanctions are a proven policy tool and can pressure a regime that is extremely repressive into reforms. Aggressive U.S. engagement and pressure contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and it can work again. As in the Cold war there are radio stations that are effective at providing news and information about the outside world to Cuba. [1] Sanctions are also, according to Colin Powell, a ‘moral statement’ of America’s disapproval for the Castro regime. Blaming America for all economic woes didn’t trick ordinary Russians and it won’t trick the Cubans. Now is exactly the time that the United States should be tightening down the screws so that Castro’s successor is forced to make real changes.  [1] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.

Sanctions are not working  Sanctions are pointless and counterproductive. They’ve made no political difference in the last 43 years, why would they now? They mean that the US can be blamed for all the failures of the Cuban economy and to justify repressive measures for security, [1] and therefore encourage the retrenchment of both. In times when the Cuban economy is booming, as in 2005 when the economy grew by 8%, the impotence of the sanctions becomes clear. [2] President Bush claimed to want to empower civil society in Cuba but he also argued that the best way to achieve this in China was to trade and spread ‘American values.’ [3] Cuba’s geographical and cultural proximity makes it very likely to change quickly when they are able to freely interact with the United States through travel and trade. [4] [5]  [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.   [2] Peters, Philip, ‘U.S. Sanctions against Cuba: A Just War Perspective’, p.392.   [3] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.   [4] Meet the Press, ‘John Kerry’,31 August 2004.   [5] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.

The United Nations Resolutions condemning the sanctions have never passed through the Security Council and therefore lack any authority. The Cubans themselves are also violating international agreements in particular the 1928 Inter-American Convention on Asylum and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by surrounding “embassies in its capital by armed forces to thwart the right of its citizens to seek asylum and systematically denies that right to the Cuban people.” [1]  [1] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.

Foreign policy should follow the will of the people  Sanctions are not the will of the American people but of a small minority of embittered Cuban Americans in Florida who are being pandered to due to their importance in elections in a swing state. [1] Congressman Charles Rangel argues that the only success of the sanctions policy has been to “appease the Republican constituency in Florida”. [2] National opinion generally expresses no preference or opposes the ban, in a 2009 CBS poll asking "Do you think the United States should or should not re-establish diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba?" 67% said should. [3] Sanctions remaining in place is electioneering government at its worst, domestic interest groups controlling government foreign policy. As Karl Rove has admitted "When people mention Cuba to me, it makes me think of three things: Florida, Florida, and Florida." [4]  [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.   [2] DeYoung, Karen, ‘Sanctions Against Cuba Are Excessive, GAO Says’, 2007.   [3] Pollingreport.com, ‘Cuba’.   [4] Rosenthal, Joel H., ‘The Cuba Wars: Fidel Castro, the United States and the Next Revolution’, 2009.

Sanctions harm the Cuban people.  The sanctions cause real and unacceptable harm to the Cuban people. Sanctions deprive Cuba of low cost food that the United States could provide so hitting the poorest yet they do not affect the ruling elite. [1] In the 1990’s Cuba lost $70 billion in trade [2] and $1.2 billion in international loans because of U.S. sanctions. Cuba is too poor a country not to suffer from these losses. The dominance of America in the pharmaceuticals industry, moreover, means that it is actually impossible for Cubans to gain access to many drugs and other medical equipment, including the only curative treatment for some pediatric leukemias. [3] America would be the natural market for most Cuban products, and its refusal to accept goods with even the tiniest Cuban inputs from third nations damages Cuba’s ability to trade with others. Other South American countries have shown their reliance on the types of loans that Cuba is denied in the last few years to keep their economies on track.  [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.   [2] United Nations Secretary General, ‘Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba’, United Nations General Assembly, Fifty-seventh session, 26 July 2002,  P.11  [3] Garfield, Richard, ‘The Impact of the Economic Crisis and the US Embargo on Health in Cuba’, American Journal of Public Health, Vol.87, No. 1, January 1997,  P.18

Sanctions didn’t cause the economic failure in Cuba. The communist political and economic system has been shown to lead to economic collapse all over the world, whether sanctions are in place or not. Centralization, collectivism, state control, bureaucracy, and restrictions on private initiative totalitarian style economic policies are what are to blame for the Cuban people’s economic suffering. [1] Even if sanctions were lifted, lack of private ownership, foreign exchange and tradable commodities would hold Cuba back. The International Trade Commission found a ‘minimal effect on the Cuban economy’ from sanctions. [2] In fact, it is by using sanctions to pressure Cuba into economic and political reform that the US can best contribute to an economic recovery there.  [1] Peters, Philip, ‘U.S. Sanctions against Cuba: A Just War Perspective’.   [2] U.S. International Trade Commission, ‘ITC Releases Report on the Economic Impact of U.S. Sanctions with respect to Cuba’, 2001.

The people who care most about the Cuban question thoroughly oppose dropping sanctions. The Mid-Western Republicans who voted to drop the travel ban are no less blinkered than the Cuban Americans who vote to keep it. Opinion on sanctions wavers; the separation of powers is specifically in place to allow the White House to maintain a stable policy on issues of national security rather than responding to every change in public opinion. It would not be right for the United States to change its foreign policy when the population is apathetic and has very little opinion on an issue.

Cuba will never make up more than a tiny percentage of America’s trade and it is able to source and sell all the products it needs elsewhere. Even if Cuba was a vital market for American goods it would be worth giving up some economic growth in order to maintain a commitment to the freedom of the Cuban people. As it is, the total Cuban GDP is a drop in the ocean and at this point is almost entirely irrelevant to the United States.

Sanctions are illegal  Sanctions on Cuba are illegal and damage America’s International standing. They violate the UN Charter, laws on the freedom of navigation, and repeated United Nations resolutions since 1992 (passed with only the US and Israel in opposition). [1] Furthermore, some parts of the Helms-Burton Act are extra-territorial in their effects on businessmen from third nations and therefore cause significant protest around the world. This makes a mockery of the US claim to be a guardian of International Law, not only in its dealings with Cuba but also in the negotiations over the future of Iraq. America could achieve its goals internationally more easily if it was not marked with evidence of its lack of respect for International Law.  [1] CNN, ‘U.N. again condemns U.S. embargo against Cuba’, 2009.

Economic benefits of ending sanctions  The United States will also benefit from the opening of trade with Cuba economically. Mid-Western Republicans have all voted to drop the embargo because of the potential for profits in their farming states. Even the modest opening of the embargo in 2000 has increased sales of farm products immensely having gone from nothing [1] to $344 million in 2010. [2] This is a market for American products as well as a local producer. Further, if sanctions end Americans will be able to stop pretending that they prefer Bolivian cigars!  [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.   [2] Reuters, ‘U.S. food sales to Cuba fall further in 2010’, 2011.

There is no reason to believe that yet more years of sanctions will make a difference. Cuba has been defiant in the face of much worse and continued on the same course. The sanctions cannot provide leverage while other states do not have sanctions; Cuba can get anything it requires from elsewhere without recourse to the United States so why would Cuba be willing to ever make concessions before sanctions are dropped. [1]  [1] Reeson, Greg, ‘Time to Drop Sanctions Against Cuba’, 2006.

There are no legitimate grounds for Cuba to be sanctioned as opposed to many other states. There is no evidence that Cuba is a sponsor of terror, and even if it is the U.S. does not place all the restrictions it places on other designated sponsors of terror that it does on Cuba. [1] Cuba has no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and any allegations about Cuba developing such weapons have never been substantiated. Cuba holds fewer prisoners of conscience than China, Vietnam or Iran and has recently been releasing many of them. [2] To maintain sanctions in order to change the form of government, as the United States claims it does, is totally illegitimate under International Law and, moreover, Cuba is in no sense the only undemocratic country in the world. Cuba has gone so far as to offer to compensate the U.S. citizens whose property was nationalised in 1959. America has never explained the threat posed by Cuba that requires these sanctions.  [1] DeYoung, Karen, ‘Sanctions Against Cuba Are Excessive, GAO Says’, 2007.   [2] Amnesty International, ‘Cuba frees prisoners of conscience’, 2011.

Protecting human rights  America is attempting to protect the rights of its own citizens and of the Cubans enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] Something the Castro who considers democratic pluralism to be ‘pluralistic garbage’ [2] will never live up to without coercion. Indeed Cuba undermines the guarantees made in its own constitution and invokes sovereignty as a justification for not complying with international rights agreements and further restricting human rights. [3] The USA’s status as a guardian of human rights and an enemy of terror is enhanced by its moral refusal to compromise with a repressive government just off its own shores.  [1] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.   [2] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.   [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘Impediments to Human Rights in Cuban Law’, 1999.

Sanctions are necessary for national security  Sanctions are a better alternative to military action. The most recent set of sanctions were imposed in 1996 in response to two US civilian planes belonging to the group of exiles ‘brothers of peace’ being shot down by the Cuban Air Force near Cuba. [1] The United States would have been justified in reacting proportionally with some military action but instead reinforced sanctions through the Helms-Burton Act. [2] This shows that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of support for Cuba in 1991 did not mean an end to the threat posed by Cuba. Cuba has remained communist and the Castro regime has shown it is still willing to antagonize the United States. As Cuba is situated in a strategic location close to the United States the US government cannot be precipitate in removing sanctions at least until Cuba proves it is a good neighbour.  [1] University of Minnesota Human Rights Library, ‘Armando Alejandre Jr., Carlos Costa, Mario de la Pena y Pablo Morales v. Republica de Cuba’, 1999.   [2] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.

Sanctions provide leverage  In 2003 Senator John McCain argued "freedom for the Cuban people is not yet at hand, and the Castro brothers clearly intend to maintain their grip on power", [1] and this situation is likely to continue if sanctions are dropped unilaterally and the pressure is taken off Cuba. The United States however might be able to help the Cuban people gain more freedom in return for being willing to reduce and eventually drop sanctions when the Cuban people are free. Barak Obama while supporting improved relations with Cuba and an eventual dropping of sanctions argues that they provide leverage to encourage steps towards democracy. [2]  [1] McCain, John, quoted in AFP, ‘White House runners: Castro’s exit not enough’, 2008.   [2] Omestad, Thomas, ‘Cuban Official Rules Out Any Obama Preconditions for Improved Relations’, 2009.

Cuba deserves sanctions  Cuba is a repressive regime which operates one party rule, holds political prisoners and stifles opposition and economic freedom through constant harassment. The Cuban administration is on the U.S. list of sponsors of terror, [1] not least because it provides a safe haven to many American fugitives, [2] and has refused to give help with the search for Al-Qaeda suspects. Cuba is known to have a developmental biological weapons ‘effort’ [3] and is recorded as breaking international sanctions to export dual use technologies to other rogue states. [4] Finally, Cuba has failed to stop drug shipments through its waters [5] and its government profits directly from resources stolen from United States citizens in 1959.  [1] U.S. Department of State, ‘State Sponsors of Terrorism’.   [2] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.   [3] NTI, ‘Cuba Profile Biological’, 2009.   [4] Bolton, John, ‘Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction’, 2002.   [5] Adams, Nathan M., ‘Havana’s Drug-Smuggling Connection’, 1982.

The national security rationale for sanctions on Cuba has long since disappeared. The embargo was originally imposed in 1960 when Castro seized US property in Cuba and was tightened in 1962 in response to Cuban alignment to the Soviet Union. These sanctions were in order to neutralize Cuba as a potential threat through it being a proxy of the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union has collapsed this is no longer a problem. Instead Cuba is left with no powerful friends and by itself its military power is negligible and is certainly in no position to threaten the world’s preeminent power. [1]  [1] Defense Intelligence Agency, ‘The Cuban Threat to U.S. National Security’, 1997.

Opening to trade is the way to human rights rather than cutting of contact. Trade and development encourage communications that help to undermine oppression. [1] Far from engaging in sanctions the United States should be encouraging Cubans to use mobile phones and the internet; technologies that can be vital in undermining authoritarian regimes as shown by the Arab Spring.  [1] Griswold, Daniel, ‘Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba’, 2005.

Failing states do not infect a whole region. The contagion theory is hard to apply beyond a small group of countries in West Africa - elsewhere failed states do not tend to drag down their neighbours with them. For example, countries bordering Somalia, such as Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Eritrea, are far from perfect but none of them are close to being considered a failed state. In fact, whilst Somalia is seen as the basket case in the region after the failed U.N. intervention in 1992, the percentage of its population that lives on less than $1 a day is in fact less than those of its West African neighbours. [1] Therefore, in most cases the best solution to the problem of failed states is not intervention but for regional groups (e.g. ECOMOG in West Africa, the African Union in Western Sudan, the European Union in Macedonia, Australia in East Timor) to take responsibility for their areas rather than to overburden the USA and UN. In sum, ‘not all failing states pose true dangers to the peace’ and therefore the U.N.’s responsibility for ‘international peace and security’ is not a sufficient basis for action to resurrect all failing or failed states’. [2]  [1] Coyne, C. (2006). Reconstructing weak and failed states: Foreign intervention and the Nirvana Fallacy. Retrieved June 24, 2011 from Foreign Policy Analysis, 2006 (Vol. 2, p.343-360) p.351  [2] Ratner, S. R., &amp; Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy:

Failing states can infect a whole region  It is in the interests of international stability that failing states are rescued before it is too late. Failed states often infect a whole region, as the collapse of Liberia did in West Africa - a problem known as contagion. Neighbouring states back different factions with arms and squabble over resources, such as the diamonds of Sierra Leone and the mineral wealth of Congo. Internally neighbours are destabilised by floods of refugees and weapons from next door. Their own rebel groups can also easily find shelter to regroup and mount fresh attacks in the lawless country just over their borders. Former U.N. Secretary Boutros-Ghali claimed, as his justification for support for failing states, that the U.N. has a responsibility under its Charter to ‘maintain international peace and security’ amid fears ‘the demise of a state is often marked by violence and widespread human rights violations that affect other states’. [1] Intervention prevents this by entailing the establishment of conditions for reconstruction which thereafter provides physical infrastructure, facilities and social services. The ultimate goal therefore of the intervention is to ensure that both the state concerned and the region as a whole require no further military or monetary support. [2]  [1] Ratner, S. R., &amp; Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy:   [2] Coyne, C. (2006). Reconstructing weak and failed states: Foreign intervention and the Nirvana Fallacy. Retrieved June 24, 2011 from Foreign Policy Analysis, 2006 (Vol. 2, p.343-360) p.343

There is very limited evidence to support the theory that failed states become havens for terrorists. It is true that there are some Al-Qaeda sympathisers in Somalia, but these seem to be few in number and no greater in threat to the USA and its allies than similar groups in other countries. Nor is Afghanistan a good example of this theory; Osama Bin Laden was invited to take refuge there by an established government - the Taliban - only after they had successfully grabbed power in Afghanistan. Before this, Bin Laden was sheltered in Sudan - not in the war-torn and lawless south, but in the northern part where the government was in firm control. [1] Here the problem was not a failed state, but rather one with an extreme Islamist government. On the other hand, Iran and Syria are both accused of providing bases for terrorists, but neither could be considered a failed state.  [1] Hehir, A. (2007) ‘The Myth of the Failed State and the War on Terror’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, Vol. 1/3, pp. 307-326

States should act to help civilians in failing states to prevent humanitarian crises  States should act to help the people of a failing state, as once it collapses no government services will be provided, including law and order. States should work with the UN in leading attempts at conflict resolution, and should engage in subsequent peacekeeping missions and investment in nation-building initiatives (e.g. funding and organising the reintegration of non-combatants into society, organising elections, building up civil society, creating effective government institutions, etc.). The failure of the UN operation in Somalia in 1990 is telling; the country has not had a functioning central government ever since. [1] Intervention to prevent such outcomes will require both greater willingness to commit funds on the part of the powerful states and a commitment to conflict resolution which has been largely lacking in recent national policy world-wide.  [1] CNN (2011, June 21) Somalia again is at top of failed states list. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from CNN Wire:

States should act to protect their own civilians first and foremost, not those in failing states. As such, soldiers should not be sacrificed for the lives of civilians elsewhere; that is not what soldiers enlist for nor does it fit a state’s role as a guarantor of security for its own citizens. Civilians in failing states are the ones that ultimately need to take the responsibility for usurping the incumbent powers in their state. Furthermore, even if it were the case that states should act to prevent failing states, there are means to do this that do not include intervention; charities can provide humanitarian assistance, states can offer mediation services if there is a dispute and diaspora communities can provide finance.

The United Nations has demonstrated that it lacks both the organizational ethos and the forces required to effectively prevent the failure of states. The veto power on the Security Council ensures that troops for intervention are only mandated when they suit the interests of the most powerful states. Furthermore, the nature of the UN’s forces, almost always composite forces made up of a number of different states, renders them ineffective once on the ground. The example of Sierra Leone is telling, a ceasefire was only agreed upon three years after the UN entered the state, and as late as 2009, the UN’s own head in the region noted the country is still in a precarious situation, ‘with ethnic and interreligious conflicts and increasing threats from international crime’. [1] Failure was not prevented, merely put off.  [1] Security Council (2009, September 14). Sierra Leone’s success in transition to stable democracy depends on government providing ‘peace dividend’, Security Council told. Retrieved June 21 from United Nations:

Failed states are havens for drug-smugglers and terrorists  Failed states also export dangers more widely, as they often provide an opportunity for drug crops such as Opium (Afghanistan) or Coca (parts of Colombia) to be grown, processed and traded without fear of authority, with devastating effects both locally and globally. Desperate people may also take refuge in religious or political extremism, which may in time come to threaten the rest of the world. In so doing, failed states often become havens for terrorists, who can find safety in them to plot against the West, to establish training camps for future terrorists, and to build up finance, weapons and other resources with which to mount campaigns. In what was a key claim that later underpinned the 2002 US National Security Strategy and the U.S. War on Terror, Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University, has described failed states as ‘breeding grounds of instability, mass migration, and murder’. [1] This can be seen in Somalia, where states in recent years have ‘begun to fear al Qaeda will take advantage of the lawlessness’. [2] Other fragile states, such as Niger, Congo and Sierra Leone have radioactive and other valuable minerals which could be very dangerous in the hands of determined terrorists. The USA should work with the UN to strengthen governments so that they can more effectively maintain internal order while controlling their borders and tracking resource-flows.  [1] Rotberg, R. I. (2002, July/August). Failed States in a World of Terror. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Council on Foreign Relations:   [2] Dickinson, E. (2010, December 14). WikiFailed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy:

The United Nations has the constitutional power and capability to intervene to prevent failed states  The United Nations, and its resident body, the Security Council, has both the right and the capability to intervene in countries in order to maintain the peace. Peace in this sense represents more than the absence of bloodshed, but also provides the means by which aid organizations can enter a territory and provide the requisite resources to prevent civilian suffering. The United Nations have proven their efficacy in this area, mandating an intervention in the Ivory Coast in 2003 that sought to prevent the exacerbation of tensions between the government and rebel forces. [1] A ceasefire was eventually brokered in 2007 and the failure of the state averted. U.N. forces in Macedonia during the 1990s were also credited with ‘successfully contributing to the prevention of conflict spill over and having a stabilizing effect in the country’. [2] U.N. interventions to prevent the failure of states can and do work.  [1] BBC News (2003, February 5) UN backs Ivory Coast peacekeepers. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from BBC News:   [2] Kim, J. (1998, July 23). Macedonia: Conflict Spillover Prevention. Retrieved September 9, 2011 from CRS Report for Congress:

The cost of intervention is lower than the cost of inactivity. Sometimes, as in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, the situation will become so bad that US military intervention is necessary - this is hugely costly compared to funding preventative action through the United Nations. The role of failed states as reservoirs from which refugees, narcotics, terrorism, illegal diamonds, etc. are exported means that the USA already spends many billions of dollars a year in dealing with the mess they create. Finally, there is an opportunity cost of lost trade and investment which applies to the developing world and developed economies alike (e.g. the benefits to the US of trade with oil-rich Angola, Sudan and Congo).

Interventions can, and do, fail, however so long as their intentions are good, they must still be attempted if the effects of failed states are to be prevented. Furthermore, the humanitarian catastrophes linked to failing and failed states: ‘mass migration, environmental degradation, regional instability; energy insecurity and transnational terrorism’ are not the fault of a failed intervention, but a failed state. [1] The U.S.-led intervention in Somalia in 1992 is a case in point; though the intervention failed and, it could be argued, exacerbated conditions in Somalia, it did not lead to the state’s failure, it merely failed to prevent it. As such, the U.S. cannot be blamed for attempting to stand with Somalis and save their state; that they failed is unfortunate, but the subsequent continuing humanitarian catastrophe is not the fault of intervening forces. So long as there is hope that interventions can prevent failed states, the success rate is above 0%, they should be attempted for the alternative is little better for the civilians concerned.  [1] Patrick, S. (2006) Weak states and global threats: Fact or fiction? Retrieved June 24, 2011 from the Washington Quarterly (29:2, p.27-53) p.27

Failing states should not be provided a safety net  Being willing to step into every fragile state could create a moral hazard. Irresponsible governments will assume that they will be bailed out by the powerful states, like the US, and the UN, who will always intervene to prevent unnecessary and wide-spread suffering. [1] This in itself makes future failures much more likely, as there is no incentive for governments to tackle corruption, crime or the other issues that push states to the brink of failure. [2] There needs to maintain a culpable fear of failure, separate from the regime change and economic reconstructing often enforced by the UN and IMF on failing states.  [1] Kuperman, A. (2006) ‘Suicidal Rebellions and the Moral Hazard of Humanitarian Intervention’ in T. Crawford and A. Kuperman eds. Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention (London: Routledge).  [2] Rotberg, R. I. (2002, July/August). Failed States in a World of Terror. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Council on Foreign Relations:

Intervention in fragile states is simply a new form of imperialism  It is not for either the USA or the UN to impose a government upon individual countries. Doing so would deny the people of the failed state the right to chart their own future and be absent of the authorisation of the UN Charter, which states the organization is not allowed to intervene ‘in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state’. [1] Furthermore, if the USA, or any one country, regularly intervened it would create more hostility towards that country, with accusations that it is acting out of a self-interested desire to exploit peoples economically. The personnel of that country could rapidly become a target for attacks. Nor is it desirable to encourage the UN to increase the level of its intervention in the domestic affairs of member states. This might start with weak countries but could rapidly become a habit and encourage the organisation in its ambitions to become a world government.  [1] Ratner, S. R., &amp; Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy:

International development is a more effective method of preventing failed states.  The current US approach to international development, in which aid, loans or market access are conditional upon good governance, should be maintained and even extended more widely. Such conditions provide incentives for developing countries to put constructive policies in place and reward those who fight corruption. As past failures show all too clearly, there is no point throwing money at chaotic, lawless and corrupt regimes - it will never reach the people anyway. In any case, humanitarian relief is not conditional and the USA continues to respond with compassion to emergencies anywhere in the world. It should also be noted that special measures to support states identified as at risk of failure could in themselves be harmful. Discussion of intervention will scare off investors and help to bring about economic collapse - becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.

The cost of intervention is too high  The cost of intervention is too high. The United Nations has neither the money nor the support of the international community to undertake speculative missions. Already it fails to meet its targets for troops to provide peacekeeping in countries which request its help. The USA already contributes nearly a quarter of the UN's peacekeeping budget and cannot afford more at a time when it is already stretched by major commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is difficult to see where else the necessary funds could come from. The reconstruction of Afghanistan is expected to cost as much as $15 billion over the next ten years, ‘plus the cost of training a new army and police force’. [1] At a time of financial austerity, American citizens are entitled to ask whether their money is being spent prudently. The lives of intervening soldiers are not pawns, they should not be unnecessarily sent into death-traps like Somalia in 1990. [2]  [1] Rotberg, R. I. (2002, July/August). Failed States in a World of Terror. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Council on Foreign Relations:   [2] Dickinson, E. (2010, December 14). WikiFailed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy:

The questionable foreign policy of previous U.S. administrations should not pre-empt future interventions, either by the United States or other nations genuinely intended to protect civilians in failing states, when mandated by the United Nations. The United Nations has expertise and is widely respected, which will be required considering the international reputation of the USA is now sufficiently damaged that the hostility it generates can undermine the good work it wishes to do. In partnership the USA can provide resources to enable the UN to secure the future stability of many fragile countries, while the UN's involvement can show that these operations are altruistic and pose no imperialist threat. Over time, commitment through the UN to international peace and humanitarian concerns will allow the USA to change the way it is viewed worldwide - an important aspect of the War on Terror. Regarding violations of sovereignty, former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali dismisses objections: ‘the time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed; its theory was never matched by reality’. [1]  [1] Ratner, S. R., &amp; Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy:

Interventions can fail and eventually cause more harm than good  Interventions are not a panacea for failing states; they do not ensure the success of either the military offensive or subsequent reconstruction efforts on the ground during the occupation. If the intervention fails to overcome local forces, civilians are powerless to overcome a political hierarchy boosted by military victory and reliant on violence. Furthermore, even if the military offensive is successful, the underlying causes of the failure of the state are still present and may be exacerbated by the presence of an intervening force. As such, intervening forces must be aware that the decision is not simply whether intervention is necessary, but whether it will do more harm than good. Coyne describes this fallacy as the ‘Nirvana Fallacy’, whereby states assume that the ‘grass is always greener on the other side’. ‘It is assumed that the foreign governments can generate, via occupation and reconstruction, an outcome preferable to that which would occur absent of these interventions’. The reality challenges these assumptions, for Minxim Pei calculates just a 26% success rate for U.S.-led reconstruction efforts since the late nineteenth century. [1] If an intervening force can’t be certain, even remotely, of the benefit to the state concerned, it has little justification in deploying and risking the exacerbation of an already-precarious problem.  [1] Coyne, C. (2006). Reconstructing weak and failed states: Foreign intervention and the Nirvana Fallacy. Retrieved June 24, 2011 from Foreign Policy Analysis, 2006 (Vol. 2, p.343-360) p.344

Western aid ‘cannot reach its intended recipients because of violence, irreconcilable political divisions, or the absence of an economic infrastructure’. [1] There is a need to change the rules for access to US aid programmes (e.g. the Millennium Challenge Account) and trade preferences (e.g. the African Growth and Opportunity Act), and those of international organisations in which the USA is influential (e.g. the World Bank, G8 moves on debt relief). At present these programmes are structured to reward developing countries with particular government policies (e.g. protection of property rights, focus on education, sustainable budgets, anti-corruption measures, etc). Sensible though this seems, it denies international help to those states whose people need it most - those where government is weak or absent. Funding microcredit schemes, education, health and sanitation programmes in the more stable parts of failing states, and providing meaningful trade access could all provide long-term benefits to the USA.  [1] Ratner, S. R., &amp; Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy:

Punishment for the actions of irresponsible governments should not be handed down to civilians. The ‘safety net’ purports to protect civilians by preventing the failure of states; it does not guarantee the protection of those governments responsible for the near-failure. Furthermore, the fear of future failures is much more pronounced when states are left to fail, to export their anarchy to neighbouring states and their contraband to the world. As Rotberg therefore claims, ‘preventing states from failing, and resuscitating those that do fail, are…strategic and moral imperatives’. [1]  [1] Rotberg, R. I. (2002, July/August). Failed States in a World of Terror. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Council on Foreign Relations:

The idea that the US and NATO have a moral obligation falls flat when considering that this would put the US and NATO in a position of having a moral obligation to many other third world countries that are struggling and in conflict. Yet, such a broader obligation obviously does not exist, so why should it exist in Afghanistan? The US/NATO cannot solve Afghanistan's problems, and may actually be doing more harm than good. In so far as a state cannot have a moral obligation to do something impossible, the US and NATO should not have a moral obligation to fulfil the impossible task of stabilizing Afghanistan.

American and NATO moral responsibility to Afghanistan  The US overthrew the Taliban in the winter of 2001. It has a moral obligation to ensure that when it does leave Afghanistan it does so secure in the knowledge that the country will never again be a launching pad for the world’s deadliest terrorist groups, and that the country is on the way to a measure of stability and prosperity. [1]  Withdrawal before this has been achieved would amount to a terrible betrayal of the Afghan people, some of whose troubles are the result of Western intervention. Millions of refugees have returned and millions of children have the chance to go to school. But the West has failed to protect civilian lives, to bring the development it promised, to wean the economy off its poppy-addiction and to ensure fair elections—and failed even to agree about what it is trying to do in the country. Locally, NATO forces have done fine and heroic work. But too often the best initiatives are dropped when the best commanders end their tours. The Afghan conflict, it is often said, has been not an eight-year war, but eight one-year wars. NATO comes off worse each time. [2]  US and NATO forces should persist in Afghanistan because they can do much better in terms of helping Afghanistan, and because they have a moral obligation to do so. It should be remembered that, for the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people - especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence. [3] The US and NATO have a moral obligation to prevent this, and to not withdraw until the future of Afghanistan is secured.  [1] Bergen, Peter. "Winning the good war. Why Afghanistan is not Obama's Vietnam". Washington Monthly. July/August 2009.   [2] The Economist. "Obama's war. Why the Afghanistan war deserves more resources, commitment and political will.". 15 October 2009.   [3] Obama, Barack. "A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan". RealClearPolitics. 27 March 2009.

As the British learned in two wars with Afghanistan in the 1800s and the Soviets learned in their bloodbath of the 1980s, Afghanistan is no country at all. Rather, it's a diverse collection of primitive tribes occupying a harsh landscape pockmarked with tens of thousands of hiding places ideal for guerrilla warfare. The war there is a quagmire and makes Vietnam look like an easy place to conquer. [1] These tribes may consider themselves Afghani but this does not reflect any form of nationalism and does not show any more unity than that someone in Morocco and someone in Saudi Arabia may both consider themselves Arab.  Why should NATO countries continue to risk their troops in this death trap? Without the timetable for withdrawal, there is no end in sight to this war. In recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, (retired) Lieutenant General David Barno, a former commander in Afghanistan, said the counter-insurgency campaign that he and other experts are advocating could last until at least 2025. [2]  [1] Navarro, Peter. "Orange Grove: Get out of Afghanistan now". OC Register. 25 September 2009.   [2] Fenton, Anthony. "Afghanistan: A Surge Toward Disaster". Asia Times Online. 18 March 2009.

The war in Afghanistan is necessary for US and NATO security  The timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan means withdrawing by the end of 2012, regardless of the security situation, and handing over the conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaida (which will almost certainly still be going on) to a largely Afghan force which is ill-prepared to handle the war on its own. This means that proponents of the timetable withdrawal must support pulling NATO forces out of Afghanistan even if the war is going badly at the end of 2012 and it is clear that the withdrawal will benefit the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the battlefield. "Afghan forces simply do not currently have the capacity to do the protecting themselves at this point and, given the challenges of building up new institutions in Afghanistan after decades of war, will not necessarily have the ability until by the end of 2012.” US and NATO forces are needed to mentor and partner with Afghans as they build up an army and police force largely from scratch. Withdrawing before this task is completed adds up to a prescription for a drying up of intelligence and a Taliban victory. [1]  If the Taliban were thus to come to power in Afghanistan after the timetabled withdrawal, al-Qaeda would not be far behind. The USA's top nemesis would be able to salvage a victory in the very place from which it launched the 9/11 attacks eight years ago. Al-Qaeda would have its favourite bases and sanctuaries back, as well as a major propaganda win. [2]  This defeat for the West in Afghanistan would embolden its opponents not just in Pakistan, but all around the world, leaving it open to more attacks. [3]  The West has a security interest in preventing the region from slipping into a maelstrom of conflict. Pakistan, with 170m people and nuclear weapons, is vulnerable to the Taliban’s potent mixture of ethnic-Pushtun nationalism and extremist Islam, as its state power is tenuous. Anarchy in Afghanistan, or a Taliban restoration, would leave it prey to permanent cross-border instability. [4]  Therefore success in Afghanistan is key to the security in Pakistan. The US has even more reasons to care about the security of Pakistan when the India-Pakistan conflict is considered, especially as both sides of this have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan have come within a hair’s breadth from nuclear conflict twice over Kashmir. If Pakistan were to fall apart, it would potentially leave nuclear weapons and a large military in the hands of extremist Muslim groups, which could lead to a regional war with India. It is a compelling and vital American interest to prevent nuclear conflict in South Asia—which makes “fixing” Afghanistan in some way also a vital American interest, even if this means keeping the troops there past the timetabled withdrawal. [5]  The War on Terror cannot be won if the US and NATO pull out of Afghanistan and rely more simply on offshore military resources. During the 1990s, when the US tried to go after Osama bin Laden without access to nearby bases by using ships based in the Indian Ocean, the two- to four-hour flight times of drones and cruise missiles operating off such ships made prompt action to real-time intelligence impractical. [6]  Since 1979, the US has been involved in a long, complex conflict against Islamic extremism. It has fought this ideology in many ways in many places, and it is uncertain now how this conflict will evolve. However the US should understand that the conflict is unavoidable and that when extremism pushes, it is in the US and NATO'S long-term interests to push back — and that eventually, if they do so, extremism will wither. [7]  The timetabled withdrawal from Afghanistan could mean withdrawing before this struggle has been won, and handing a base for exporting terrorism to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Security comes before other state interests, largely because the rights of all citizens depend on their security first, and so the security dimension here is key. Therefore, in order to protect the security of the US and other NATO countries, the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan should be abandoned, and the troops should remain there until the job is done.  [1] Bruce Riedel, Bruce and O'Hanlon, Michael. "Why we can't go small in Afghanistan". USA Today. September 4, 2009   [2] ibid  [3] The Economist. "Obama's War". 15 October 2009.   [4] ibid  [5] Foust, Joshua. "The Case for Afghanistan: Strategic Considerations". Registan. 27 August 2009.   [6] Bruce Riedel, Bruce and O'Hanlon, Michael. "Why we can't go small in Afghanistan". USA Today. September 4, 2009   [7] Brooks, David. "The Afghan Imperative". New York Times. 24 September 2009.

Afghanistan is only of limited value to American and other NATO countries' security, especially in the context of other areas where the resources could be used. Amdrew Bacevich argued in 2009: "What is it about Afghanistan, possessing next to nothing that the United States requires, that justifies such lavish attention? In Washington, this question goes not only unanswered but unasked. Among Democrats and Republicans alike, with few exceptions, Afghanistan’s importance is simply assumed—much the way fifty years ago otherwise intelligent people simply assumed that the United States had a vital interest in ensuring the survival of South Vietnam. As then, so today, the assumption does not stand up to even casual scrutiny. [...] For those who, despite all this, still hanker to have a go at nation building, why start with Afghanistan? Why not first fix, say, Mexico? In terms of its importance to the United States, our southern neighbour—a major supplier of oil and drugs among other commodities deemed vital to the American way of life—outranks Afghanistan by several orders of magnitude." [1]  The sort of fear-mongering about Pakistan, nuclear war and a new 9/11 is the same sort of scare tactics which were used to justify and perpetuate the war in Vietnam. As Peter Navarro argued, "During my senior year in high school, in 1966-67, our local congressman came to speak to us soon-to-be-draftees about the necessity of the Vietnam War. His basic pitch was a frothy combination of Red menace, yellow peril, and domino theory. [...] the speech rang as hollow as a beer keg after a frat party. [...] Today, I get the same kind of hollowness in my gut every time I hear President Barack Obama and a gaggle of Democratic and Republican hawks offer eerily similar arguments for the Afghanistan war. Terrorism is the new Red menace. Yellow peril has morphed into radical Islam. Dominoes, perhaps surprisingly, are still dominoes. In fact, sober analysis of the two major arguments in support of the war leads me to the same conclusion as my gut – let's get the hell out." [2]  Moreover the terrorist threat from Afghanistan is low, Zaid Hamid, head of Brass Tacks, a think-tank based in Pakistan, argues: "Their presence and capacity is greatly exaggerated. It is not possible that the so-called exaggerated threat perception by the West about another 9/11 attack being waged from Pakistan’s FATA or Afghanistan takes place." [3]  [1] Bacevich, Andrew J. "The War We Can't Win". Commonweal. 14 August 2009.   [2] Navarro, Peter. "Orange Grove: Get out of Afghanistan now". OC Register. 25 September 2009.   [3] Leghari, Faryal. "Troop Surge in Afghanistan is a Military Fallacy". Khaleej Times. Spearhead Research. 20 February 2009.

Keeping NATO troops in Afghanistan is necessary for creating a successful Afghan state  Due to the impotence of the Afghan state and its fledgling armed forces, withdrawing by the timetabled date would most likely mean abandoning the project of building a successful Afghan state, a project which can be successful if NATO troops continue to play their vital role in it. It is a myth that Afghanistan is unconquerable or ungovernable. The level of violence in Afghanistan is actually far lower than most Americans believe. In 2008 more than 2,000 Afghan civilians died at the hands of the Taliban or coalition forces (almost 7 per ten thousand). This was too many, but it was also less than a quarter of the deaths in 2008 in Iraq, a country that is both more sparsely populated and often assumed to be easier to govern. Not only are Afghan civilians much safer under American occupation than Iraqis, they are also statistically less likely to be killed in the war than anyone living in the United States during the early 1990s, when the U.S. murder rate peaked at more than 24,000 killings a year (about 10 per ten thousand). [1]  An assertion that deserves a similarly hard look is the argument that nation building in Afghanistan is doomed because the country isn’t a nation-state, but rather a jury-rigged patchwork of competing tribal groupings. In fact, Afghanistan is a much older nation-state than, say, Italy or Germany, both of which were only unified in the late nineteenth century. Modern Afghanistan is considered to have emerged with the first Afghan empire under Ahmad Shah Durrani in 1747, and so has been a nation for decades longer than the United States. Accordingly, Afghans have a strong sense of nationhood, and building a state there is possible so long as NATO forces do not abandon the project before it is completed. [2]  A successful Afghan state is in the interests of all NATO countries, for security reasons, and so a compelling reason to abandon the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan is that building a successful Afghan state is entirely possible if NATO stays the course and only withdraws once the job is done.  [1] Bergen, Peter. "Winning the good war. Why Afghanistan is not Obama's Vietnam". Washington Monthly. July/August 2009.   [2] ibid

It seems deeply illogical to argue that withdrawing NATO forces, which would essentially allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda to win, could somehow lead to these parties being in a weaker position than if NATO forces remained in the country and continued military options against them. As the necessary consequence of withdrawal by the timetable is a Taliban and Al Qaeda victory, arguments that continuing NATO operations 'help' them should be ignored, as a NATO withdrawal would help them even more by removing the one player who could compete with them on the battlefield.

History suggests the war in Afghanistan cannot be won  History suggests the war in Afghanistan cannot be won: Mohammad Omar, leader of the Taliban, has issued a taunting statement reminding Western leaders that for more than a millennium, would-be conquerors have tried and failed to subdue the mountain fastness known as the 'graveyard of empires' (Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C., the British in the 1800s, the Soviets from 1979 to 1989): 'The invaders should study the history of Afghanistan. The more the enemy resorts to increasing forces, the more they will face an unequivocal defeat.' [1]  As galling as it is to accept tutelage from one of Osama bin Laden's key enablers, this does seem to be what history teaches. Pouring forces into Afghanistan has always proved counterproductive. The presence of large numbers of foreign troops is the one thing that reliably unites Afghans, if only for long enough to drive the foreigners out. Tom Andrews, National Director of Win Without War, argued in February of 2009: "The first principle for someone who finds himself in a hole is to stop digging, The US policy 'hole' in Afghanistan is not of the new Administration's making. But it is important for the President to consider if adding new US combat forces in Afghanistan, without a new and comprehensive plan, for US policy there, might be digging an even bigger hole." [2]  This argument similarly applies to keeping NATO forces in Afghanistan past the timetabled withdrawal date: it is just digging a deeper hole. Ann Jones added in 2009 to the argument that the war cannot be won by noting the lack of potential for Afghan forces to ever handle their own security or build a meaningful state: "I went out to the training fields near Kabul where Afghan army recruits are put through their paces, and it was quickly evident just what's getting lost in translation. Our trainers, soldiers from the Illinois National Guard, were masterful... The Afghans were puny by comparison: hundreds of little Davids to the overstuffed American Goliaths training them. Keep in mind: Afghan recruits come from a world of desperate poverty. They are almost uniformly malnourished and underweight. Many are no bigger than I am (1.6 meters and thin) - and some probably not much stronger. Like me, many sag under the weight of a standard-issue flack jacket. [...] American military planners and policymakers already proceed as if, with sufficient training, Afghans can be transformed into scale-model, wind-up American Marines. That is not going to happen. Not now. Not ever. No matter how many of our leaders concur that it must happen - and ever faster.” [3]  Both history and NATO's own experiences in Afghanistan lead to the same conclusion: Afghanistan cannot be conquered, and so the timetable for withdrawal should be kept to.  [1] Robinson, Eugene. "In Afghanistan, Downsize." Real Clear Politics. 22 September 22 2009.  wnsize_98403  [2] Heuvel, Katrina vanden, ‘Don’t Bleed Resources in Afghanistan’, The Nation, 17 February 2009,   [3] Jones, Ann. "US wins mind, Afghan hearts are lost". Asia Times. 22 September 2009.

The continued presence of American and NATO forces benefits the Taliban and Al Qaeda  The on-going NATO mission means continued combat confrontations and an ever-increasing risk to the civilian population of Afghanistan. These sorts of deaths, injuries and destruction of property have so far been demonstrably destructive to the U.S.-led international effort to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the violent insurgency being waged by the Taliban and other militant groups. [1]  According to a report released last January by the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan, the 2,118 civilians killed in 2008 was an increase of 40% over 2007. [2]  The continued presence of American troops into ethnic Pashtun areas in the Afghan south only galvanizes local people to back the Taliban in repelling the infidels. [3]  A 2009 study by the Carnegie Endowment concluded that "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban." [4]  What the timetable for withdrawal acknowledges is that there is no state-building military solution in Afghanistan. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad-Mahdi Akhondzadeh said in April of 2009, "The presence of foreign forces has not improved things in the country". [5]  The long-term security interests of the US and NATO would be better served by a military operation centred around targeted strikes against terrorist training camps from offshore or out-of-country special forces or drones, as this removes the aggravating presence of troops on the ground and would lead to fewer civilian casualties. [6]  Looking beyond to the wider world, the NATO mission in Afghanistan has inflamed global Muslim anger and terrorism since its inception, and will continue to do so until it ends. This makes it more difficult for Western and Middle Eastern countries to work together toward mutual objectives, such as peace between Israel and Palestine, a conflict which drives support for terrorism worldwide and helps Al Qaeda recruit. [7]  Al Qaeda has realized all this and aims to drain US resources in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden made the following statement in 2004: "All we have to do is send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the [U.S.] generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses ... so we are continuing this policy of bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." [8]  Keeping troops in Afghanistan past the withdrawal date would just play into Al Qaeda's plan to trap the US. Therefore the withdrawal date should be adhered to and NATO troops withdrawn from Afghanistan.  [1] Gharib, Ali. "Inevitable: Obama's Surge in Afghanistan Will Bring a Surge in Civilian Deaths". IPS News. 18 February 2009.   [2] Fenton, Anthony. "Afghanistan: A Surge Toward Disaster". Asia Times Online. 18 March 2009.   [3] Kristof, Nicholas. "The Afghanistan Abyss". The New York Times. 5 September 2009.   [4] Dorronsoro, Gilles. ‘Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 2009.   [5] Tehran Times. "Iran says Afghan troop surge will be unhelpful". Tehran Times. 4 April 2009.   [6] Los Angeles Times. "U.S. considers sending special ops to Afghanistan". Los Angeles Times.26 October 2008.   [7] Friends Committee on National Legislation. "FCNL to Obama: No More Troops to Afghanistan! Invest in Diplomacy &amp; Development". Friends Committee on National Legislation.23 February 2009.   [8] Ignatius, David. "Road Map for Afghanistan". RealClearPolitics. 19 March 2009.

Peter Bergen argues that "Objections to Obama’s ramp-up in Afghanistan begin with the observation that Afghanistan has long been the "graveyard of empires"—as went the disastrous British expedition there in 1842 and the Soviet invasion in 1979, so too the current American occupation is doomed to follow. In fact, any number of empire builders, from Alexander the Great to the Mogul emperor Babur in the sixteenth century to the British in the Second Afghan War three decades after their infamous defeat, have won military victories in Afghanistan. The graveyard of empires metaphor belongs in the graveyard of clichés." [1]  NATO can succeed in nation-building if it persists in empowering and protecting the Afghan state. It should be remembered that Afghanistan has been a successful, stable nation in the past, and could be so again. Afghanistan’s majestic mountains, verdant valleys, and jasmine-scented gardens may once again draw the tourists that once flocked there. [2]  [1] Bergen, Peter. "Winning the good war. Why Afghanistan is not Obama's Vietnam". Washington Monthly. July/August 2009.   [2] ibid

An ineffective message in this case might well have been worse than no message. Had the West attempted to intervene, either by setting up a no-fly zone or even sending in ground troops, and the killings not stopped, it would have sent a message that Western threats and Western power are a paper tiger.  Worse, if the genocide had reversed itself after Western intervention, the West would have found itself with both the moral and the political responsibility for the violence, and accusations of Western bias and even complicity would spread rapidly.

The West has demonstrated that hiding behind China is a viable strategy  Perhaps as damaging as the humanitarian consequences of the failure to intervene is the message it sent to other leaders considering solving their political and ethnic problems in a similar manner to Khartoum.  Rather than deterring them from following in Bashir’s footsteps, the West by doing nothing, gave the impression that Bashir survived not through his own efforts, but because China protected him.  Given the rapid expansion of Chinese influence around in Africa, this makes accepting Chinese investment instead of western investment vastly more attractive because in addition to the economic benefits, it is now perceived as buying Chinese political cover.  In turn, this increasing interest in seeking out Chinese political cover will lead to more states being willing to imitate Bashir in the future, safe the knowledge that they will not be bombed.

Past experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicates that terrorism tends to flourish when states are weak. An Invasion of Sudan, especially if it had led to a collapse of the Sudanese state, would have create a vacuum terrorists could kill, especially when the very invasion would provide the resentment and motivation for thousands of jihadi volunteers to fight the Western “crusaders”

The conflict has a racial identity  The conflict in Sudan took on racial overtones. The inhabitants of Darfur are largely black, the government forces of Arab descent. Much of their treatment, including kidnapping and slavery, is a legacy of centuries of racist mistreatment and conflict between “white” and “dark” Muslims. [1]  As a strong opponent of Racism, the West had a duty to act, given that the conflict was reinforcing negative views in the Arab world against those of darker skin. [2]  [1] Mutua, Makau, ‘Racism at root of Sudan’s Darfur crisis’, The Christian Science Monitor, 14 July 2004,   [2] Fatah, Tarek, ‘From Bangladesh to Darfur: Racism among Muslims’,  , 24 April 2009,

The Behaviour of the Sudanese government was tantamount to Genocide  The violence that occurred in the Darfur region of Western Sudan since 2003, approached genocide proportions with the death toll estimated between 300,000 and 500,000 out of a population of a little over a million and a half.  Not only was this a human tragedy. It was also a political crisis. The West invested enormous political capital in the idea that genocide, whether deliberate or through governmental negligence, is unacceptable, and George Bush even termed the events in Darfur a genocide in 2007 . [1]  By having called the events a genocide and then failed the West discredited itself, both as a moral force(showing it cared more about SE Europe than it did Africa) and indicated to dictators that they have no reason to fear a Western response in the future.  [1] ‘Bush blasts Darfur 'genocide'’, MailOnline, 29 May 2007,

The events in Darfur were first and foremost a Civil War, even if their consequences included a major humanitarian crisis.  Darfur rose in rebellion against the central government first, and even the local conflict was a civil war, the Abbala tribe from which the janjaweed are drawn has a long history of conflict with settled Darfur tribes, which drove them off their land centuries ago.  That the death toll in these conflicts was raised by the introduction of modern armaments is clear. What is not clear is how Western intervention would have solved either the underlying problems, or created a deterrent. The most likely outcome would have been genocide of the Abbala, as the West already demonstrated in Kosovo that it is unable to protect the “perpetrators” of genocide from its “victims” even with large military forces present.

The Sudanese government has long been integrated, and black Sudanese as well as Arabs serving in the cabinet and Army. The rebellion in Darfur is primarily political and was launched by former supporters of the government. There is no clear evidence it is based on race.

There was and continues to be a compelling case for a humanitarian response to the crises, but this does not suggest that military intervention would have solved the situation.  Military intervention and the collapse of the Sudanese state would have quite possibly led to far greater destabilization. Rather than only one group of refugees, it would likely have led to the Abbala fleeing over the border into Chad as well. Potentially this could have meant the development of a situation akin to that in the Democratic Republic of Congo, were the refugees refought the Civil War among themselves.

The Sudanese regime has a history of supporting terrorism and other unsavoury groups  The Sudanese government’s unsavoury behaviour goes beyond its actions in Darfur. Its campaign against the southern rebels was replete with atrocities, and it has a long history of supporting terrorism including hosting Osama Bin Ladin in the early 1990s. [1]  While Sudan has been more cooperative in recent years against Al-Quada, it continues to harbour Islamic extremist groups responsible for attacks in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  Combined with the conflict in Darfur there was a pressing case for regime change, and reason to think Sudan’s neighbours would be open and supportive of the idea as well.  [1] Bhattacharji, Preeti, ‘State Sponsors: Sudan’, Council on Foreign Relations, 2 April 2008,

The Chaos in Darfur is a threat to regional security  Sudan’s internal problems actively destabilized the entire region. More than a million refugees fled Darfur, many travelling to refuge e camps in Chad and Southern Sudan. This in turn has placed stresses on local resources. [1]  Furthermore, the tendency for resistance forces to base themselves in these refugee camps, threatened and continues to threaten to spread the war into these regions, either igniting the north-south Civil War in Sudan, or destabilizing Chad’s government.  [1] Polgreen, Lydia, ‘Attacks Pushing Darfur Refugees Into Chad’, The New York Times, 11 February 2008,

Even if the conflict was inter-tribal, it had been brought to a boil and allowed to turn genocidal by the Sudanese government. It may well be that the conflict would have continued of its own accord without Sudanese intervention, though the continued air support provided consistently by the Sudanese government to the Janjaweed argues against this. [1]  And all interventions are by nature one-sided – that reconstruction might be difficult is a reason to plan for it, but in and of itself it does not justify allowing thousands to die and for Western opposition to genocide to be left an empty letter.  [1] ‘Sudan: Government and Militias Conspire in Darfur Killings’, Human Rights Watch, 22 April 2004,

Even eliminating the Sudanese Air Force would have had a major impact, as one rebel group argued that the Air Force was responsible for 60% of the attacks launched by Sudanese forces in the region. [1]  Even if a non-Fly zone did not completely eliminate the Sudanese military forces, it would even the playing field and perhaps persuaded the government to sue for peace.  Furthermore, the difficulty of gaining over-flight rights was also an issue with the air war in Kosovo, eventually forcing the use of German bases and carrier launched planes due to Italian reluctance. Such issues can be overcome, and the Sudanese air force poses little threat with its aged inventory.  [1] Polgreen, Lydia, ‘Attacks Pushing Darfur Refugees Into Chad’, The New York Times, 11 February 2008,

Intervention might destabilize the peace deal in the South  The focus on the failure to act in Darfur ignores the real progress that has been achieved in ending decades long violence in Sudan. In 2011 Southern Sudan peacefully voted to secede and all indications are that the process will not be contested by Khartoum.  The United States under George Bush played a key role in the peace accords which ended that part of the Civil War, with Prospect Magazine noting that the President “deserves much of the credit” for the agreement . [1] While the government in Khartoum has accepted them, it seems likely that if the US were to have participated in a bombing campaign or invasion, that the Sudanese government would have responded by tearing up the accords.  This is especially true as they would have a pressing motive that does not exist in Darfur, namely the Oil reserves that will be leaving the country with the rest of the South. [2]  [1] De Waal, Akex, ‘Sudan’s chance’, Prospect, 28 August 2005,   [2] ‘South Sudan says agreement reached with Khartoum on oil fees’, Sudan Tribune, 13 December 2011,

The West should not atagonise the Muslim world  Any intervention by the West in Sudan, following so closely on Iraq and Afghanistan would have been looked upon as a further attack on the Muslim world and therefore act as a recruiting tool for terrorism.  While it is true that the intervention would have been couched in terms of helping oppressed Muslims, so too were the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  An attack, especially if it was air-only, and therefore left Bashir in power in Khartoum might also have strengthened the regime by providing it with religious legitimacy, and might well have as a result inspired volunteers to enlist in order to fight in a jihad to protect it.  The latter would be even more true in the event ground troops were used, in which case volunteers might flood in from around the world to fight the “Crusaders”.  Such an added dimension could not have helped but place the Christian Southern Sudanese in an awkward and very uncomfortable position.

The Conflict is an internal inter-tribal conflict – arming the Darfur tribes would be better  The conflict in Darfur has been largely inter-tribal, and even the Sudanese government, lacking the full resources needed to suppress the opposition itself, has resorted to playing on these differences.  Any Western effort to intervene would have been seen as intervening on one side by virtually all of the locals. The Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit would have seen the West as intervening to support them – the Abbala and the Janjaweed, as intervening to attack them.  In this context intervention would be seen as a pretext to reverse the sides in the war rather than to end it.  If our sole goal was to push for a settlement, it would have made far more sense to attempt to pay off the Janjaweed to turn on the government forces, and then to arm the Darfur tribes. It would have been cheaper, and prevented the Sudanese from playing the sides off against each other.

Airstrikes would likely be politically ineffective  Military intervention, unless launched against the Sudanese state itself, was very unlikely to have been effective.  While a no-fly zone would have limited the participation of the Sudanese air force in Darfur, the Sudanese air force was and is not vital to the continued genocide, as Sudanese ground forces and the Janjaweed would still be able to operate.  Any air operations would furthermore have required over flight rights from Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia and either Somalia or Eritrea. Libya until Gaddaffi’s overthrow was unlikely to work with the West, and the new government is moving closer to Khartoum . [1] Chad would have feared military retaliation, whereas Revolutionary Egypt is in no condition to make major decisions about anything. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea have human rights concerns of their own.  Avoiding overflights would limit NATO to using carrier based aircraft from the Red Sea that would have had to cross more than a 1000 KM of Sudan to reach the area. This would have made it very difficult to supply a force in Darfur and would have limited operational effectiveness even of the air force.  As for the deployment of ground troops, there are few overland supply routes to the Darfur region, and supplying a military force there would have been next to impossible with the opposition of a still existent Sudanese government.  [1] Newman, Alex, ‘Libya Rulers Vow ‘Integration’ with Sudan Terror Regime’, NewAmerican, 26 November 2011,

The United States at least had already stepped on various religiously sensitive toes due to its support of the Christian Southern Sudanese. These groups had support and lobbying in Washington from influential evangelical Christian groups,[1] and President Bush mentioned their religion in his speech celebrating the Peace settlement. [2]  If this failed to produce an upsurge in Islamist sentiment, it is hard to see how helping Muslims who are being slaughtered would have, especially if Western intervention was limited to providing air cover.  [1] Phares, Walid, ‘The Sudanese Battle for American Opinion’, The Middle East Quarterly, March 1998,   [2] Hamilton, Rebecca, ‘U.S. Played Key Role in Southern Sudan’s Long Journey to Independence’, the Atlantic, 9 July 2011,

It is unclear whether the Northern government has any desire to go back to war with the South even if an excuse existed. The Foreign Minister denied any such interest in December of 2011, [1] and the fact is that Sudan ended the war because it was costing far more to wage than could possible have been recovered. Furthermore, after 20 years government forces were losing, and it is hard to see how they would do better with a war on two fronts.  Secondly, even if it would destabilize the Peace Agreement, that means in effect that the international community is allowing the South Sudanese to be used as hostages for their “good behaviour” regarding Darfur. If so, that seems less like a triumph of Diplomacy and more like a bad deal. It would incentivise dictators like Mugabe to attempt to make similar deals, say offering to compensate white farmers in exchange for the West ignoring his treatment of black opponents.  [1] ‘Sudan’s FM rules out return to war with South Sudan’, Sudan Tribune, 14 December 2011,

Every country engages in spying against other countries and so are not surprised by the revelations. These countries leaders are obliged to sound like they are outraged but in practice they will already have known such actions occur – they might be interested to learn the details but little else. Hollande’s own Direction Générale de la Securité Extérieure (DGSC) has been described by Bernard Barbier, its former technical director, as "probably the biggest information centre in Europe after the English". It uses similar methods to the NSA with systematic collection of emails, sms messages, phone records, social media posts which is then all stored for years. [1] President Obama is right to point out “I guarantee you that in European capitals, there are people who are interested in, if not what I had for breakfast, at least what my talking points might be should I end up meeting with their leaders. That's how intelligence services operate.” [2]  [1] Follorou, Jaques, and Johannès, Franck, ‘Exclusive: French intelligence has its own version of PRISM’, Le Monde, 4 July 2013,   [2] Chu, Henry, ‘European leaders angered by U.S. spying reports’, Los Angeles Times, 1 July 2013,

Damages diplomatic relations with allies  Every country needs friends and historically the United States has managed to maintain a large number of close relationships with states around the world; it has alliances with various Asian states such as South Korea and Japan, with many Middle Eastern states, and with almost the whole of Europe. The NSA’s spying has damaged these relationships. French President Hollande said “We cannot accept this kind of behavior from partners and allies,” [1] while the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz complained “the United States of America treats its closest partners, including Germany for example, but also the European Union as a whole like hostile powers”. There have even been suggestions that this would jeopardise trade talks as warned by the Commissioner Viviane Reding that “if there is any doubt that our partners are bugging the offices of European negotiators, then the future trade talks could be in difficulty”. [2]  [1] Chu, Henry, ‘European leaders angered by U.S. spying reports’, Los Angeles Times, 1 July 2013,   [2] Hewitt, Gavin, ‘EU anger at US spy scandal softened by trade talks’, BBC News, 2 July 2013,

Most other states accept that there is a large degree of self interest in the United States opposing Russian and Chinese proposals for internet governance, finding out that there is some hypocrisy too is unlikely to sway their votes.

Indiscriminate spying damages trust  Trust is important in international relations. Whenever there is an international agreement each side has to trust that the other side will fulfil its side of the bargain; there is no court to step in and ensure that they do. Trust therefore needs to be built up. A large part of this is simply fulfilling promises that have been made in such treaties but trust can also be about being open with each other. When a country engages in an immense spying operation against another nation it is clearly damaging the trust between those nations. With the United States this is just one in a long line of issues that have undermined trust in the US government; the Iraq war, Guantanamo bay, drone strikes etc. and the continued violations of international law these represent have all undermined trust in the United States internationally. [1]  [1] Dunn, Matthew, ‘PRISM: An International Relations Disaster?’, Huffington Post, 10 July 2013,

It is not so much the spying that damages trust as the revelations that do so. As former CIA director Michael Hayden commented “Who on this planet [now] believes the Americans can keep a secret? This really erodes the kind of corporation that our intelligence service has with other intelligence agencies.” [1] Trust comes from working together and this is just as true in the intelligence sphere as elsewhere. Governments already knew the NSA spies on them, that so much information about the how and when has been revealed will be what is the shock.  [1] Coleman, Michael, ‘Besides Bruised Egos, Will NSA Spy Leaks Cause Lasting Pain?’, The Washington Diplomat, 30 July 2012,

There is no reason for foreign companies to be worried about NSA surveillance. The companies involved such as Google have denied involvement “we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.” [1] There should be no concern about companies’ data as the NSA is about protecting national security and is not interested in the commercial work of millions of businesses around the world.  [1] Page, Larry, and Drummond, David, ‘What the …?’, Google Official Blog, 7 June 2013,

Undermines US position on internet freedom  The United States, along with Europe, has been the key voice arguing for freedom on the internet and in particular that the internet should not be controlled nationally. Russia and China in particular have been advocating for much more control over the internet by states with Russia’s proposal advocating that “Member States shall have equal rights to manage the Internet” and “Member States shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy… on matters of Internet governance, and to regulate the national Internet segment”. [1] Essentially every state should have the right to censor and surveil their chunk of the internet. With the United States already doing this countries that have previously been wavering may be much more inclined to support these proposals over US objections. [2] The US would stand to lose out as it is currently the country with most control over internet governance.  [1] Russian Federation ‘Proposals for the work of the conference’, International Telecommunications Union, 17 November 2012,   [2] Dourado, Eli, ‘So much for America’s internet freedom agenda’, theguardian.com, 7 August 2013,

Damages US commercial interests  The United States is the preponderant power in internet commerce; most of the big internet companies, the big software companies, even many of the hardware companies are companies that are based in the United States. This both enables US use of these systems for spying as occurred with PRISM because it happens that most web traffic passes through the United States, and makes the United States vulnerable when the world’s consumers think these companies have been betraying their trust. If consumers don’t think US companies can guarantee their data and privacy it should be no surprise that they will consider transferring their business. [1] Cloud computing is particularly affected, among the revelations has been that Microsoft helps the NSA with access to its cloud storage service skydrive. [2] According to a survey by the Cloud Security Alliance 10% of non US responders had cancelled a project with US based providers since the leaks about NSA projects and 56% say they would be less likely to use a US based service. The Information Technology &amp; Innovation Foundation estimates this could cost the US cloud computing industry between $21.5 and $35bln in revenues over the next three years. [3] And this is just one part of the computing and software industries, other areas are likely to be less affected but may well still lose business.  [1] Naughton, John, ‘Edward Snowden’s not the story. The fate of the Internet is’, The Observer, 28 July 2013,   [2] Greenwald, Glenn et al., ‘How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages’, The Guardian, 12 July 2013,   [3] Taylor, Paul, ‘Cloud computing industry could lose up to $35bn on NSA disclosures’, FT.com, 5 August 2013,

While this is clearly a benefit of spying it is not so much of a benefit of the kind of indiscriminate spying such as the PRISM program. Tapping diplomats mobile phones and setting up fake internet cafes is clearly not indiscriminate, far from it this is targeted surveillance.

No one disputes that some surveillance is necessary, the question is how much. Is the use of bulk catch all surveillance useful? In the case cited it seems not – this was the monitoring of specific individuals who were already known to US intelligence services; Ayaman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s leader and Nasser al Wahishi the head of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. [1] Normal intelligence methods without the broad based surveillance would have caught the same messages. Monitoring the communications of known terrorist leaders was done long before the internet was on the scene.  [1] Associated Press, ‘AP sources: Al-Qaida chief’s intercepted m,essage to deputy in Yemen caused embassy closures’, The Washington Post, 5 August 2013,

Broad web surveillance prevents terrorist attacks  Over the last ten years, and right up to the present day, the most important national security interest of the United States has been preventing terrorism. A fight against terrorism requires a large amount of resources invested in tracking terrorist networks and in finding those who may turn to terrorism. Intelligence gathering cannot just focus on those we already know to be terrorists as people can easily become radicalised while not meeting any individuals already considered to be terrorists. This means that there needs to be a broad brush intelligence gathering operation that finds those who are on the path to terrorism. This is why operations like PRISM and xkeyscore are so important; they allow the United States to find people who are being radicalised by material online or those who are just working out how to launch an attack themselves. The NSA Director Keith Alexander has stated that the surveillance has helped prevent “potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11.”, with PRISM contributing to 90% of the information on these plots. As only 10 were domestic the surveillance is a benefit to other countries as well as the United States. [1]  [1] Nakashima, Ellen, ‘Officials: Surveillance programs foiled more than 50 terrorist plots’, The Washington Post, 18 June 2013,

Allows monitoring of foreign governments  Governments expect to be monitored by other governments and do so themselves as well. Monitoring other governments provides major advantages even when those governments are ostensibly friendly as no government is going to tell even its allies everything there need to be other ways to learn such information. Surveillance can provide advantages in negotiations; it can let you know how far the other side is willing to go. GCHQ for example engaged in intercepting communications by monitoring phones and even setting up fake internet cafes during the G20 meetings in London in 2008. [1]  [1] MacAskill, Ewen et al., ‘GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians’ communications at G20 summits’, The Guardian, 17 June 2013,

Surveillance is necessary to protect national security  The primary concern of the state is the protection of its people from foreign powers. This usually means physical protection but this physical protection relies upon knowing what others are doing; where the threats are coming from. That means surveillance. There needs to be monitoring of groups that potentially pose a threat to the state or to its citizens. In a world where terrorism is as much a threat as other states there is a clear need to be watching as many people as possible around the world. Threats such as that to western interests in Yemen at the start of August 2013 demonstrate the need to be watching out for threats as intelligence picked up high level threats to western interests so allowing the United States and others to take pre-emptive action by closing embassies and evacuating personnel. [1]  [1] Hicks, Josh, ‘Chambliss: Threats ‘very reminiscent of what we saw pre-9/11’, The Washington Post, 4 August 2013,

Clearly the intelligence efforts on such a scale must provide some return in terms of stopping terrorism or they would not be worth the cost. However it is open to question whether the impact has been nearly as big as had been cited by the intelligence agencies. We clearly don’t know if these terrorists would have been detected through other methods. Additionally in at least one case where the FBI and NSA have stated that electronic surveillance has played a key role it has turned out not to be the case. FBI deputy director Sean Joyce has claimed that an attack on the New York Stock exchange was foiled by electronic surveillance; “We went up on the electronic surveillance and identified his co-conspirators” yet the emails involved were perfectly ordinary – the only information gained from the broad brush surveillance was that the plotter was in contact with al Qaeda leaders in Yemen. Something which surely could have been caught the other way around – by looking at the al Qaeda leaders communications. [1] Other cases such as that of Basaaly Moalin who was convicted of sending $8,500 to support Somali terrorist group al Shabab that have been highlighted by the NSA have similarly not required such broad surveillance. [2]  [1] Ross, Brian et al., ‘NSA Claim of Thwarted NYSE Plot Contradicted by Court Documents’, ABC News, 19 June 2013,   [2] Nakashima, Ellen, ‘NSA cites case as success of phone data-collection program’, The Washington Post, 8 August 2013,

If Ceuta and Melilla were to be given to Morocco, then immigration would not halt. The higher standard of living in Spain would still attract immigrants who would face greater perils than restriction of movement and employment. Irregular migrants and refugees already attempt to travel from Morocco to Italy and Malta (the strait of Gibraltar is too well guarded)1 and numbers would only increase if the land route were dismantled. Hundreds of irregular migrants will hide on inadequate boats trying to reach Europe and thousands die every year in the attempt2. One boat which sunk off the Italian island of Lampedusa resulting in more than 300 deaths3. Despite these risks, high risk migration continues which that immigration numbers would continue even without a land border.  1) Peters,K. ‘Ceuta and Melilla: Europe’s High-Tech African Fortress’, 10 August 2011  2) Herman,M. ‘From Africa to Europe: A Surprisingly Dangerous Journey for Migrants’, 3 December 2013  3) BBC, ‘Italy to hold state funeral for shipwreck migrants’, 9 October 2013

Decrease immigration to Spain  The Spanish possession of Ceuta and Melilla has resulted in an influx of illegal immigrants. Due to their positioning and membership to the EU, the two cities are subject to numerous attempts by immigrants to gain access to Europe1. In Melilla this has resulted in a social experiment with dire implications. To discourage illegal immigration, non-Moroccans who illicitly gain access to the country will not be permitted to move on from the city. They are trapped in Melilla without legal rights and generally live in extremely poor conditions with no means of legal work2. If the Spanish relinquished control of the two cities then these then there would be no permeable land border for illegal immigrants to gain access to.  1) Ribas,X. ‘The Border Fences of Cueta and Melilla. A Landscape for the Future’  2) Davies,N. ‘Melilla: Europe’s dirty secret’, The Guardian, 17 April 2010

Spain claims that there is a difference between Gibraltar and its own territories. While Gibraltar is an overseas territory, otherwise known as a colony, Ceuta and Melilla are part of Spain and maintain the same semi-autonomous status which other regions in Spain have1. The United Nations maintains a similar view, recognising Gibraltar as an ‘overseas territory’ which is reviewed annually by the Committee on Decolonisation2.  1) Govan,F. ‘The battle over Ceuta, Spain’s African Gibraltar’ 10 August 2013  2) United Nations General Assembly, ‘2231 (XXI) Question of Gibraltar’, 20 December 1966

The dispute damages Morocco-Spain relations  The dispute over the two cities only serves to harm co-operation between Morocco and Spain. Bilateral disagreements have prevented the resolution of other issues and generally heightened diplomatic tensions between these geographically close countries. When the Prime Minister and King of Spain both visited Morocco to resolve the Perejal crisis and Western Sahara issues, relations periodically improved. However a subsequent visit by the PM and King to Ceuta and Melilla in 2006 and 2007 reversed the progress made due to Moroccan outrage1. If Spain ceded these cities to Morocco then relations would improve, which could lead to increased co-operation on other issues.  1) Arieff,A. ‘Morocco: Current Issues’ 30 June 2011

The disagreements between Morocco and Spain over Ceuta and Melilla have had minimal impact on diplomacy between the two countries, which generally remains positive. Co-operation on counter-terrorism, counternarcotics and illegal immigration all continue to progress in a productive manner1. Joint operations between the two countries’ military forces continue on the strait of Gibraltar and a joint police panel has been proposed2, implying relations are still constructive.  1) Arieff,A. ‘Morocco: Current Issues’ 30 June 2011  2) Benmehdi,H. ‘Morocco, Spain partner against terrorism’

Spain is being hypocritical  Spain refusing to cede Cueta and Melilla to Morocco is inconsistent with its policy towards Gibraltar. Whilst the Spanish refuse to cede their two cities to Morocco, they expect the British to return the circumstantially similar Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a British overseas territory which is located in southern Spain, taken from the Spanish by an Anglo-Dutch fleet in 1704. Spain asserts a claim to this territory as it was once part of its own lands, despite signing the Treaty of Utrecht and relinquishing the land ‘in perpetuity’1. The claim that a state should return exclaves which rightfully belong to the nation which originally owned them is therefore inconsistent with their policy towards Ceuta and Melilla2. If Spain expects to reclaim Gibraltar then they should also expect to relinquish control over Cueta and Melilla.  1) ‘Treaty of Utrecht’ April 1713  2) Tremlett,G. ‘A rocky relationship’ 14 January 2014

While they were not a recognised state in the same sense as Spain is, [1] Berbers have lived in Morocco for thousands of years; making Ceuta and Melilla part of their history as well. The presence of the Berbers in Morocco can be traced back 4,000 years, with today’s Berbers maintaining a similar language and customs1. Their association with this territory means that many Berbers see these cities as their land and feel they have a stronger claim to it than Spain.  1) Morris,C. ‘Who are the Morocco Berbers?’, Journey Beyond Travel, data accessed 21 January 2014  [1] This should not be surprising; our current notion of the state is a Western European invention.

The wishes of a population are often overlooked by governments when deciding upon territorial sovereignty. During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1 the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine were ceded to the German alliance. The majority of citizens were French, or preferred French to Prussian leadership1. This factor was disregarded however, as it usually is in the redrawing of boundaries. Morocco does not appear to have addressed this argument as they do not deem it relevant against their territorial interests.  Spain has also been hypocritical by its claim to respect the people’s decision on sovereignty, particularly while observing the situation in Catalonia. As of early 2014, the Spanish government has stated it will not allow any form of referendum concerning the independence of the Eastern Spanish state, despite the population’s wishes2.  1) Wikipedia, ‘Alsace-Lorraine’, date accessed 21 January 2014  2) Vilaweb, ‘The Spanish Government “will not allow” and “will not negotiate” on Catalonia’s self-determination vote’, 13 December 2013

The cities are a source of revenue for Spain  Ceuta and Melilla are economic assets to Spain; it is in Spain’s interest to maintain them. Spain was particularly damaged by the 2008 economic recession which left many of the richest countries in decline1. With no sign of rapid recovery in the near future, it is within Spain’s interests to hold on to two cities which have strong economies2. The ports of Cueta and Melilla are of particular importance as they provided a large portion of the cities’ income, catering to many luxurious boats. The low tax zones also encourage a lot of financial activity3. Spain’s economic position therefore dictates that they should not cede them.  1) Cala,A. ‘Why is Morocco Picking a Fight with Spain?’ 15 August 2010  2) Sotogrande, ‘Ceuta and Melilla’, data accessed 20 January 2014  Ibid

They have been Spanish possessions for centuries  The cities of Ceuta and Melilla have been an integral part of Spain’s territory and to cede them would be a compromise of territorial integrity. The two cities have been part of Spain for almost as long as the country has existed. The marriage of Isabelle I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon united two major regions of Spain in 1469. The conquest of Granada finally joined the South of the country with the North in 1492. The capture of Melilla was only five years later, and Ceuta was merged in to the country less than a century afterwards. These cities are an integral part of Spain and should therefore remain Spanish.  1) Snelling,N. ‘The history of Spain, Spain’s unification and elevation to world power’, Culture Spain, data accessed 21 January 2014

The citizens do not want to be ceded  Many of those living in Ceuta and Melilla do not want to join Morocco, to cede them would be unjust. Walzer, in his book Just and Unjust Wars, claims that the only people who should decide who has sovereignty over a territory are the population of said land1. If the people associate themselves with Spain, then it is only right that Spain continues to rule over them. This is the case with Ceuta and Mellia, where there is a nearly universal feeling of belonging to Spain2. Morocco and Spain should therefore respect the wishes of the population.  1) Walzer,M. ‘Just and Unjust wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations'  2) Govan,F. ‘The battle over Ceuta, Spain’s African Gibraltar’

The financial future of the two cities is uncertain. It has cost copious sums of money to protect the border against immigrants who travel from as far as India to reach EU territory. In 2011, €30 million was spent on fortifying the border fences of Ceuta and Melilla1. Not only was this a financial burden, but it served to worsen relations with Morocco who temporarily halted trade with the cities in 2010, leaving Melilla’s market stalls empty.  The development of the Moroccan ‘super-port’, known as the Tanger Med project also financially threatens the ports if Ceuta and Melilla2. Built on the straits of Gibraltar, it is designed to intercept shipping traffic which would usually go to Ceuta and Melilla.  1) Peters,K. ‘Ceuta and Melilla: Europe’s High-Tech African Fortress’, 10 August 2011  2) Arieff,A. ‘Morocco: Current Issues’, Congressional Research Service, 30 June 2011

The UN’s own failures in the past should be a warning, not a motivation, regarding involvement in a conflict where it has limited power to implement an outcome.  The UN’s goal needs to be the creation of a stable Palestinian state living in peace with Israel. This policy would in reality encourage the exact opposite. While it would do little to help the Palestinians, delegitimizing Israel’s creation would be a tool in the hands of figures in the Arab world and elsewhere whose interests in the region are not in peace with Israel but in its destruction. It seems likely Iran at the very minimum would seize on a claim that Israel’s license to exist has been withdrawn.  In turn, if Israel interpreted the UN’s move as a an attack on its legitimacy as a state, it would be likely to interpret the move as having anti-Semitic overtones, strengthening the hands of those in Israel who see the UN as a stalking horse for anti-Semitism, and thereby reducing the UN’s ability to play a future role in resolving the conflict.

Such a move is historically and morally justified  There is significant justification, both for recognition of a Palestinian state and for the UN recognition in particular to carry more weight than it otherwise might.  For one thing, Israel was created by a resolution of the UN General Assembly, and to the extent Israel denies the legitimacy of the UN’s actions and its right to engage in them, it is implicitly questioning the legitimately of its own creation and continued existence, leaving them both a product of “blood and iron.”  Secondly, the UN has a responsibility to help resolve a situation its own failures helped create. By passing a partition plan, and then doing nothing to prevent first its collapse into wholesale war, and then the Jordanian occupation of the Palestinian territories in the West Bank , the UN has a an obligation to the Palestinians. [1]  [1] Palestine Facts, ‘Jordan Renounced Claims to West Bank, 1988’,

In the long-run UN action may freeze the negotiations into a discussion of a two-state solution, but UN action is not required to reach this eventuality. Even Avigdor Lieberman on the Far Right accepts that there will be two states, and that has been the basic premise of the Peace Process since 1994.  On the issues which have actually prevented a two state solution from coming to fruition- disputes about borders, armaments, security, and settlements, the UN would accomplish nothing. Furthermore, it might well make both sides intransigent, the Israelis due to perceiving themselves as being backed into a corner internationally, the Palestinians due to the belief they no longer need to make concessions.

Independence Matters – there are real legal and diplomatic consequences to such a move  Going to the UN would transform the legal status of Palestine. While this would not immediate change the physical contours of the conflict – Israeli incursions, the occupation, the existence of settlements, it would transform the context in which they take place.  For one thing, there would no longer be ambiguity about the status of the West Bank and the settlements on it. [1] The UN would be making clear that in the eyes of international law they would be illegal.  This might not force an immediate withdrawal from the settlements, but it would incentivise the settlers themselves to crave the legal legitimacy of a settlement that could confirm them in possession of their property. After all, who would want to invest as much in land that might have to be abandoned? This in turn might make Israel more likely to make concessions elsewhere, because the Palestinian signatures on an agreement recognizing the legality of settlements would have real value in the future.  Furthermore, while no new physical force would be preventing the Israeli army from engaging in military operations in Gaza or the West Bank, the legal optics of marching in and out of a recognized state would present difficulties.  In addition, one of the great banes of Palestinian existence is that they are stateless. For all practical purposes Palestinians need Israeli permission to travel abroad. A recognized passport would allow them alternative means to travel and work in countries which do recognize Palestine even if those are a minority.  Finally it would put pressure on governments that voted for a Palestinian state to put their money where their mouth is and actually respond to the fact that a legal state is being occupied. Otherwise they might well face popular pressure at home.  [1] MacIntyre, Donald, ‘The Big Question: What are Israeli settlements, and why are they coming under pressure?’, The Independent, 29 May 2009,

The UN proclaiming Palestine an independent state would do no more to advance the cause of peace than the UN proclaiming a Palestinian and a Jewish State in 1948 did. The day after the declaration the Israeli Army would remain, the settlements would still be there, and the Israelis would be determined to prove exactly how little the UN’s actions means to them. As a result it’s likely that military incursions rather than declining would increase. Israel already has a bad reputation, and has long since given up any ambition to be loved by its neighbours in the short-run. On the contrary in some cases it has deliberately fostered a sense of fear, perhaps best illustrated by its non-denial policy regarding its officially non-existent nuclear program , [1] and the Mossad’s efforts to build up a reputation for invincibility as well as the motive for fear of Iranian nuclear weapons. [2]  Bowing to the world community would badly damage Israeli’s deterrence in this respect. The best way of maintaining that fear would be to launch a new series of incursions and settlement expansions in the face of UN protests to demonstrate Israel’s willingness to ignore the UN.  Israel furthermore is unlikely to be threatened by international support for Palestinians. If countries are hostile enough to cut off aid in event of UN recognition, they probably have minimal relations with Israel in the status quo. If anything, the main consequence legally is likely to be for Israel to expel UN agencies and observers which might very well worsen the human rights situation.  [1] Baliga, Sandeep, and Sjöström, Tomas, ‘Strategic Ambiguity and Arms Proliferation’, NorthWestern University,   [2] Roth, Ariel Ilan, ‘The Root of All Fears Why Is Israel So Afraid of Iranian Nukes?’, Foreign Affairs, 24 November 2009,

While issues like the “Right of Return” might benefit from an international approach, it’s hard to see why international recognition would make neighbouring states more likely to pay for or allow the settlement of, Palestinian refugees. Furthermore, a “sovereign” state may feel less inclined to compromise on its rights, especially if the International Community seems to have just conceded the legitimacy of those claims.

The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear  The recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN would have de facto effect of freezing out alternative plans for a settlement – i.e. a one state solution, or some sort of autonomy – and making clear that the end result, if not necessarily two states on boundaries approximating those of 1967, will none the less be two states in some form.  This is because the Palestinians, once they have gained recognition as a state, are unlikely to ever bargain it away. This in turn removes a number of the fantasies about “autonomy” floating around in Israel, as well as fears about Jews being swamped in a bi-national state.  The issues of dispute will therefore be reduced to those of settling boundaries, setting up trade and customs policies, and deciding on sovereignty over holy places. [1]  [1] Rosenberg, M.J., ‘Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations’, HuffPost World, 22 July 2011,

A UN move would internationalize the problem, and pave the way for broader for international solutions  One of the major problems with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict up to now is that it has been localized between the Israelis and Palestinians, with outside involvement limited to putting pressure on one side or the other at various times.  The result is that negotiations have become a zero-sum game where concessions from one side have to be extracted from the other. Allowing the Israelis to keep settlements means that the Palestinians must give up land. Allowing a “Right of return” to Palestinians is seen is something Israel alone must carry the burden of, when the vast majority live in other Arab states that perhaps should play a part in any sort of compensation scheme.  Consequently, negotiations have been far more brutal than they otherwise might have been. UN Recognition or at least a debate about it would move the forum of the discussion away from bilateral talks, and into the international sphere. The UN, by acknowledging responsibility for mishandling things on the Palestinian side in 1948, would in effect pave the way to help solve issues like the right of return and the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab states that cannot be resolved satisfactorily on a bilateral basis.

Israel’s concerns are not with sovereignty per se, but with the willingness of Palestinians to behave in a legally responsible manner becoming of an international state.  Adopting a policy of seeking legitimacy at the UN and then asserting their rights legally is probably the best Palestinian strategy in this respect, as it makes clear that they wish to move the conflict from one of either violent or nonviolent resistance to one of legal arguments under international law.  Rather than denying Palestine sovereignty Israel instead should be seeking to gain guarantees within treaties that Palestine will not allow any foreign bases on its soil. Russia does not want NATO bases in the former Soviet Union but this does not mean it denies these states sovereignty.

The problem of expectations exists on both sides. The Israelis also have an expectation that they can continue the status quo indefinitely, that the Palestinian “problem” is a containable security issue, especially after the success of the “wall”, and that the international community is all bark.  UN action, especially if the US were to allow it through an abstention rather than a positive vote would indicate that both international and American patience are not infinite and probably have as great an impact on Israel as the recognition would have on the Palestinians.

Israel remembers past failures of the international community when it came to Jews and doubts the UN’s Impartiality  Regardless of whether some degree of outside impetus might be of benefit, the UN is a particularly bad actor for pressuring Israel.  For one thing, the UN is not viewed as an impartial entity. Israeli government officials have repeatedly claimed it is biased against them, and the UN has not tried particularly hard to dispel these impressions with its recent conferences at on racism, most prominently at Durban in South Africa, dissolving into denunciations of Zionism and holocaust comparisons. [1]  Reinforcing this is the persistent feeling that the world did nothing for the Jews when they were facing annihilation, which feeds into the narrative that while the international community may talk endlessly about Palestinian rights, they would do little for Israelis if the balance of power ever shifted. When Israeli politicians can state that they know exactly what would happen (a second Holocaust) if Arabs were to ever defeat them they are likely to see this action on the part of the UN reinforcing all of their negative impressions.  This in turn may well produce a siege mentality in which they view themselves as on their own and become unwilling to make any concessions. This would be especially true if the United States were to seem to abandon them by at least abstaining on UN recognition.  [1] Braun, Elihai, ‘The UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, South Africa’, Jewish Virtual Library,

Even a successful move for statehood would place the United States in a challenging position, and alienate American opinion which the Palestinians are dependent on  Any UN Recognition of Palestinian statehood would require at the very least US abstention. Even if this were to be achieved, it would only come after the request had placed the United States in a very awkward position.  Vetoing Palestinian statehood at the UN would force the US to alienate world opinion, while abstaining or supporting the Palestinian demand would mean a clash with Israel with all the US domestic costs that entails for any American politician. [1] Barack Obama’s less than stringent support of Israel was seen as contributing to the defeat of his Democratic party in a 2011 special election in a heavily Democratic and heavily Jewish seat in NYC. It is likely a future US President would face worse.  Furthermore, allowing the UN to recognize Palestinian statehood explicitly brings the UN into the Peace Process, undermine the United States’ role as the preeminent outside actor. Even if the United States were to acquiesce in such, it’s hard to see it appreciating the consequences.  Therefore it can be assumed that the Palestinians, in exchange for cosmetic benefits, would likely alienate the United States, which at the end of the day is the only outside actor whose opinions Israel values, and therefore the only outside actor that can genuinely make the creation of a Palestinian state a reality.  [1] Staff, ‘Did the First President Bush Lose His Job to the Israel Lobby?’, The New York Observer, 17 July 2006,

An attempt to build up international support reinforces Israeli fears of a Palestinian state being used as a platform for attacks against them  Among Israel’s prime security concerns about a prospective Palestinian state is that it might become a base for Israel’s other enemies to attack it.  Israel is particularly vulnerable strategically from the West Bank, and the distance between East Jerusalem and Tel Aviv is barely 15 miles. [1]  The great fear therefore is that a legitimately independent Palestinian state might well allow the basing of Iranian weapons on its territory, or provides a base for Israeli Arab dissidents to launch an attack. While there would be little practical change in the ability of Israel to stop foreign forces being allowed into Palestine the Palestinians would be able to claim that they are within their sovereign rights to allow foreign basing rights just as many other countries around the world do.  Repeated efforts to bring in International support, and a focus on legal sovereignty to the exclusion of actual concrete steps to reassure Israel such as disarming Hamas, will only reinforce these concerns on the part of Israel.  [1] Gold, Dore, ‘Military-Strategic Aspects of West Bank Topography for Israel's Defense’, Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace, 2005,

Such a move will make Palestinian expectations much higher and their position more intransigent  One of the major obstacles to peace has consistently been the unrealistic expectations which have existed on the Palestinian side. From 1994 onwards, the Palestinians have confused the Peace Process with a process by which “wrongs will be righted” and their “rightful demands” met, rather than a compromise process of give and take. This has been fed by leaders like Yasser Arafat who have told Palestinians for so long that they will have a state with a capital in Jerusalem, with a right of return, etc. that it has become impossible for them to then go back to their constituents and sell concessions.  The fact is that no viable Peace Deal with satisfy everyone, and Israel has minimum demands of its own – some settlements will be maintained, millions of Palestinians will not be allowed to settle in Israel proper, and Israel will not allow an armed Palestinian state.  The problem with UN recognition is that while at best marginally improving the Palestinian negotiating position it will dramatically increase popular expectations, making it next to impossible for the Palestinian leadership to take advantage of any gains they achieve vis-à-vis Israel through recognition. In this sense you may well have a much greater gap between the Palestinian minimum and Israeli maximum than before recognition.

One reason why the United States would find a push for UN Recognition of a Palestinian state so awkward is because it has so many other concerns it has to value against the conflict.  Whereas relations with Israel are the dominant issue in Palestinian foreign policy, and a leading one in Israel’s, the US has to maintain its position and interests else ware in the world. This means that the United States has to balance domestic considerations with the need to appeal to world opinion.  It also means that the United States has an interest in a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even if the US were inclined to allow the Palestinians to suffer in punishment for bringing up the issue, the dynamics of UN Recognition would raise the price of the continuation of the conflict for the United States.  That is because it would be increase the interest of every other country in the world in the conflict, if for no other reason than rather than an internal affair, there would now be a principle of national sovereignty involved.

Israelis have a low opinion of some UN organs, and with a good degree of justification. But they are also remarkably pragmatic. They understand that while they need to protect their own interests, they also need friends, and Israeli voters will turn on their own leaders with a vengeance if they ever think they are jeopardizing the relationship with the United States.  This can be seen in the reaction to the decision of the Bush Administration to freeze loan guarantees to Israel in 1991 due to the repeated refusal of the government of Yitzhak Shamir to halt settlement construction. The result, despite outrage on the American Right and in sectors of Israeli opinion, was the crushing defeat of the Shamir in the 1992 elections by Yitzhak Rabin . [1]  If the US abstains on UN recognition of Palestine, which would be necessary for such recognition to pass, it will send a message to the Israeli public and likely severely impact the next election.  [1] Rosner, Shmuel, ‘When US doesn’t meddle in Israeli politics, it strengthens the right’, JewishJournal.com, 9 December 2011,

This is exactly why simply giving money to the poor is a bad idea; not everyone who is poor will have a bank account. Indeed those who are the poorest are by far the least likely to have one. In India only 21% of the poor have a bank account. [1]  [1] Glassman, Amanda, and Birdsall, Nancy, ‘Can India Defeat Poverty’, Foreign Policy, 8 January 2013

Government money can go directly to bank accounts  Direct cash transfers can obviously be done very simply through simply handing out cash but this is clearly open to corruption. Instead money should be sent directly to the poorest’s bank accounts. In India the proposal is that the payments will be linked to the new biometrics based ID system that assigns a unique number to everyone based upon physical traits [1] (although this is not yet fully implemented) this will reach the whole population including those who currently have no identity papers. [2] This will enable those who get these ID to set up a bank accounts to enable the cash to be transferred to them as it will in effect be giving them with new ID.  [1] Glassman, Amanda, and Birdsall, Nancy, ‘Can India Defeat Poverty’, Foreign Policy, 8 January 2013  [2] Majumder, Sanjoy, ‘World’s biggest biometric ID scheme forges ahead’, BBC News, 13 February 2012

Providing money may in the long term reduce corruption for the reasons outlined but in the short term it may mean more corruption. With India’s program there have been accusations that the government is only enrolling people in districts that support the ruling party. [1]  [1] Thakur, Pradeep, ‘Why divide india into UID, NPR states?’, The Times Of India, 6 January 2013

Giving money to the poor is the fairest way of eliminating poverty  One of the reasons why poverty does not get eliminated is that it is governments who provide the subsidies that are intended to do just that. Many countries spend their money for subsidies poorly, for example in Indonesia before fuel subsidies were combined with cash subsidies in 2005 the top income decile received more than five times the amount of fuel subsidy as the bottom decile making the policy highly regressive despite it being politically sold as a subsidy to the poor. [1] No matter the intention such subsidies are clearly not fair. When the government provides lots of different subsidies for different things; fuel, food, housing etc., and especially when some of them are universal, it is clear that it will never be possible to distribute the money fairly on the basis of need.  [1] ‘Winds of Change East Asia’s sustainable energy future’, The World Bank, May 2010, Pp93-5

Subsidies are much fairer than providing cash. Subsidies can be directly targeted to provide the things that the poor need rather than letting the poor buy what they want. The government should not be providing money that is then being spent on cigarettes, instead it should be spent on food, heating, or the children’s education. Yes some subsidies are poorly targeted but this simply shows that these subsidies are poorly implemented, not that they cannot be the solution to poverty.

When it comes to the use of cash transfers on a large scale this is so far just wishful thinking; it may work but we don’t yet really know. How can the proposal of all subsidies being changed to cash be compared to a small stipend for sending the children to school?

Providing money directly is efficient and eliminates corruption  Most methods of attempting to eliminate poverty through state intervention are bureaucratic and inefficient and therefore inevitably are not very helpful. The subsidies India has previously provided to the poor is a case in point. In reference to food subsidies that provide for a 50% subsidy for those below the poverty line a 2010 study by the Asian Development Bank found that in rural areas 73% of recipients were above the poverty line so should not have been receiving the subsidy. [1] Providing money directly into bank accounts on the other hand is efficient as it is transferred electronically and can be set up to transfer without any human intervention. For the same reason it is very difficult to embezzle because it is going straight to a bank account from central government funds without passing through anyone’s hands.  [1] Jha, Shikha, and Ramaswami, Bharat, ‘How Can Food Subsidies Work Better? Answers from India and the Philippines’, ADB Economics Working Paper Series, No.211, September 2010, p.13

Providing money directly works.  All the evidence is that providing money directly to those who need it works much better than providing a mishmash of subsidies and credits decided by government. Providing money directly has been working with limited programs around the world, most prominently with Brazil’s Bolsa Familia which has meant millions of children get primary education because of a small cash incentive. [1]  In India the state already spends a huge amount on inefficient poverty reduction programs. If all the money that is spent on these programs was transferred to providing for the direct cash payments equally among the 70million households below the poverty line then it would provide a monthly transfer of 2,140 Rs; more than the poverty line income for rural households. [2]  [1] Economist, ‘Give the poor money’, 29 July 2010  [2] Kapur, Devesh, et al., ‘More for the Poor and Less for and by the State: The Case for Direct Cash Transfers’, Economic and Political Weekly, 12 April 2008, p.3

There are of course some occasions where the individual may use their money unwisely, but if they do then this is their choice. Those who receive aid are as deserving of being free to choose how to use their money as any wage earner. This choice only comes from providing cash rather than subsidies. [1]  [1] Glaeser, Edward, ‘Cash Is Better Than Food Stamps in Helping Poor’, Bloomberg, 28 February 2012

Dependency is potentially a problem for any form of transfers with the intention of eliminating poverty while it is slightly different to be dependent on transfers of food the effect is the same. Direct transfers can however be made conditional upon the recipients doing what the government wants them to. In Brazil for example small cash transfers have been made conditional upon parents keeping their children in school. [1] There is little reason the conditions could not include earning some money from other sources if it is suspected that individuals are becoming dependent.  [1] Economist, ‘Give the poor money’, 29 July 2010

Money cannot be targeted to meet specific needs  Governments have accepted, in documents like the universal declaration of human rights, that one of their primary roles is to provide a basic standard of living for their citizens. When the state simply hands out some money this responsibility is not fulfilled. The state is simply leaving the poor to fend for themselves with a little extra money. Governments provide subsidies in kind or for specific products and services for a reason; those are the things that are necessities rather than luxuries. If money is transferred directly then the person who is getting the money can use the government’s money on anything. Some may use it on the things the government was providing before but others will spend the money badly on tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. Subsidies however can be targeted at the things that the poor really need. This means the state provides subsidies for food, free or cheap housing and healthcare, fuel for cooking and heating etc.

It is wrong to assume that the individual always knows best  With subsidies at least the government knows what their money is being spent on. This is not the case with cash; it just gets taken and can be spent on anything. As already mentioned the most obvious examples are where the individual uses the money they are given on drugs or other harmful products not what they need. Yet there are times where individuals may simply not have their own best interests at heart for various reasons, particularly because they know no better. This does not just happen in economic situations but also in public heath. For example development agencies know that cooking on open fires in homes leads to thousands of deaths every year and is costly in terms of fuel. So thousands of clean smokeless stoves have been given out yet they are not being used despite them being cheaper to run and potentially a life saver. [1]  [1] Duflo, Esther, et al., ‘Up in Smoke: The Influence of Household Behavior on the Long-Run Impact of Improved Cooking Stoves’, MIT Department of Economics Working Paper, No.12-10, 16 April 2012

Giving out money does not encourage people to take responsibility  The beauty of direct cash transfers is that it simply adds a new income stream but this is also its Achilles heel. Providing direct cash transfers will create dependency upon the transfers and reduce the incentive to be earning money from elsewhere. There are several reasons for this.  First because the transfers from the government will be reliable, unlike much of the income the poorest have, the transfers will become the recipients main form of income. This will mean that there is less incentive to be earning money from other sources, which would often mean hard work, so as a result both harming the individual as they do not earn as much and the economy as they will not be contributing to the economy.  Secondly people will take up less work in order to qualify for the transfers; there is no reason to work more if that is simply going to mean that money you would have got from the government is taken away.  The advantage of in-kind transfers is that they help avoid expectations of long term assistance or the state essentially providing everything. [1] Dependency has happened with food aid in Ethiopia where more than five million people have been receiving food aid since 1984; far from getting better the food security situation has if anything been declining during this time and there could be much better use made of Ethiopia’s own resources; only 6% of the country’s irrigable land is used for agriculture. [2]  [1] Holmes, Rebecca, and Jackson, Adam, ‘Cash transfers in Sierra Leone: Are they appropriate, affordable or feasible?’, Overseas Development Institute, Project Briefing No.8, January 2008, p.2  [2] Elliesen, Tillmann, ‘Imported Dependency, Food Aid Weakens Ethiopia’s Selfhelp Capacity’, Development and Cooperation, No.1, January/February 2002, pp.21-23

This is simply creating individual responsibility. A few will spend the money badly but most will realise that they need it for necessities. The whole point of the system is that it is flexible rather than limiting in the way other subsidy systems are. It should be considered that while some may misspend their money as suggested on drugs others may find ways of investing it so that they make more money and pull themselves out of poverty which then saves the government in the long term. Ultimately however it is the government that controls the flow of money; if someone is misspending it they can always halt the transfers.

It is true that the founding treaties are long and, in some places, rather difficult documents. It is also true that many EU citizens know little about the EU. It is too simplistic to say that the treaties are the reason for this as the majority of the population are not interested in reading the original documents and will be happy for bureaucrats or the media to highlight relevant parts. So a concise constitution is not the solution to these problems. Whilst the treaties themselves might be intimidating, many pamphlets, books and websites exist that do a fine job in summarising and explaining these documents – one such site is Europa.eu . [1] The EU also provides many European briefing units across Europe to educate citizens about the EU. The job of providing a simplified and accessible explanation of the EU is already done well without a constitution. If there is still widespread ignorance about the EU then this is unlikely to be solved by the introduction of yet another legal document which will also  [1] Europa.eu, ‘Basic information on the European Union’

The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated  The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated. The existing treaties regulate multiple levels from the constitutional to detailed market regulations. As a result of this individuals cannot easily read and understand the treaties as a US citizen for example. [1] It is difficult to keep track of each new Treaty that amends the pre-existing treaties. The adoption of a shorter, clearer document will make the EU much more ‘user friendly.’ The EU currently suffers from the fact that many of its citizens do not know what it is or what it does; EU citizens either do not know where to look for this information or are deterred and intimidated by the size of the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty. Having an easily digestible constitution will mean that the EU’s citizens can easily find out what the EU is and what it does.  [1] Gjørtler, Peter, ‘ Lisbon Treaty - the Reform Treaty of the European Union’, grayston &amp; company, November 2009

There is no consensus for a United States of Europe. Most citizens identify themselves more with their nation-states rather than with the EU. [1] Only 28% of Belgians and 5% of Britons consider themselves equally their national identity and European. [2] It is also by no means clear that eroding national identities is a desirable phenomenon. The EU is an organisation in which twenty five nation-states cooperate with each other. Where necessary, these states pool their sovereignty in order to tackle common problems. The EU is thus an instrument used by nation-states to pursue their own interests in a world that makes it increasingly difficult for states to do this in isolation. The EU is a useful instrument of nation-states rather than a challenger to these states for the patriotism and loyalty of their citizens.  [1] Manuel, Paul Christopher, and Royo, Sebastián, ‘Re-conceptualizing economic relations and political citizenship in the new Iberia of the new Europe’ Suffolk University, 4 May 2001,   [2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010,

A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must  A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must given the pressures created by the continuing enlargement process as well as the integration process. The existing EU architecture worked fine for a community of six states, and even for a group of twelve, but it is now desperately out-dated and unsuitable for a Union of 27 or more. For example, the national veto still applies in many areas, meaning one state can block progress even when the other 26 agree. Even when agreement is reached, it is often agonisingly slow and difficult to implement across the whole of the Union, often having to pass through every parliament. As a result EU decision-making has often been criticised as slow, complex and producing too many ‘lowest common denominator’ solutions, therefore Ireland can bring to a halt a vital treaty like Lisbon [1] and the role of the Presidency and ‘foreign minister’ is a compromise that does not result in more unified policy. [2] While still leaving the people feeling distant from the EU’s political processes, undermining legitimacy. [3] A Constitutional Treaty is the only comprehensive tool that exists right now in order to allow for this necessary overall reform.  [1] BBC News, ‘Ireland rejects EU reform treaty’, 13 June 2008,   [2] Bellotti, Sarah M., and Dale, Reginald, ‘U.S. Media Snubs New EU Leaders’, Center for Strategic &amp; International Studies,   [3] Renda, Andrea, ‘Policy-Making in the EU; Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Reform’, Centre for European Policy Studies, 2009, www.ceps.eu/files/book/1854.pdf

While comprehensive EU reform is in theory clearly desirable, in practice the EU has proven not to be ready for such a radical step. Historically, the EU has evolved by taking a series of little steps, as opposed to taking big jumps with big risks- “Europe has always moved forward one step at a time and it should continue to do so” - German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble. [1] The EU is now facing a number of different crises – from the economic crisis that engulfed the Eurozone, to the social crisis that has spread throughout most of the EU members in the form of increasing opposition to migrants and a worrisome rise in nationalist and extremist parties and policies. The recent massacre in Norway (although outside the EU) is an example of this increasing extremism. Such violence “points to a dangerous undercurrent of hostility against the left’s platform, which is committed to open borders and multiculturalism.” [2] Any move to have constitutional reform will simply add to these pressures.  [1] Kovacheva, Ralitsa, ‘Is the EU ready for a new Treaty?’ euinside, 7 September 2011   [2] RT, ‘Rise of right-wing extremism rattles Europe’, 25 July 2011,

Having a European Constitution would make very little difference to the role of the ECJ. It could still have an activist agenda in terms of interpreting the new constitution. The United States Constitution is one of the shortest in the world yet the United States Supreme Court has felt free to either stick very closely to the text or very liberally interpret it depending on the composition of the court. Accusing judges of “judicial activism” is often just cover for someone saying that they don’t like the decision. [1] The adoption of a binding constitution will therefore not increase democracy in the European Union. It will tie the hands of democratically elected governments in the member states and force them to an even greater extent to be subordinate to the judges in the ECJ.  [1] Wallace, Chris, ‘Ted Olson on Debate Over Judicial Activism and Same-Sex Marriage’, Fox News Sunday, 8 August 2010,

A EU constitution will foster a “European identity”  Since the Maastricht Treaty, the citizens of EU member states have possessed parallel citizenship of the EU. However, European citizens do not identify themselves with the EU in the way that citizens of the USA self-identify as American. An important part of the patriotism of Americans is ‘constitutional patriotism;’ pride in their constitution and civic institutions. The European Union aims to bring about ever closer union between the peoples of Europe. It should foster a shared sense of ‘European identity’ by adopting a constitution, in which every citizen of the EU can take pride.

The ECJ has often been accused of over-stepping the legitimate boundaries of  The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long treated the founding treaties as the constitutional documents of the European Union. Many commentators have noted the efforts of the ECJ to “constitutionalise” many principles – such as the direct effect and supremacy of Community law over the domestic laws of member states and the increasing protection of human rights – The ECJ is often overstepping its bounds when it comes to applying and interpreting the treaties. [1] The ECJ has often been accused of “judicial activism” in over-stepping the legitimate boundaries of courts in a democracy. By enshrining much of this creative jurisprudence in a democratically ratified constitution, the EU can assert and emphasise its status as a democratic entity, rather than an elite-driven process separate from the citizens of Europe.  [1] Roberts, Linda, ‘The CARICOM Single Market and Economy and the Caribbean Court of Justice’, Southampton Working Papers in European Law, 2007/1,

Any constitution need not be a step towards a European superstate or even a federal European state. It may simply be rationalising current treaties and making the EU more accessible with little in the way of real changes to the location of power. None the less such a change would not be all bad as Paavo Lipponen, Prime Minister of Finland argues “The EU ought to develop into a great power in order that it may function as a fully fledged actor in the world.” [1] The EU as a great power would be more effective in solving conflict and promoting development in other parts of the world, particularly in Africa, parts of Asia and even Latin America as well as providing economic benefits for its own members.  [1] Free Europe, ‘Building the EU SuperState: what leading EU politicians say about it’, 26 September 2005,

Constitutional ‘documents’ is exactly the problem. The EU is a very large (as of January 2007, 27 member states) international organisation with a considerable number of competencies and several important institutions. It is important to have one, clear document that precisely defines the different powers of, and relationships between the 27 member states, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Courts of Justice. But also the relationships between states that may have opted out of some parts of the EU; between those who are in Schengen and those who opted out, between those in the Eurozone and those outside. Complicated federal polities such as the United States, Germany and Switzerland have constitutions which define the limits of central power and the areas in which the states have autonomy; the EU should in this respect be no different.

Adopting a European Constitution and failing to abide by it would be a big and challenging failure  The European Union should be wary of adopting a European Constitution as many states may not be able to abide by its terms. The reason why Greece is in so much financial trouble is its unwillingness to abide by the European Growth and Stability Pact, however others, Germany and France had already broken the pact. [1] Such a failure to abide by the rules with a constitution, something which is meant to be at the heart of the state, would greatly damage European credibility and would practically rule out the possibility of more comprehensive change in the future. Accession countries have shown little interest in the Constitutional Treaty overall, given a series of other more immediate concerns. Therefore a constitution is unneeded in order for the EU to develop, enlarge or prosper. It can only lose if it created a constitution which turned out a disaster.  [1] Aznar, José María, ‘Europe must reset the clock on stability and growth’, FT.com, 16 May 2010,

A EU Constitution will lead to a superstate, which is undesirable at the moment  A European constitution is a first step on a slippery slope towards a United States of Europe. Such a European superstate is widely opposed by citizens of all EU members, not least because it would be undemocratic, unaccountable and remote. Many EU citizens already believe this is the case. In Britain polls regularly show that far from wanting deeper integration the country is in favour of leaving the EU. [1] As has already been shown members do not consider themselves ‘European’ nearly as much as they do their own national identity. [2]  [1] The Democracy Movement Surrey, ‘The EU - Superstate or Free Trade Partner? We Can Leave.’ 2007   [2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010,

There already are constitutional documents  We already have such constitutional documents – the Treaty of Rome, the Maastricht Treaty and most importantly the Lisbon treaty from very recently (2009). The powers of, and relationships between the different institutional actors are clearly defined in the existing treaties. Just because the EU has expanded to incorporate new member states does not mean it needs a constitution. The Treaty of Nice was meant to have made the necessary amendments to facilitate enlargement. If it has failed, then we can simply amend the existing treaties again.

A failure of not having a ratified EU constitution will actually represent a more significant blow to the EU’s image abroad and at home. Talk about the decline of the EU is not helping the European economy, or the way in which the EU is perceived. The failure to reform could potentially lead to an actual collapse of the EU as we know it, which would have disastrous effects for the region as well as the world. The failure of the Constitutional Treaty would also result in powerful disillusionment in the countries that have recently entered the EU or are applying to enter. This could significantly slow down further enlargements and put their domestic reform agendas at risk.

This was meant to prevent colonies being carved up into irregular pieces not to allow a new colonial master over a territory almost 1400 miles away from the main country as the Chagos Islands are from Mauritius. The reasoning for setting administrative borders at the beginning of the 18th century cannot have any rational bearing on who the islands belong to when those borders are not either clear physical or ethnic boundaries. The borders of Mauritius changed regularly; they originally included the Seychelles until 1903 when they were made a new colony. Two more islands were transferred in 1908 and 1921. [1] Which was the real colonial border?  [1] Sookhoo, Narainduth, ‘Mauritius independence: Myths and realities!’, Le Mauricien, 3 March 2013,

Uti Possidetis  The borders of states that gain independence are set by the administrative boundaries that the colony had prior to independence. This prevents any gaps in sovereignty, or any attempt by the coloniser to keep a chunk of the territory, and the conflict this would inevitably bring. General Assembly Resolution 1514 made this clear “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” [1] This also means that Mauritius should have control of the Chagos Islands which were, up until 1965, a part of Mauritius.  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’, un.org, resolution 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960,

The islanders do wish the right to self-determination but that does not have to mean they wish the return to Mauritius. Self-determination would mean a referendum in which the islands might chose to remain British, or possibly become independent. [1] It would not mean simply being handed to Mauritius with no regard to the people’s views.  [1] Morrison, Alex, ‘Chagos Islands’ future lies with UK’, theguardian.com, 25 January 2010,

Mauritius is far closer  The UK should not be controlling territory that is almost 5786 miles away from London. The Chagos Islands should be under the sovereignty of an Indian Ocean country like Mauritius that is much better placed to look after the interests of the islands. The age when countries had the right to control territory half a world away on the basis of might makes right are long gone. The Chagos islands, as with other remnants of colonialism, should be handed over to the nearest state with a good claim. In this case Mauritius.

If distance is anything to go by then the Chagos Islands should be a part of the Maldives which the islands are 600 miles closer to than they are to Mauritius. [1] Moreover the Maldives are on the same geographical feature as the Chagos islands; the Chagos-Maldives-Laccadive Ridge. [2] The irregularities of the borders of colonial administration should not determine who rules offshore islands.  [1] Both distances taken from google search.  [2] Whitmarsh, Robert B., ‘Some aspects of plate tectonics in the Arabian Sea’, deepseadrilling.org, p.527,  Incidentally this would potentially matter if the Chagos islands were uninhabited as the Maldives might have a claim due to territorial contiguity

With the exception of the far greater human rights abuse of the expulsion of the islanders there have been few actual abuses on the Chagos Islands. Mauritius however itself does not have a clean record. The U.S. State Department notes there have been arbitrary arrests, particularly of the opposition parties with the leader of the Militant Socialist Movement having been arrested and interrogated as a result of naming the government a “paedophile government” for not suspending a teacher accused of raping a student. “Other reported human rights problems included official corruption, violence and discrimination against women, abuse and sexual exploitation of children, discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation, discrimination against persons living with HIV/AIDS, restrictions on labor rights, antiunion discrimination, and child labor.” [1]  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Mauritius 2012 Human Rights Report’, State Department, 2012,

Self determination  The most important principle of the international system since the end of the Second World War has been self determination; the right of nations or peoples to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". [1] The UK has staunchly defended the right of self determination in other cases such as the Falkland Islands about which the Foreign Secretary, William Hague has stated “We have always been clear that we believe in the rights of the Falklands people to determine their own futures and to decide on the path they wish to take. It is only right that, in the twenty-first century, these rights are respected.” [2] The UK has also said it will accept the result of a referendum in Scotland. If areas that are far more important to the UK are allowed their self determination so should the Chagossians.  [1] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966,   [2] Foreign &amp; Commonwealth Office, ‘Falkland Islands vote to remain British Overseas Territory’, gov.uk, 12 March 2013,

A human rights black hole  The Chagos Islands have been excluded from almost every human rights treaty from the Geneva conventions (III/IV), the Convention against Torture, through to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Resulting in what Peter Sand calls “a kind of human rights black hole” which has enabled rendition flights to pass through the base. This is possible because the British government claims they have no permanent inhabitants. Sand suggests “the fiction of the “unpopulated archipelago”, staunchly defended by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [FCO], will inevitably come back to haunt its authors in the very near future”. [1] With the islands being ‘uninhabited’ they are not entitled to an Exclusive Economic Zone under the UN Law of the Sea. Britain’s claim to the islands as a whole is also made more tenuous.  [1] Harris, Peter, ‘Review Article: Not just a military base: Reframing Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands’, African Affairs, 110/440, pp.491-99, 2011,  p.496

The establishment of the MPA is clearly an attempt to strengthen UK control over the islands. A State Department cable leaked by wikileaks states “He [Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) Director Overseas Territories] asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents.” [1]  Moreover the UK, or rather the US occupation, is not good for the environment either. The US base at Diego Garcia has accommodated nuclear-powered submarines opening the potential for radiation leaks as has happened before in Japanese ports. Similarly a large amount of air and sea traffic creates the possibility of oil spills; there have been at least four major spills at Diego Garcia, the one in 1991 involved 160,000 gallons being lost. [2]  [1] Mills, Richard, ‘HMG floats proposal for marine reserve covering the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory)’, Wikileaks, 15 May 2009,   [2] Carey, Sean, ‘The UK’s role in Diego Garcia: green fingers or red faces?’, New Statesman, 7 September 2009,

There is no national interest in the Chagos Islands or Diego Garcia. If there were true national interests then Diego Garcia would be a British base not a US one, handing such security over to the US clearly shows that the UK does not have sufficient national interests at stake to maintain a base on the islands themselves. Moreover if it is in the national interests of the United States to have a base there is little reason to assume that the US could not negotiate similar terms from the government of Mauritius as that of the UK to secure those interests.

Chagos islanders don’t all want to belong to Mauritius  Many of the people of the Chagos Islands don’t want to belong to Mauritius. They want the right to return to their homeland, but also that the Chagos Islands should remain British. Allen Vincatassin, a leader of the Diego Garcians in the UK, argues “We were second-class citizens in Mauritius and if they govern the islands, we will be second-class citizens in our own land… We are British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, which we are proud to be. We believe we are part of this country. In a normal situation the people would come first but it seems the state of Mauritius comes before the rights of our people.” [1] The islands when resettled could survive very well as a part of the UK just as other territories such as the British Virgin Islands do with administration done locally but sovereignty remaining with the UK.  [1] Morrison, Alex, ‘Chagos Islands’ future lies with UK’, theguardian.com, 25 January 2010,

Marine protection  The UK government has turned the Chagos islands into a Marine Protected Area. This would cover 544,400km2 around the islands with a no take zone preventing any fishing in the zone. The MPA will protect 60-80,00km2 of reefs and eight endangered or critically endangered species. [1] As the biggest such protected area in the world this will be making a critical contribution to protecting global biodiversity. While the Chagos Island’s seas are almost pristine Mauritius has been overfished with the overfishing further damaging coral suffering from coral bleaching. [2] Mauritius has objected to the establishment of the MPA [3] clearly showing that they wish to engage in exploiting the resources of the islands rather than engaging in marine protection.  [1] Sheppard, Charles, ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: 2011 Biodiversity snapshot, 2011,  p.33, 35  [2] Harris, Ed, ‘Warm seas and overfishing his Mauritius lagoon’, Reuters, 7 June 2007,   [3] ‘The Republic of Mauritius v. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, Permanent Court of Arbitration, accessed 29/1/2014,

National interests  It is in British and US national interests that Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands stay under UK control with the UK continuing to allow a US base on the islands. Diego Garcia is clearly strategically located as a base in the middle of the Indian ocean a base that may be useful for action in any direction. The military base has a significant runway, satellite tracking facilities, and is one of only five control bases for the GPS. It has been used in every US military operation in the Middle East since 1973. [1] The island is therefore a necessary base for combatting terrorism and maintaining a US presence in the region. The UK has said that it will keep the islands until it is no longer needed for defence, with the Middle East as unstable as it ever has been now is not the time to be giving up the islands.  [1] Salter, Mark B., and Mutlu, Can E., ‘Securitisation and Diego Garcia’, Review of International Studies, 2012,  , p.6

If there is concern with the Chagossians becoming ‘second class citizens’ then this can be addressed in negotiations to return the islands to Mauritius. The British have not in the past been willing to take the views of the islanders into account, there seems to be little reason why they now should just because the UK might now stand to benefit. Regardless a poll of all Chagossians might equally lead to the islands being handed over to Mauritius.

The European Parliament may ‘speak for Europe’ but the Council speaks for the EU’s member states. Privileging the European Parliament at the expense of the Council erodes the intergovernmental nature of EU decision-making. It is important to protect the sovereign powers of the individual member states; this is achieved in the Council, which is comprised of representatives of each national government. This has been particularly the case in the United Kingdom where there have been rows over sovereignty in relatively obscure areas such as prisoners voting rights. [1]  The European Union can only work if national considerations are put above all others. The Council works because the best possible conclusions are reached precisely because compromise between the varying interests is required. Involving the European Parliament would shift the emphasis of the entire EU from being a forum for independent nations to being a decision making body for a large number of states, undermining the sovereignty of domestic parliaments.  [1] Bagehot, ‘Britain’s mounting fury over sovereignty’, The Economist, 10 February 2011,

Voice of Europe  The European Parliament is the only pan-European, directly elected institution in the EU. As such, only the European Parliament can authentically ‘speak’ for Europe on any issue. It should consequently be a more privileged institution in the EU decision-making process. As a step in this direction, the Parliament should have equal powers of co-decision with the Council on all legislative matters in the EU. [1]  This would turn the European Parliament from being a mere talking shop to a body which can affect real change by providing a balance to the Council of Ministers. By having a directly elected body making decisions on a par with the indirectly chosen body, better decisions will be made that will benefit all Europeans at once, turning the council from a body that focuses on implementing European policy instead of the council being a means for sovereign governments to negotiate based on partial considerations of what their electorates want.  This would prevent leaders from being able to come up with deals in their famous all night meetings that the public are opposed to. At the moment European governments can afford to make unpopular decisions in Europe confident that the issue will never be high enough up the electorate’s priorities, which is topped by issues such as unemployment, the economy, inflation, healthcare and crime, [2] so they will not be punished for the decision. The European Parliament which is elected on European issues would prevent be much more responsive to their electorate.  [1] Young European Federalists, ‘Political Platform of JEF-Europe’, XIX. European Congress in Copenhagen 21 October 2007,   [2] TNS Opinion &amp; Social, ‘Public opinion in the European Union’, Eurobarometer 75 Spring 2011, P.21,

The argument that we should increase the European Parliament’s powers in order to increase people’s interest in it is as flawed as it is well-rehearsed. This argument has been used to repeatedly expand the competencies of the Parliament. However, far from becoming more interested in the Parliament, fewer and fewer people at each election have bothered to vote, turnout was a much higher 61.99% in 1979 (although the average is partially reduced by newer members on average having lower turnouts). [1] This argument merely signals the failure of the Parliament as a democratic institution and unhappiness with the increasingly federal European project. Rather than rewarding the EU Parliament for failure, we should consider seriously its abolition.  There is already a democratic check on the Commission – the Council of Ministers made up of democratically elected national governments. It is the Council that sets the agenda for the Commission to implement. The fact that the Commission acts on the behest of democratically elected bodies makes the Parliament superfluous in its present form.  [1] ‘European Parliament election turnout 1979 – 2009’, UK Political Info,

Democratic Deficit  The European Parliament’s powers need to be expanded because there is a widespread perception that the EU suffers from a democratic deficit: national parliaments have lost much of their power vis a vis national governments through the committee based decision-making in the Council of Ministers. This loss of national parliamentary influence has not been matched by a proportional increase in the power and influence of the European Parliament. To reduce this deficit the European Parliament must be given parity with the Council so that it can provide checks and balances in the system.  This becomes particularly pertinent given other developments such as the creation of the Single Currency, which has imposed monetary policy upon varied economies without the necessary oversight from democratic bodies. In the worst case scenarios that have befallen member states such as Greece and Italy, unelected apolitical governments lead by technocrats Lucas Papademos in Athens and Mario Monti in Rome have been imposed by Brussels upon countries that have failed to toe the line, in this case over keeping their debts down. [1] This has shown the damage that the deficit between policies at a supra-nation level and the lack of truly popular mandate has had. If the European Parliament had a greater say and control over the European Central Bank – where Germany has been stopping the use of the ability to print Euros and be a lender of last resort to stem the crisis [2] - then difficulties in the euro zone would have been countered with constant reference to a directly elected body representing the interests of all Eurozone Nations rather than action benefiting the interests of only some creating damage to democracy in others.  [1] Editorial ‘Europe: the rise of the technocracy’, guardian.co.uk, 13 November 2011,   [2] ‘Schaeuble: Will Block ECB Becoming Lender of Last Resort’, Market News International, 22 November 2011,

The democratic deficit is a myth. National governments have a strong democratic mandate from national elections. Therefore, their decisions are already imbued with considerable democratic legitimacy. National governments also rely on national parliaments to enact their legislation at home. As a result it would be extremely foolish of a government to pursue a course of action in the Council which was opposed by national parliamentarians, or which would be unpopular enough to lead to a future electoral defeat at home. Democracy is protected sufficiently by the Council already; there is thus no need to increase the powers of the European Parliament.  The current crisis is also not a good example as the policies that led to the ultimate undermining of democratic mandates in Eurozone nations were supported by the voters in the respective countries. Had those countries voted for more realistic fiscal policies then there would be no need for the drastic measures required to prevent the Eurozone from collapsing. Outside of extraordinary circumstances, the status quo can and does work, with the Council of Ministers being made up of National Governments elected by the people.

Relevance  The levels of turnout in elections for the European Parliament are worryingly low, in 2009 the average EU turnout was 43% and the lowest was in Slovakia with a turnout of only 19.64%. [1] EU citizens clearly feel that the European Parliament is not important enough, does not have enough power over their lives, to justify them voting in European elections. Therefore, we must increase the powers of the European Parliament to increase its relevance to ordinary people. By making it more powerful we create an incentive for people to vote.  People view the EU as being dominated by the Commission, unelected bureaucrats who can change millions of people’s lives with little oversight from elected bodies. This corrodes people’s faith in the European Parliament to make change, thus affecting turnout. If the Parliament had the power to truly influence the commission then it would seem much more relevant, encouraging increased turnout.  [1] ‘European Parliament election turnout 1979 – 2009’, UK Political Info,

It is because the Parliament is not the primary body in the EU that it cannot be truly able to split along the traditional ‘left-right’ cleavage as is the case many of the member states domestic politics. A consensus had to be acquired for decision-making in the Parliament in order to be on par with the council, which for all its flaws sought to operate in a similar manner. Even though there has been consensus between the two largest groups, it has still been able to effectively scrutinize the Commission with the powers it currently has. Giving more powers to the European Parliament would ensure that this remains the case. Indeed, increasing the importance of the Parliament within the structures of the EU will give greater impetus for consensus between all political groupings, resulting in better decision making.

Instead of facilitating greater European federalism, granting the Parliament more powers may actually do much to prevent it. By having a body directly accountable to the people directing the Commission, instead of the indirect Council, there can be greater room for criticism of what the Commission does and advocacy of alternate policies for the Commission. As the Parliament is directly accountable to constituents, the Parliament has a clear stake in representing their interests, which may be preventing ‘federalism’ which is agreed upon by national governments that make up the Council of Ministers for the sake of expediency. Parliamentary control of the Commission gives people a direct say in how it is run, preventing accusations of ‘federalism’ in future.

What Parliament currently does  Proposition likes to maintain that the European Parliament does not do anything to hold the Commission to account. However, this is not true. The Parliament has the power to reject appointments to the Commission as well as force the entire Commission from their jobs in the event of maladministration (While extremely rare, it has happened in the past such as the rejection of Rocco Buttiglione) [1] . As well as having the power to reject resolutions proposed by the Council and Commission. [2]  The status quo places Parliament in a co-equal position in relation to the Commission and Council, respecting the importance of the role national governments have in dictating Europe-wide policy. If the Parliament is made superior to the Council, then the risk is run of giving it supremacy over the national governments. The status quo can be seen as appropriate as there is a fine balance between the Parliament and Council in dictating matters to the Commission. No change is required.  [1] Gow, David, ‘MEPs reject anti-gay commission candidate’, The Guardian, 12 October 2004,   [2] European Parliament, ‘Parliament’s powers and procedures’,

Ineffectiveness of Parliament  While the Parliament is able to hold the Commission to account in a somewhat limited manner, the institution as a whole is rendered ineffective by its structure. As the parliament is largely elected by Proportional Representation, compromise is required in order to pass resolutions. In most parliaments the two largest groupings would square off against each other and try to dictate policy with the help of smaller groups, thus allowing for varied opinions to come to the fore. Instead in the European Parliament, the Socialist and the Center-Right groupings have dominated proceedings since the first elected Parliament sat in 1979, with the success and failure of resolutions being contingent upon these two groups being able to find compromise, they even share the presidency. [1] This means that once the compromise has been reached, the resolution passes with a large majority and smaller groups such as the Greens and the Liberals are unable to voice opinion on the matter effectively.  This reduces the ability of the Parliament to function effectively as a scrutinizing body, preventing a full discussion of issues with a view to establish as close to a full consensus as possible with as many groups agreeing as possible. The development of a ‘Grand Coalition’ has hamstrung debate in what Proposition hopes to be the primary body in the European Union. If more powers are awarded to the Parliament in its current form, then policies affecting many millions of people will be decided on account a pre-arranged agreement between two major groupings that tend to share very similar aims with the Commission, not affecting real change in how the European project works.  [1] Taylor, Simon, ‘Deal on Parliament’s presidency holds firm’, EuropeanVoice.com 11 June 2009,

Creeping Federalism  Awarding more powers to the European Parliament would signify a shift in the Parliament – and by extension – the European Union’s relationship with its member states. If the Parliament is the body in primary control of the Commission the following harms would be created:  1) The democratically elected national governments that make up the Council of Ministers will be side-lined, creating the precedent of a central European body determining the actions of the Commission, thus effecting European citizens.  2) This creates a situation where sovereign nations end up being tied to one particular policy as dictated by the central Parliament, undermining the sovereignty of National Parliaments and making it difficult for a nation to go against said policy (See the controversy over the Common Fisheries Policy, for instance).  These dual phenomena caused as a result of the Parliament gaining more powers will further centralisation within the European Union, creating what critics would call a ‘federal superstate.’

Parliament may on paper be able to influence decisions made by the Commission, but a lot of what the Commission does is still heavily influenced by the Council, a body established for national governments to negotiate based on their own partial self-interest. Such negotiations can lead to major anomalies in the European Union such the Parliament having a seat in Strasbourg order to appease France. Moreover the parliament’s powers over the commission are limited, the opposition cites being able to reject the appointment of members of the commission but it can’t reject individuals only the college of commissioners as a whole. [1] By making the Parliament the primary body in the European Union, decisions can be made with the view of fully representing the needs of their constituents rather than having to constantly be careful of the partisan Council. This can result in better decision making on how the Commission and by extension, the European Union should move forward.  [1] European Parliament, ‘Oversight over the Commission and Council’,

The wall would also entail a large overall of current border checkpoint protocol. This disrupts the routine of the cartels and makes it harder to smuggle drugs across the border and it will take a while before the figure out the new system.

Cartels can maneuver past checkpoints  The current 650 miles of wall has done nothing to stop the flow of drugs. Cartels heavily study checkpoints and find their weaknesses and exploit them. Checkpoint officers can also be corrupted and/or ineffective. Most drugs also come through ports of entry, not the border according to the Institute for Policy Studies. Drugs is the biggest danger that comes from the free flow between the borders, yet a wall would not effectively stop the flow of drugs. If it does not stop the bringing of drugs into the US then the wall does not fulfill its purpose.

Preventing terrorism is not the primary goal of the wall, only an added benefit. The primary goals of the wall is to stop the flow of undocumented people and illegal drugs. Any prevention of terrorism is an added benefit to the utility of the wall, however small the added benefit may be.

A lot of undocumented workers are already in the US  According to data from Department of homeland security most of the people who are here illegally arrive here legally and then overstay their visa. Over 400,000 people whose Visas expired in 2015 were still living in the country in 2016. That's about the same as the number of people who cross the southern border every year (328,00 - 479,00). The wall would do nothing to the people that are already here.

There are still a large number of people that do cross the border every year that would be affected if a wall was constructed. Even if the wall does not stop illegal immigration all together, even stopping some of it does make it effective.

The state of the economy does nothing to change the effectiveness of the wall at keeping drugs and people from crossing the US-Mexico border.

Terrorists are not undocumented  80% of terrorists than have been apprehended since 2001 in the US are homegrown. Only one of 154 terrorists in the US since 1975 has been Mexican.

Economic downturn would cause a surge of immigration  People leave Mexico because of poor employment opportunities, the wall would likely hurt the economy of Mexico and create a surge of immigration. Building the wall has a negative effect on natural resources as well as businesses in the area. Also it would discourage investment in Mexico because it would look like a serving of the partnership between the US and Mexico. Any hit to the Mexican economy would likely increase illegal immigration, despite the wall’s construction.

This is a large time jump and can be attributed to other exogenous factors, not just the construction of the prototype wall.

US is currently enduring a construction labor shortage. So the jobs that would be created would not likely to be filled by American worker and not have a very large effect on the unemployment rate. All the people who want a job in that sector likely already have one due to the shortage. Also border security agents make up a huge portion of the Department of Homeland Security’s budget so this would cause a huge increase in spending.

At the very least it slows people down  Navigating past the wall will be a problem that people trying to cross the border or bring drugs through the border will have to face. It will create apprehension from attempting to do so. It will make it harder for these crossings to occur.

Prototypes have seen success  A prototype in San Diego has been built and has seen a success. The number of illegal crossings dropped from 560,000 in 1992 to 68000 in 2010 after the prototype had been constructed.

Would create US jobs  A building project that large would likely create close to 25000 US jobs. There would also be a large increase in border patrol agents. This would make the wall an effective way to decrease unemployment and create economic opportunity that the Trump administration promised.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, people attempting to cross the border is already on the decline, so this wall might already be a mute point.

If this conflict really is zero sum then a lease over the whole of Crimea is a big loss to Ukraine; it is after all losing a whole province in return for some financial assistance. Moreover we have little evidence that it really would mean Russia getting what it wants; Russia continues to deny that it even has military forces in Crimea, “these were local self-defence forces”, let alone spell out to the world exactly what its objectives are. President Putin says “This is a humanitarian mission” that “corresponds with our interests of protecting people who are historically tied to us”. If protection is all that is necessary then a lease should not be necessary. [1]  [1] Siddique, Haroon, ‘Putin: Yanukovych ousting was ‘unconstitutional overthrow’’, theguardian.com, 4 March 2014

Russia gets what it wants  There have been many suggested motives for Russia’s sending military forces into Crimea. Providing a lease on Crimea to Russia would provide a solution to most of Russia’s main objectives; the Russians in Crimea are protected, and the Russian hold on its Black Sea base is secure. More importantly the crisis started after the defeat of President Yanukovych and the resulting blow to Russian prestige in what Russia sees as a zero sum game (if one side wins the other automatically loses to the same extent). An invasion or Crimea regained Russian leverage but left Russia with little room to manoeuvre as any climb-down would leave Putin with nothing. [1] A lease gets out of this zero sum problem as both can gain. A lease would enable Russia to make an agreement with the Ukrainian government and recognise that government without having to lose face as any other solution which maintains Ukrainian territorial integrity would.  [1] Crowley, P.J., ‘Crimea: Putin’s mission accomplished’, BBC News, 3 March 2014,

A lease is not all a financial gain for Ukraine. Any tax revenues from Crimea would be lost as they would instead go to Russia. As would any revenues from natural resources either now in the future; Crimea with its strategic location was intended to be the hub for gas pipelines across the Black sea so Ukraine would be losing transit fees.

A peaceful solution  Agreeing a lease would provide a much needed peaceful solution to the Crimean crisis which would not only solve the immediate crisis but would also prevent future flare ups. Shortly after Russian forces moved into Crimea Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk of Ukraine said “This is not a threat: this is actually the declaration of war to my country”. [1] It has not so far been a shooting war, and no one wants it to escalate. Russia’s UN Ambassador has said “Russia does not want war… We don’t want any further exacerbation of the situation.” [2] But when there are constant tensions the best way to prevent a potentially unpredictable situation is to provide a solution to the situation. A lease should be considered.  [1] Zinets, Natalia, and De Carboonnel, Alissa, ‘Ukraine mobilises after Putin’s ‘declaration of war’’, Reuters, 2 March 2014,   [2] ‘Ukraine crisis: Russia tells UN it does not want war’, BBC News, 14 March 2014,

Everyone wants a peaceful solution but that does not mean that a lease is the best solution. Having some form of shared sovereignty – Ukraine owning the land and Russia having the right to use it and control it requires a great deal of trust. This is especially true if the Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet were to remain based on the peninsula. With potentially overlapping jurisdictions there is a lot of potential cause for trouble.

Leases reflect inequality between those involved in the lease; Panama was much less powerful than the USA so had little choice – it also needed the money. China was a defeated state; it had just been defeated by Japan and had lost two previous wars to the UK. The treaties were considered to be ‘unequal treaties’ and those countries that were subjected to them threw them off at the first opportunity.

Helps Ukraine financially  Ukraine is in a dire financial situation; it has gone to the IMF seeking $15billion to help stabilise the economy with a bailout. [1] The interim finance minister Yuri Kolobov suggests that even this amount will not be enough for the full year with Ukraine needing $34.4billion. [2] Finance was one of the reasons why Ukraine turned to Russia in November 2013; Russia was offering money when the EU was not. The lease agreed for the Black Sea Fleet involves the payment of $90million per year and the renegotiations in 2010 involved giving Ukraine cut price gas as well. [3] A lease for the whole of the peninsular with almost 2 million inhabitants and is close to the size of Belgium would cost a lot more, potentially enough to fill much of that financial hole.  [1] Talley, Ian, ‘IMF Making ‘Good Progress’ in Ukraine Bailout’, The Wall Street Journal, 13 March 2013,   [2] Schmeller, Johanna, ‘Crimea crisis further imperils Ukraine’s economy’, Deutsche Welle, 4 March 2013,   [3] Harding, Luke, ‘Ukraine extends lease for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, The Guardian, 21 April 2010,

Precedent  While of the core points of sovereignty is that is indivisible this has not stopped the existence of other similar deals happening in the past. Locally the Black Sea Fleet is a good example  There have however been more famous examples in the past; the Panama Canal Zone was leased to the United States from 1903 to 1977 for $250,000 per year (later increased). [1] There are other instances of territory being leased; the clearest example being Hong Kong’s new territories which were leased rent free for 99 years from 1898 after China was defeated by Japan [2] – at the time there was a general view that if one great power gained then all the others have to as well. That leasing territory is an established practice means that it should be easy to apply to this case.  [1] Lowenfeld, Andreas, ‘Panama Canal Treaty’, Institute for International Law and Justice,   [2] Welsh, Frank, A History of Hong Kong, 2010

Ukraine would clearly find it difficult to trust Russia however it has several reasons for doing so. The first is that Russia and Ukraine "for decades had warm and friendly relations" to which they can return if they sign an agreement. Second Ukraine has little choice; it does not have the military strength to oppose Russia. Finally the United States and other countries could be a part of the agreement providing formal guarantees which would provide much more guarantee of action to help Crimea in the event of a repeat situation in the future.

While legitimising a reward for Russia’s actions may hurt it is far better that the dispute be resolved than it be left to fester. Under the status quo there are concerns that war will break out because the situation is unstable and Russia “reserves the right to take people [Russian speakers elsewhere in Ukraine] under its protection”. [1] This is in large part a result of the Russians and Ukrainians not speaking to one and other as the Russians won’t recognise the Ukrainian government. Peace will only come when both sides give some ground no matter who is in the right. Under this deal there will be peace, not further aggression.  [1] MacAskill, Ewen, and Luhn, Alec, ‘Russia and west on collision course over Ukraine as talks fail in London’, theguardian.com, 14 March 2014,

Does not provide guarantees for the protection of other Russian minorities  Although it is the region in which Russia has acted its interest in Ukraine is not just about Crimea. Foreign Minister Lavrov has made clear “Russia recognises its responsibility for the lives of countrymen and fellow citizens in Ukraine and reserves the right to take people under its protection”. [1] A lease over Crimea will resolve nothing if it does not also resolve other issues between the two countries such as the protection of minorities and Russia’s economic interests.  [1] MacAskill &amp; Luhn, 2014,

The crisis affects more than just Crimea  There is a lot more at stake than just the Crimean peninsula. While suggestions that it may destroy the whole international system are hyperbole the territory becoming part of Russia would be the most major territorial change in Europe since the unification of Germany and breakup of the USSR both of which were peaceful and mutually agreed events. The G7 notes “the annexation of Crimea could have grave implications for the legal order that protects the unity and sovereignty of all states.” [1] A lease however would be a de facto change of territory, a hand over from Ukraine to Russia. Hong Kong was on a lease from China but during that time it was essentially considered as part of the UK.  [1] G7, 12/3/2014,

Why would Ukraine trust a lease when the previous one was violated?  It is hard to see why Ukraine would be willing to sign a lease with Russia when Russia has already proven it will not stick to the terms of its lease. 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. [1] Under that lease Russia was allowed to keep up to 25,000 troops based in Sevastopol so long as they remain on the base unless. [2] Russia has violated both of these; its troops have clearly moved off the base without Ukrainian permission and it is estimated to have 30,000 soldiers in Crimea. [3] When Russia has violated what would be a similar agreement once why should Ukraine believe it will not happen again next time Russia wishes to extend the lease either physically by incorporating more territory or in terms of duration.  [1] Felgenhauer, T., ‘Ukraine, Russia, and the Black Sea Fleet Accords’, dtic.mil, 1999,   [2] ‘Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?’, BBC News, 5 March 2014,   [3] Boyle, Jon, ‘Ukraine says Russian troops in Crimea have doubles to 30,000’, Reuters,

Rewards aggression  The US Secretary of state condemned Russia’s action in Crimea as "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text". [1] Yet it is exactly 19th century thinking that expects that a great power will get away with launching aggressive acts against a weaker neighbour. If the result were to be effectively a hand over of Crimea, and a legal recognition of that status even if it is in the form of a lease Russia would be getting away with this act of aggression and might be tempted to try it again elsewhere. Russia has already got away with one aggressive act when it launched an assault on Georgia in support of separatist regions. Under such circumstances it is better for everyone if Russia is isolated and there is no deal that rewards and legitimises Russia’s acts.  [1] Dunham, Will, ‘Kerry condemns Russia’s ‘incredible act of aggression’ in Ukraine’, Reuters, 2 March 2014,

The big advantage of a lease is that it maintains the territorial status quo while giving Russia what it wants. If the concern is about the legal order and sovereignty of states then a lease provides the answer because the actual sovereignty over the territory is not handed over, merely the control over the territory and functions of that territory are.

Any deal for a lease would clearly involve negotiation on other concerns that Russia and Ukraine have. Russia would clearly need to renew its guarantees of Ukraine’s territory perhaps with the acceptance that the lease would become null and void if Russia again takes aggressive acts. Ukraine for its part would need to guarantee the rights of minorities; this should not be a problem as both countries are signed up to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. [1]  [1] Council of Europe, ‘Geographical reach of the FCNM’, coe.int, 24 October 2008,

The case given is quite different. The parents directly acted to cause harm to their child, inflicting a series of violent beatings over a sustained period. Such a course of action is already illegal and they were rightly convicted and punished. In this instance, a course of action is being avoided with the best interest of the child uppermost in the minds of the parents.

Religious freedom does not allow for the right to harm others  Nobody is questioning the rights of adults to take actions in accordance with their faith, even when these may cause them some personal harm. Their beliefs may well lead them to conclusions that others might consider reckless but that is their concern. However, when those actions impact others in society, it is a matter for social concern and, frequently, the intervention of the law. If that harm is caused to those who cannot resist or who are incapable of responding, intervention is required. The law explicitly includes children in this category. We do not, for example, allow religious practices such as sacrifice or torture in pursuit of a religious end, however religiously convicted the parents might be. The case of Kristy Bamu, murdered by his parents, practitioners of voodoo, in the belief he was a witch, is just one such example [i] .  We expect the legal and medical professions to accord particular protection to children against the actions of others that could harm them including, in extremis, their parents. It is difficult to see what could be a more flagrant example of possible harm than allowing your child to die when an available remedy could save their life.  [i] Sue Reid. "Britain's voodoo killers: This week a minister warned of a wave of child abuse and killings linked to witchcraft. Alarmist? This investigation suggests otherwise." Daily Mail , 17 August 2012.

We fully accept that children are treated differently in the eyes of the law. However, the very fact that proposition allows for that exceptionalism must require them to acknowledge that the role of the parent is given a status different from any other in society. We acknowledge their right to make decisions in the stead of their child, fully accepting that those decisions have enormous implications. We accept that parents take life and death decisions for their children on a regular basis and we must trust them to do so. Society respects the rights of parents to keep their children safe in no end of perilous situations, and when their judgement is wrong, it is a matter for regret, not legislation.

The right to live to regret  The primary duty placed on doctors, by society and themselves, is the preservation of life. In pursuing this goal they use not only medicines and scalpels but, first and foremost, their judgement. In many countries practising medics swear an oath to this effect; although these vary greatly in detail, they are well encapsulated by the Declaration of Geneva [i] , the critical clause of which for the purpose of this debate is “The health of my patient will be my first consideration”.  Asking doctors to take other considerations into account is not only a breach of their professional integrity, it also poses grave risks for society. They are being asked, in this situation, to allow the opinions of a third party take precedence over the wellbeing of their patient. If this were a younger relative with their eye on an inheritance or a distant sibling seeking to settle an old score, the dangers would be all too apparent. In this instance, the motivation may be well-intentioned but it is no more reasonable. Allowing relatives to say “well, what I think you should do is X” in defiance of medical opinion is fraught with dangers. If a relative decided on behalf of a patient to reject chemotherapy in favour of prayer or expressed their preference for Shamanic rituals rather than medication, why not let them. After all their intent is just as compassionate and their reasoning as solid.  [i] There are several forms of the declaration some of them, including the modern one in most common usage, can be found here .

Proposition have made a lovely argument, except for one small detail, nobody is suggesting prayer or ritual as a replacement for medical attention. The issue here, as defined by proposition, is whether JW parents should be able to reject blood transfusions on behalf of their child. No more than that; no witchcraft wards or miracle cures. This is just a consideration of whether, given the time for discussion and consideration, the religious views of parents and, usually, their child should be able to say that perspectives other than a strictly medical one should be considered in addressing a complex human situation.

The status of the child  The protection of children is treated differently from how we address the needs of adults. The very fact that their parents’ consent for procedures is required acknowledges that fact. We further accept that when that consent is questionable - when the parents may not be acting in the best interests of the child - that right may be revoked.  In most instances of such revocation, if the parent is an addict or mentally incapable of a particular decision, such a decision can be determined well in advance. However, in this instance, the status of the parent has not previously been an issue. However, the same principles should surely apply. For example, if a parent has been denied access rights to their child by a court, they would have no standing in making any such decision. If their child is a ward of the court, the same would apply. Society has a general duty to at least keep children alive until they reach the age of majority and remove all possible obstacles to that happening. We do not allow parents to give their children the right to pursue other harmful activities or to take unnecessary risks with their safety; the principle of a presumption of protection would also apply here.

Society does intervene in the private sphere to prevent harm. Domestic abuse is simply the most obvious example but parents are also responsible in most societies for ensuring their children receive an education in accordance with the law. If a parent were to deny their children food when it was available, it would be neglect. If they were to deny them shelter and protection when available, it would be neglect or abuse. It is difficult to see how denying them healthcare, when available, would not fall into the same category.

We frequently set limits not on religious beliefs but on their practices. The two determinant used there are the possible harm to others and whether the person being harmed can be deemed ‘capable’ in a legal sense. There can be no doubt that the decision to refuse available medical treatment causes harm, that is beyond dispute. The issue then is whether the person harmed, the child, can be considered capable. Legally they cannot, they cannot enter into a contract, they cannot marry or vote, legally they are not allowed to make many decisions because they are not full members of society until they are adults. It is worth noting that if the child is not deemed competent to make a decision regarding their own healthcare, it is difficult to see how their determination of their own religious choices can be assumed as authoritative. So the child cannot make the decision and the parents actions would cause harm to the child.  In the light of this, the only remaining opinion is that of the doctor.

The burden of parental responsibility  Societies recognise the importance of parenting and the enormous responsibilities that go with it. In light of these, the parent is allowed broad discretion in determining how those responsibilities are best exercised. It seems likely that a parent in a situation such as this is likely to undertake a great deal more soul searching and thought than could be expected of an external party. This is a decision that is made in good conscience and, as things stand in most countries, within the law.  Medical experts and others may well have opinions, frequently strongly held, but they are just that – opinions. The very fact that this issue has come to court, been heard and judges have reached differing decisions demonstrates that this is not an argument against fact. The opinions of parents are often supported by expert and legal authority. The parents can be expected to consider these opinions among many but must be left free to act in what they believe is the best interest of the child.

The division between the personal and social spheres  The law is a cumbersome tool to use in matters that relate to family life; this can be seen in the reluctance to legislate too much in this area. In those areas that require massive social interaction and agreement, such as education, there is a need for legislation but even that frequently proves to be controversial and many parents take the opportunity to opt out. This is particularly true in the moral, ethical and religious education of children as it is recognised, both implicitly and explicitly that this is a matter for the family.  How then is this different? That there are repercussions to the decisions individuals make regarding their religious beliefs is beyond question but we still leave them free to make them – the pacifist may go to prison but cannot be compelled to fight.  The same principle applies here; decisions based on deep religious conviction are a matter for the individual or, in this case, their family. The views of the family are respected in the choice of whether to prolong the life of someone in a permanent vegetative state, regardless of medical opinion about the individual case. Many consider PVS to be “more dead than dead”. [i] Despite this religious views on the matter, which often compare ‘pulling the plug’ to assisting suicide, are given a level of respect that cannot be justified by the available medical evidence. Although inverted, approaching the issue of the relationship between faith and death from the opposite angle – keeping the dead ‘alive’ rather than allowing the living to die – the same level of respect for the beliefs involved would seem to apply.  [i] Tune, Lee, “Vegetative State Seen as More Dead than the Dead, UMD Study Finds”, University of Maryland, 22 August 2011,

Freedom of religious observance  Most cultures respect the right of adults to practice the religious observances of their choosing and to raise their children within that tradition. The prohibition of blood transfusion is a part of the observances of JWs and is worthy of the respect that might be expected of other religiously motivated decisions.  There are other religious observances that have medical implications, for example the rejection of certain vaccines, but society accepts that it is appropriate for parents to inculcate their children with the values in the practical outworking of their faith [i] .  The refusal to accept blood products may seem reckless to outsiders but there is no suggestion that parents take their decision lightly; it would be difficult to conceive of how they would do so. What then is the alternative? Allowing the state to sanction which religions are acceptable or which practices of those religions? Such an act would strike not only at the freedom of religious practice but at the very principle of freedom of conscience more generally. If the state can challenge these views because it does not like the consequences, then why not social or political opinions? This is the first step on a road to tyranny.  [i] Jennifer Steinhauer. New York Times. Public Health Risk Seen as Parents Reject Vaccines. 21 March 2008.

Parental responsibility is a duty, not a right. Society trusts parents to act in the interests of their child but does not do so unreservedly. Where those actions lead directly to a provable harm, we consider it either neglect or abuse of the child and the parental privileges are revoked. No matter how earnestly the parent may believe it is in the child’s best interest, they may not send them out to work in injurious conditions, they may not allow or encourage them to engage in sexual conduct, they may not allow them to use armaments or certain drugs before a certain age. Because these things cause harm to the child and that is a breach of the duty of care entrusted to the parent by wider society. The same is true of denying them medical treatment.

For intelligence to be effective, the government will need to collect personal information, like bank transactions, emails, phone records, and more, without the citizen in question knowing this. However, democracy works on the assumption that each citizen has a private sphere, separate from the public sphere, of private information, thoughts and opinions, and that the citizen decides who to let into that sphere. Put differently, the citizen has control over when to release private information, and when not. Investigating them without their knowledge means taking away that control, and that is a violation of the right to privacy. Police investigations, on the other hand, are legitimate and not invasive of democracy - the police are generally obliged to inform a citizen when he or she is subject to a criminal investigation, and can generally only investigate a citizen without their knowledge after seeking specific permission from the judiciary, not just by a minister signing off a whole batch of requests as it’s done with domestic intelligence.

Domestic intelligence operates just like the police do.  Domestic intelligence does require the collection of information, but this is not fundamentally different from a standard police investigation. The differences are minor when we have national security at stake. Furthermore, the rights, duties and powers of a domestic intelligence service are carefully restricted by law. For example, under Dutch law, the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) is only allowed to wiretap someone after permission granted by the Minister of Interior Affairs (the UK situation is very similar). [1] Generally speaking, for every surveillance action the domestic intelligence can take, it needs to weigh whether the action satisfies the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, meaning that the invasiveness of a surveillance method should be proportional to the risk the person poses, and that the method chosen should be the least invasive of all possible methods.  [1] van Voorhout, Jill E.B. Coster, ‘Intelligence as legal evidence’, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 2 Issue 2, December 2006,  , p.124

The AIVD example shows exactly that judicial and political control is not enough: the judicial control is control after the fact, so it didn’t prevent the AIVD from listening in to journalists conversations in the first place. Moreover, a regulatory committee judged that the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is supposed to be the a priori control, had given permission too easily, which is to be expected when a Minister faces a lot of requests like this, and has to decide in between the regular work of actually governing. [1] It is the lack of initial oversight which is anti-democratic, citizens expect their government and courts to prevent the intelligence agencies from infringing on privacy not simply demand an apology later when the intelligence agency is found out. How many more cases are there which are not caught?  [1] NIS News Bulletin, ‘Press Sector Sues State for Eavesdropping Telegraaf Journalists’ 9/07/2009

Intelligence is necessary for the safety of the public.  Domestic intelligence is very important to the national security and to the safety of the public. Domestic intelligence is imperative in preventing terrorist attacks on the country when terrorists are as likely to be natives as foreigners, for example the 7/7 bombers in Britain were all native. [1] In order for a domestic intelligence organization to be effective, its organizational discretion must be limited by establishing clear legislation that is not secret, on the focus, limits, and techniques of domestic intelligence.  When this is in place domestic intelligence is not harmful, nor infringement on democracy – it is in the people’s best interest. As Professor Dahl notes “Intelligence is about the thousands and thousands of routine, everyday observations and activities… in many cases these observations, this intelligence, is about routine activities undertaken by ordinary Americans and others who do not intend to cause harm.” This intrusion is necessary in order to catch the few who do intend to do harm. [2]  [1] BBC News, Special Report London Attacks ‘The bombers’,   [2] Dahl, Eric Domestic Intelligence Today: More Security but Less Liberty?

Even if it is protecting lives the scale of the intelligence gathering is undemocratic. By allowing interception, widespread tracking of public records, unfair legal treatment, we erase the trust between citizens and the government in return for very occasionally preventing a terrorist attack. As shown by 7/7 terrorists still get through despite intelligence even when the bombers have already been noticed. [1] When all your library patrons can be seized and all your browsing logs checked just on a claim that they are relevant to intelligence information, as initially happened under the patriot act, too much liberty is being given up in the name of very little extra security. [2]  [1] BBC News, Special Report London Attacks ‘The bombers’,   [2] Strossen, Nadine, ‘Safety and Freedom: Common Concerns for Conservatives, Libertarians, and Civil Libertarians’, Harvard Journal of Law &amp; Public Policy, Vol. 29, No. 1, Fall 2005,  p.78

The military or foreign intelligence or just as able to conduct counterintelligence, because the potential targets for foreign intelligence services are well known. But even if a domestic intelligence service is best placed for counter-intelligence, this is just an argument for limiting their functions to counter-intelligence, where they won’t harm citizen’s privacy as much. The arguments above deal with the other work a domestic intelligence does, and that work is illegitimate.

There is sufficient political and judicial control over intelligence service  Even if not every citizen can control exactly what the intelligence service does, there is sufficient political and judicial control. An example of this is a recent case involving the Dutch AIVD, which started wiretapping journalists after they had found a source within the AIVD to leak about the run-up to the Iraq War. The journalists were wiretapped but when the case came to court, the court judged that the AIVD was in error, should stop harassing the journalists, and must delete the files on the journalists immediately. Such cases show that the intelligence agencies, and those involved domestically in particular, have judicial and political oversight to make sure they remain within bounds. [1] Democracy is therefore not threatened as there is democratic oversight.  [1] Webber, Liz, Netherlands: De Telegraaf journalists win suit over secret service phone-taps, World Editors Forum, 27/07/2009

Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that is capable of performing counterintelligence  Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that is capable of performing counterintelligence. They have the capacity and the authority to detect foreign spies in the national jurisdiction, and experience with local surveillance and investigation. Part of the job of domestic intelligence is to maintain a network of informers and agents, and this can be used to find and track foreign intelligence services on a mission – these functions can’t be easily performed by the military or foreign intelligence so an independent domestic intelligence agency is necessary.

It is better to have some fear and suspicion in society than letting a terrorist attack which costs lives through. Without a domestic intelligence agency we probably would not even know about the 1600 potential terrorists. Now that many of these plots are known by the intelligence agency they can be prevented.

Some citizens don’t just have political differences with the current government, but are fundamentally opposed to the democratic state and are willing to use violence against state and society. Such is the case with Germany’s far-left party where the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) could continue to observe Bodo Ramelow, leader of the Left Party in the eastern state of Thuringia. [1] Or where domestic intellegence agencies are necessary to monitor home grown terrorist organisations like the IRA. To protect itself, society and most importantly, the lives of other citizens, it’s necessary for a government to sometimes want to keep a close eye on some of their own citizens. A democratically elected government has both the authority and the legitimacy to order such surveillance, and can be held accountable for the way in which it uses its powers.  [1] Der Spiegel, ‘Is Germany's Left Party a Threat to Democracy?’ 22/7/2010

Domestic intelligence agencies cannot be controlled  There are no effective ways of controlling the activities of a domestic intelligence agency. With an information request, an investigated citizen has no way of being sure what the intelligence service in question actually does with the information, once it has gathered it, and whether the service actually upheld the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as they should, because the methods used are not given out. Also, the intelligence service might promise to delete a file after a court honoured a request, but no one can ever be sure that the intelligence service didn’t make an extra, secret copy.

Intelligence agencies inflate threats.  Having domestic intelligence agencies creates suspicion and fear, and ultimately resentment. Domestic intelligence agencies are created in response to war and external threats, for example MI5 was created in the build up to world war one, and Australia’s intelligence service was created in response to the discovery of a soviet spy ring within the Australian government. [1] Having any such service involved in more than simply counter-intelligence against foreign services shows that the government does not trust its own people. The United States has until very recently not had a domestic intelligence exactly because it was considered that the FBI could do everything that was required without creating undue suspicion. Bureaucracies inflate threats so as to gain more resources, MI5 is a good example, it was given more resources than it needed to engage in counterintelligence against Germany so expanded its role to surveillance of elements such as pacifists and organised labour. [2] More recently the head of MI5 announced there were 1600 Britons plotting terror, which may simply be threat inflation, something which not only makes everyone fearful for no reason. [3] An agency which is equally focused on criminal investigation would have much less reason to inflate dangers in order to maintain or increase funding.  [1] Jackson, Brian a. ed., ‘Considering the Creation of a Domestic Intelligence Agency in the United States’, Rand, 2009,  p.15  [2] Wikipedia, ‘MI5’,   [3] Kayyem, Juliette, and Posner, Richard A., ‘Does the United States Need a Domestic Intelligence Agency?’ CFR, 17 November 2006,

The government does not have the right to spy on its citizens  The government should not want to spy on its own citizens – that is the mark of a totalitarian regime. If some citizens disagree with the current government or current form of government, it is their fundamental democratic right to do so, and the government has no right to judge their different political preferences as ‘dangerous’. Experience shows that elected governments are not always able to control their domestic intelligence services, which may develop their own views of what constitutes subversive behaviour. In the 1970s MI5 kept files upon Labour Party MPs, including ministers in the UK Government. Elsewhere, fragile democracies such as Pakistan and Turkey have seen military coups launched against elected governments with the involvement of the domestic intelligence services which were supposed to be guarding them. In Turkey despite a coup against army leaders in 2008 the domestic intelligence agencies remain very strong and are supported by the national police. [1] Whenever there is a domestic intelligence service it is potentially very powerful due to the information it controls which could be used in support of other groups like the military to undermine or overthrow the government. It is better to keep intelligence focused outward.  [1] Cagaptay, Soner, What's Really Behind Turkey's Coup Arrests? Foreign policy, 25/02/2010

It is quite possible to put checks on the power of a domestic intelligence agency in order to prevent abuse of authority. An important way, in which individual citizens can actually control the intelligence service, is through lodging an information request at the domestic intelligence service. In a democracy, the service is obliged to share if it has a dossier on that citizen, and if it’s unfounded, can request the deletion of it. Of course, the dossier will not include specific intelligence gathering methods used nor mention sources, but overall, it will provide a good picture of what the intelligence service has been investigating so far.

Atrocities have continued on both sides of the conflict throughout this war. Military threats of intervention have not caused any reduction in hostilities – they just ramped up tension. There is a very real prospect that an ICC intervention could just fan the flames of the existing warfare; UN weapons inspectors being in the country did not deter the use of chemical weapons, they were used only a few miles from where the inspectors were staying.  Also, the ICC has not been a useful deterrent in other situations, such as Darfur, which while referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council is still an ongoing conflict. [1] One of the few academic studies done on the issue suggests ICC involvement simply damages the prospects of peace by ensuring that an actor who may have been willing at some point to negotiate has to fight on. [2] Combatants are already fearing death – would the prospect of spending 30 years in a European prison cell really add too much of a deterrent?  [1] Kristof, Nicholas D., ‘Darfur in 2013 Sounds Awfully Familiar’, The New York Times, 20 July 2013,   [2] Ku, Julian, and Nzelibe, Jide, ‘Do International Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacerbate Humanitarian Atrocities?;, Washington University Law Review, Vol.84, No.4, 2006, pp.777-833,  pp.181, 832

The threat of investigation could deter future war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons  The ICC has a high level of soft power in this case. It has the resources to investigate and prosecute, backed up by widespread support from large swathes of the international community. The ICC is part of a growing international norm against war and crimes against humanity. The willingness to prosecute for these crimes – particularly if it is done consistently – will build norms where even ruthless leaders realise they can’t get away with such crimes. Pursuing war crimes from the Syrian conflict alone will not be enough but when combined with similar measures elsewhere and the arrests of other leaders such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic and Laurent Gbagbo show that even leaders are no longer out of reach of international law. [1]  The ICC could act as an effective deterrent to the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes by threatening to prosecute individuals who commit them.  [1] Grono, Nick, ‘The deterrent effect of ICC on the commission of international crimes by government leaders’, International Crisis Group, 5 October 2012,

Even if the ICC brings proceedings, that does not guarantee that individuals, even if captured by forces that oppose them, will be transferred over to the ICC – the new Libyan government is still holding Saif Gaddafi. [1]  The ICC can also only act when the state is unwilling or unable to provide a trial – this this is the principle of complementarity. However there is not ICC force that can act to arrest a suspect. This means in effect that it will be down to the forces on the ground which may mean summary justice by those who capture the suspect if they think it won’t get a sufficiently stiff sentence at the ICC – there is no death penalty.  At any rate, many in Syria would want to see a fully military conclusion to the conflict, rather than any result through the international courts or a political settlement.  [1] Aliriza, Fadil, ‘Is Libya too scared to put Said Gaddafi on trial?’, The Independent, 16 August 2013,

The ICC is there to prosecute war crimes – there has been evidence of a war crime  The purpose of the ICC is to be the venue for the implementation of international criminal law, a principle that the international community has supported since the creation of the ICTY and ICTR and prior to that. [1] The crimes that the court is to prosecute include genocide – which is probably not occurring but has been alleged, [2] crimes against humanity and War Crimes [3] – which have certainly happened the chemical attacks being just one among many examples.  The allegations against the Assad regime are serious – including the use of chemical weapons, which are specifically mentioned as a war crime under article 8/1/b/xviii the Rome Statute. It would set a terrible precedent for such crimes to not be punished under international criminal law.  [1] ‘About the Court’, International Criminal Court,   [2] Chulov, Martin, and Mahmood, Mona, ‘Syrian Sunnis fear Assad regime wants to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Alawite heartland’, The Guardian, 22 July 2013,   [3] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, International Criminal Court, 1998,

In any conflict, the apportionment of blame for individual crimes committed against civilians to a standard of proof that would be acceptable in a court is extremely difficult, even such a high profile crime as attacks using chemical weapons have been disputed. [1] That is why the ICC typically gets involved after conflicts, rather than during them because it provides the time for thorough investigations, availability of witnesses, and means the investigators will not be at risk.  Whenever the indictment is issued, the conflict would be likely to have finished before the ICC would be able to actually have the defendants in the dock. This therefore would be no help in ending the conflict.  [1] Radia, Krit, ‘Putin Rejects Syria Chemical Weapons Accusations as ‘Utter Nonsense’’, ABC News,

Just because a reference to the ICC is possible does not mean it would be effective. It would still require individuals to be captured, and enough evidence to be ascertained in order for a conviction.  Also, Russia has a track record of opposing the reference of the Syria case to the ICC, or any other involvement in the Syria issue. Negotiating with Russia could amount to a fruitless exercise  Also, such a reference could cause problems if a Western military intervention were to take place later, possibly exposing foreign peacekeepers to liability if any incident were to occur.

The ICC would prevent show trials  The use of the ICC could work better than domestic show trials in the aftermath of a civil war. Instead of domestic courts, prone to all their biases, an international, unbiased, criminal system could replace the prospect of a Ceausescu-style non-trial followed by summary execution, or some other form of unfair trial which could sow the seeds for problems down the line. Even the trial of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein done while the United States had a lot of influence over the country as a result of its occupation was condemned as having “serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects”. [1]  Instead, an ICC trial would allow the full details to be probed, investigated and independently prosecuted without being subject to domestic post-war recriminations.  [1] ‘Judging Dujail The First Trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal’, Human Rights Watch, 20 November 2006,

An ICC referral may be the only UNSC option.  The UN Security Council has so far been undecided over any future action in Syria. China has so far been unconvinced over any action. Russia has supported Assad, selling the Assad regime arms. Russia and China, being permanent members of the UNSC means that they can block any action on this issue that the other permanent members (USA, UK and France) may wish to bring for any form of sanction towards the Assad regime.  While it may not be possible to get Russia to support a military intervention, which is something that they are opposed to [1] , it may be possible to swing Russia round to a position where they abstain on a reference to the ICC [2] . Russia has had a flexible (or, more cynically, hypocritical, view on the ICC before, opposing a Syria reference in February 2013 [3] but supporting one in to the actions of NATO in the Syrian conflict [4] ) position on the ICC, having voted in favour of references to it before. Because the involvement of the ICC would mean investigating both sides it would not be entirely impossible for a diplomatic solution to be reached for Russia to abstain on a reference.  [1] Al Jazeera and agencies, ‘Russia and Iran warn against attack on Syria’, Al Jazeera, 27 August 2013,   [2] Kaye, David, ‘Responsibility to Object’, Foreign Policy, 10 January 2013,   [3] Baczynska, Gabriela, ‘Russia opposes referring Syrians to ICC now: official’, Reuters, 19 February 2013,   [4] ‘Russia wants ICC to examine NATO bombings’, United Press International, 18 May 2012,

The Syrian Civil war is far larger than any of the conflicts where the truth and reconciliation model has been implemented. The divisions in society will not be healable through a system of truth and reconciliation – like other atrocities, such as those in Sierra Leone and the Balkans there will need to be a system of criminal trials.  In addition, a South African style truth and reconciliation commission with an amnesty for perpetrators of human rights violations [1] would grant impunity to perpetrators on other sides who have committed some of the gravest atrocities in the 21st century, from cannibalism [2] to the use of chemical weapons. Letting these people remain free would not promote reconciliation it would simply mean Syrians would believe that justice has not been done.  [1] Simpson, G., ‘A Brief Evaluation of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Some lessons for societies in transition.’, The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation’, October 1998,   [2] Muir, Jim, ‘Outrage as Syrian rebel shown ‘eating soldier’s heart’’, BBC News, 14 May 2013,

The problem with fears of fuelling the conflict further is that the conflict is already almost as large as it can be within the borders of Syria, and has already spilled over in to neighbouring Lebanon, with bombings in Tripoli and Beirut) – it is a full scale conflict which will be difficult to resolve peacefully as it is, with existing threats of military intervention on the table there is no more possible escalation to fear.

Waste of time – won’t capture Assad or rebel war criminals.  Even if the situation were to be referred (which would require abstention or support from both Russia and China on the UN Security Council, which itself is unlikely), it would be necessary to capture Assad and other suspects before trying them. This has proven very difficult, for example none of the suspects in the investigation in to the Lords Resistance Army activity in Uganda have been captured [1] – it is equally likely that they would be killed during any capture attempt as occurred in Libya when Gaddafi was captured and then shot on the spot by the insurgents [2] ; one cannot put a corpse on trial.  [1] Dicker, Richard, and Ebenson, Elizabeth, ‘ICC Suspects Can Hide – and That Is the Problem’, Jurist, 24 January 2013,   [2] Kofman, Jeffrey, and Dolak, Keven ‘Moammar Gadhafi Dead: How Rebels Killed the Dictator’, ABC News, 21 October 2011,  n.b. the video in this article is rather graphic

Bar to truth and reconciliation  After the conclusion of the war in Syria, there will have to be a period of nation building – either Assad will have destroyed his enemies and have an alienated nation to deal with, or the Syrian National Congress will have to take effective control over the country.  Syria will need a process of truth and reconciliation [1] - a collective understanding of events that happened on the past, such as that which occurred after the end of Apartheid in South Africa - in order to move forward: this may be hampered by reopening old wounds by prosecuting large numbers of people for offences in the civil war.  [1] For more information see the Debatabase debate ‘ This House supports the use of truth and reconciliation commissions ’

ICC referal would fuel the conflict further  The Syrian Civil War has already claimed over 100,000 lives, but it could get worse. The Assad regime is infamous for its stockpiling of chemical weapons – it is one of few states to not sign the Chemical Weapons convention, and is known to have stocks of mustard gas, VX and other weapons of mass destruction. Assad still has chemical weapons to use. An ICC referral could cause the regime to regard itself as in a position with nothing to lose so making it more willing to make use of these weapons against its own people. If there is no hope of a swift decisive victory by either side then by far the best solution to the conflict would be to have a negotiated settlement – the ICC seeking to prosecute senior figures on either side would make this much harder to arrive at. In South Africa – in a less volatile situation – former President Thabo Mbeki has stated “Had there been a threat of a Nuremberg-style trial over members of the apartheid security establishment we would have never undergone peaceful change.” [1]  [1] Ku, Julian, and Nzelibe, Jide, ‘Do International Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacerbate Humanitarian Atrocities?;, Washington University Law Review, Vol.84, No.4, 2006, pp.777-833,  p.819

While it is not possible to guarantee the capture of any suspect that has not stopped the ICC attempting to build a case. If any defendants are captured alive, it will not be a waste of time: bearing in mind that the ICC does capture many of the individuals it seeks to put on trial, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some or all people indicted after a Syria investigation would be captured.

Guantanamo Bay didn't create anti-Americanism in the Islamic world. Al-Qaeda existed and carried out 9/11 before Guantanamo bay was established, so it is unlikely that closing the detention centre would make any of those who hate the US now reconsider. Furthermore, closing the facility could be seen as a propaganda victory for the US' enemies, and further embolden terrorist organisations.

Guantanamo harms the War on Terror:  The existence of Guantanamo Bay is cited by terrorists as a tool of "the great Satan" and is seen by Muslims in general as a demonstration of US disregard for their dignity. It is, in turn, an effective tool used by terrorists and Jihadists to bring recruits on-board. The highly unpopular existence of Guantanamo Bay also makes it more risky for intelligence sources to come out and provide useful information that they might otherwise be willing to provide. This is because, for many Muslims, Guantánamo stands as a confirmation of the low regard in which they believe the United States holds them. [1] Some of this stems from the association of detention at Guantanamo with the specifically anti-Islamic abuses which have reportedly occurred there, such as allegations of having a guard dog carry the Koran in its mouth, guards scrawling obscenities inside Korans, kicking Korans across the floor, urinating on the Koran, ridiculing the Koran, walking on the Koran, and tearing off the cover and throwing the Koran into trash or dirty water. [2] These associations not only make it easier for terrorists to recruit by inciting anti-American sentiments, but also harm the US' ability to argue that the War on Terror is not directed against all Muslims. President Obama announced in 2009 that closing the Guantanamo Bay detention centre would allow the US to reclaim the moral high ground and thus better prosecute the War on Terror. [3] ''  The existence of the detention facility creates a false sense of security and compromises principles of liberty. The US is in a worse position to combat terror abroad when the government makes unprincipled, piecemeal determinations about the cases in which to use preventive detention. [4]  [1] Sengupta, Somini and Masoods, Salman. "Guantanamo Comes to Define U.S. to Muslims". New York Times. May 21, 2005.   [2] Cohn, Marjorie. "Close Guantánamo Prison". TruthOut. May 23, 2005. www.archive.truthout.org  [3] Rhee, Foon. "Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture." The Boston Globe. 22 January 2009.   [4] Roth, Kenneth. "After Guantanamo." Foreign Affairs. May/June 2008.  (Full article requires subscription.)

It is possible to reform treatment at Guantanamo Bay without closing the facility. The conditions in the facility have in fact greatly improved since its establishment and in many ways differ from the public's negative perception of it. [1] But even if in fact these negative reports of the conditions at Guantanamo are true, it is likely that many of those detained at Guantanamo may not be even more anti-American than when they arrived, so releasing them could mean they pose an even greater threat to the US.  [1] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007.

Detainees have the right to trial in US courts:  Prisoners have been detained at Guantanamo for long periods without clear charges being filed and without trial. This is a violation of the international legal principle of habeas corpus. One of the primary problems is that, without clear charges and a presentation of evidence against a suspect, the suspect cannot contest the charges and prove their own innocence. And, as a matter of fact, numerous detainees have been found innocent, but only after excessively long periods without being charged or brought before a court. [1]  Many Guantanamo detainees may have never committed terrorist acts or fought against US forces in Afghanistan at all; they were simply turned over by Northern Alliance and Pakistani warlords for bounties of up to $25,000. For almost seven years they have been held without a fair hearing or opportunity to demonstrate those facts. Courts who reviewed the cases of 23 detainees to see if there was reasonable evidence for their continued detention found no credible basis for detaining 22 of them. [2] Other detainees were captured in places where, at the time of their arrest, there was no armed conflict involving US forces. The case of the six men of Algerian origin detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2001 is a well-known and well-documented example. [3]  Therefore the only way to resolve these issues is to try all the detainees at Guantanamo Bay in US courts, and release any against whom charges cannot be brought. Former US Secretary of Defense Colin Powell has endorsed this reasoning, arguing that "I would get rid of Guantanamo and the military commission system and use established procedures in federal law[...]It's a more equitable way, and more understandable in constitutional terms," [4] US courts are fully capable of dealing with terrorist trials, as shown by the fact that they have rendered 145 convictions in terror-related cases in the past. [5] Convictions in US courts would probably be seen internationally as having more legitimacy than those obtained through the current system of military tribunals, which is often viewed as rigged against the defendants. [6] Only by allowing full due process in American courts can the rights of the detainees be uaranteed and their guilt or innocence truly established.  [1] New York Times Opinion. "The President's Prison". New York Times. March 25, 2007.   [2] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008.   [3] United Nations Economic and Social Council. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006.  [4] Reuters. "Colin Powell says Guantanamo should be closed". Reuters. 10 June 2007.   [5] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008.   [6] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008.

Reforms can always be made to the legal process at Guantanamo, and so this is not a reason to close the facility or to try the detainees in US courts. Moreover, much of the credible and reliable evidence that justifies the continued detention cannot be admitted in US courts for legal reasons, such as the fact that those captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere were not read their Miranda rights on their arrest. Other cases involve evidence that is insufficient for trial but still sufficient to determine that release is an unacceptable security risk. [1] Furthermore, If transferred to U.S. courts, some of the detainees might be freed because of the aggressive interrogation techniques used against them. Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 plot, was interrogated so severely at Guantanamo Bay that Bush administration officials said he was tortured and did not refer his case for prosecution. [2]  [1] Wall Street Journal. "Obama and Guantanamo". Wall Street Journal. 22 January 2009.   [2] Fox News. "Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials". Fox News. January 21, 2009.

Conditions at Guantanamo are unjust and unacceptable:  UN Reports indicate that the treatment of detainees since their arrests, and the conditions of their confinement, have had profound effects on the mental health of many of them. The treatment and conditions include the capture and transfer of detainees to an undisclosed overseas location, sensory deprivation and other abusive treatment during transfer; detention in cages without proper sanitation and exposure to extreme temperatures; minimal exercise and hygiene; systematic use of coercive interrogation techniques; long periods of solitary confinement; cultural and religious harassment; denial of or severely delayed communication with family; and the uncertainty generated by the indeterminate nature of confinement and denial of access to independent tribunals. These conditions have led in some instances to serious mental illness, over 350 acts of self-harm in 2003 alone, individual and mass suicide attempts and widespread, prolonged hunger strikes. The severe mental health consequences are likely to be long term in many cases, creating health burdens on detainees and their families for years to come. [1] Such conditions are clearly not acceptable to a nation such as the US which prides itself on its justice system and respect for human rights. The detention centre must be closed to the US can end its association with such practices.  [1] United Nations Economic and Social Council. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006.

The fact that the majority of detainees may be guilty of terror-related crimes or attacks doesn't justify the continued detention of those who were clearly detained under mistaken information, and who will only be cleared through trial in a civilian court. Otherwise justice will never be truly served at Guantanamo Bay.

After years of detention and separation from the battle field and terrorist networks, many Guantanamo detainees have no more value to US intelligence gathering efforts and national security, and so this is not a reason to continue their detention. Moreover, there are tens of thousands of anti-American terrorists around the world. Releasing a handful of the 250 detainees that are actually terrorists but that can't be tried in the US would be a drop in the bucket for terrorism and the war on terror.

Guantanamo deters terrorists:  Guantanamo Bay and the threat of detention helps deter terrorists. This coupled with the lack of a trial adds to the fear of the place and thus denounces terrorism. What is a deterrent and why is it necessary? A deterrent is something which persuades someone not to act in a certain way. Similar to the accumulation of nuclear missiles actually deterring a war between large nations, a deterrent can be created around something deemed morally wrong (a prison which may/may not breech human rights) and yet help the greatest number of people and is, thus, justifiable. The whole basis of terrorism is formed upon an ideology and stems from indoctrination. If there is a seed of doubt then it is likely that the person in question will not commit acts of terror.

Sufficient justice and due process exists at Guantanamo:  The US Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded 'all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.' US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees. [1]  Moreover, enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay are afforded a form of habeas corpus (ie. charging the imprisoned with a specific crime), as each detainee accused receives a copy of the charges in his native language. [2] Claims that most of the prisoners are unconnected with terror organisations are not supported by the intelligence evidence that exists. US Defense officials have stated that 95% of detainees are connected to al Qaeda, the Taliban or their associates, and more than 70% have had a role in attacks on U.S. or coalition forces. [3] Military boards perform yearly reviews for continued detention, and prisoners are assigned court advocates. [4] In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay inmates have the right to appeal their cases to US federal courts. [5]  Therefore complaints that sufficient justice and due process does not exist at Guantanamo bay are unfounded. Trying the most dangerous terrorists at Guantanamo in civilian courts will just give them a forum in which to grandstand.  [1] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007.   [2] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007.   [3] Reuters. “Pentagon urges Congress to keep Guantanamo open”. Reuters. 9 May 2007.   [4] Washington Post. "Close Guantanamo?" Washington Post. 22 June 2006.   [5] Greenhouse, Linda. "Justices, 5-4, Back Detainee Appeals for Guantanamo." New York Times. 13 June 2008.

Closing Guantanamo would harm US national security:  The current operations of Guantanamo Bay are aiding the War on Terror, and closing the facility would harm the US' security situation. Putting an important section of a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda in prison obviously stops the coordination and the indoctrination of younger members. This makes it harder for terrorist groups to operate effectively. The presumption is that during that time the USA will have gathered adequate intelligence and information upon which to destroy the group and the war on terror is that little bit nearer to ending. Former US Vice President Dick Cheney has stated that, intelligence-wise, "Guantanamo has been very, very valuable [in the war on terror." [1]  Moreover, if released many Guantanamo detainees will likely return to terrorism. [5] Many of those that have been already released from Guantanamo done just that. The Washington Post reported in 2005 that at least 10 of the 202 detainees released from Guantanamo were later captured or killed while fighting U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is a relatively high number, given the fact that only a small percentage of those that returned to terrorism would later be caught or killed. One former detainee went on to become the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, for example. [2] The Bush administration detained these enemy combatants because of their high likelihood to commit future crimes or their past history. The most dangerous detainees include the perpetrators of 9/11, the American embassy bombings of 1998, the USS Cole bombing of 2000, and the Bali bombings of 2002. [6]  Finally, trying detainees in US courts presents a catch-22: in some cases, the evidence required to build a case for trial would compromise the same intelligence sources that make information-gathering possible [4] . During the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the “blind sheik”) and members of his terror cell for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, prosecutors turned over a list of 200 unindicted conspirators to the defense - as the civilian criminal justice system required them to do. Within 10 days, the list made its way to downtown Khartoum, and Osama bin Laden knew that the U.S. government was on his trail. By giving this information to the defense in that terrorism case, the U.S. courts gave al Qaeda valuable information about which of its agents had been uncovered. [3] Therefore the Guantanamo Bay detention centre should not be closed as this would harm the War on Terror and US national security.  [1] Reuters. “Don't close Guantanamo until terror war ends: Cheney”. Reuters. 15 December 2008.   [2] Worth, Robert F. “Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief”. New York Times. 22 January 2009.   [3] The Washington Times Editorial. “Obama and Gitmo”. The Washington Times. 12 November 2008.   [4] The Chicago Tribune. "Beyond Guantanamo." The Chicago Tribune. 22 January 2009.   [5] Cornyn, John. "Sen. Cornyn: Closing Guantanamo Could Make America Less Safe." Texas Insider. 23 January 2009.   [6] Joscelyn, Thomas. "Clear and Present Danger." The Weekly Standard. 1 December 2008.

The "deterrent effect" of Guantanamo on terrorists cannot be confirmed. This is mainly due to the fact that terrorists' feelings or fears in regards to the Guantanamo Bay prison cannot be statistically gathered. Similarly, the terrorists posing a threat to the safety of Western Nations are typically so ideologically fanatical and assured that their path is the righteous one, that there is nothing that would persuade them otherwise, including the risk of imprisonment at Guantanamo. These are often people who are willing to die for their cause.

The reasons for different categories is for escape risk – escape being the antithesis of a utilitarian purpose of prison, that of incapacitation. Those who are unlikely to seek to escape – prisoners serving short sentences or near the end of their sentence so have little reason to risk having their sentence extended – are those kept in more comfortable conditions. The measure in Connecticut meanwhile is a last minute political fudge, and one brought in solely to appease those who demand irrational justice policies such as retributivism.

Differences in treatment are already accepted  Differences between different categories of prisoner are already accepted in the criminal justice system – prisoners are generally kept in different conditions due to factors such as escape risk and other factors. For example the UK has open prisons which offer the freedom to move around within the prison and the system is aimed at reintegration so freedoms like alcohol are allowed, as are home visits. [1]  Once it is accepted that not all prisons and not all prisoners are treated the same then a difference in treatment based on the crime committed makes sense. If that is the case, it could be calibrated that those serving certain sentences for certain offences should be held in certain conditions – for example, in Connecticut (a state that has abolished the Death Penalty so LWOP is the greatest penalty imposed) those serving life without parole are now denied contact visits and are given no more than two hours of recreation per day [2] .  [1] James, Erwin, ‘Why life in an open prison is no holiday camp’, The Guardian, 13 January 2011,   [2] Blecker, p.230

Prison itself is already a deterrent. Harsher prison conditions do not prevent recidivism, and could actually make convicts more likely to reoffend when released. Chen and Shapiro estimate that if all inmates were housed in above minimum security facilities there would be “an increase in the crimes committed by former convicts of approximately 82 per 100,000 Americans” – this would be higher than the reduction of 58 crimes per 100,000 found by Katz et al. as a result of deterring those outside prison [1] .  [1] Chen, M. Keith, and Shapiro, Jesse M., ‘Do Harsher Prision Conditions Reduce Recidivism? A Discontinuity-based Approach’, American Law and Economics Review, Vol.9, No.1, 2007

Punishment is good  Retributive theories of justice accept that the reason why a criminal justice exists is to punish offenders – society declaring its rejection of crime by inflicting deliberately unpleasant punishments. Prisons do not reflect this – a prisoner is a prisoner, and prison officers generally do not care about what offence they are convicted of. Their motivation for doing this being to make the prison easier to administrate. [1]  “The past counts”. If we are making prisoners stay in prison we should make them feel as if they are being punished. This means deprivation of more than just the liberty to move from the prison but also of other luxuries.  [1] Blecker, p.103

This is all based on the vengeance-fuelled concept of “retributive justice”. This is not a model of thinking that has much merit. Imprisonment in the criminal justice works by deterring individuals from crime (prison always will be a deterrent), and incapacitating criminals, making them unable to commit crimes due to the fact they are in prison. The intent of prison is to prevent crime, not to impose harsh conditions of punishment.  Imprisonment with legitimate utilitarian goals is acceptable. Simply inflicting conditions on people for no practical reason is mere sadism.

Harsher conditions are a deterrent  Worse prison conditions for particular offences would act as a deterrent. If people, in prisons generally and in society as a whole, see that those who are convicted of particularly bad crimes will be deterred from committing those worse crimes.  If prison is simply a holding place that prevents people inside from committing crime then it is failing in creating deterrence; criminals sometimes feel it is better to commit a crime when released in order to get back into prison. [1] Katz, Levitt, and Shustorovich using death rates show how harsh prison conditions are likely to mean lower crime rates overall – though a doubling of the death rate only reduces the crime rate by a few percentage points. [2]  [1] Blecker, p.68  [2] Katz, Lawrence et al., ‘Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence’, American Law and Economics Review, Vol.5, No.2, 2003  , p.340

Punishment is irrational, but it is a legitimate desire for a justice system to meter out retribution to those convicted of serious crimes. Punishment does not have to have a beneficial impact on public safety to make it the right thing to do. The desire for victims for retribution is legitimate; they should not have to see a criminal who abused them live a cushy life in prison – at their expense.

The fact that the prison system is not designed to be punitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Retributive justice demands that criminals are punished. Prison should do that, and it should fit the crime, by having more than one category of punishment based on the offence. It is understandable that prison services themselves do not consider their task to be to punish; they claim that is done by the judge or jury that hands out the sentence. This however in effect means that no one takes responsibility for punishing those who have done wrong. Instead each stage of the criminal justice system becomes solely an attempt to prevent future crime without consideration to past victims.

A tiered system already exists  To some extent, prisoners will be categorized according to the offences they have committed. For example, those convicted of offences like armed robbery and many murders will start of at a higher level on the security system, which will mean restrictions in terms of activities, prison work and association with other prisoners.  A person convicted of a sex offence against children, or anything else particularly notorious, would be likely to be placed in some sort of protective custody. In the UK, this is done under Rule 45 of the Prison Rules [1] .  [1] England and Wales prison rules, available from  , rule 45

Harsh punishment is counterproductive  Punishment for its own sake achieves nothing practical. When putting people in prison we need to look to the future, not to the past. However, harsher prison conditions can act in a way that makes individuals more likely to reoffend [1] . This is because those who have suffered harsh conditions do not become prepared for life outside; they do not learn the necessary skills that would bring them a job when released. Harsher prison conditions also breed mental health problems; isolation in supermax prisons has been observed to cause anxiety, paranoia, hallucinations, and self mutilation – one study has found isolation in a secure housing unit caused 88% of prisoners to suffer from irrational anger and 91% anxiety. [2] It is notable that the opposite is also the case the Bastøy prison in Norway, derided by some for its supposedly “soft” conditions, has a reoffending rate less than a quarter of that of the European average [3] .  [1] Chen, 2007  [2] Haney, Craig, ‘Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement’, Crime &amp; Delinquency, Vol.49, No.1, January 2003,  , pp.133-4  [3] James, Erwin, ‘Bastoy: The Norwegian prision that works’, The Guardian, 4 September 2013,

Punishment is not purpose of prison  Prison itself already has punishment value: the loss of liberty and exclusion from society. However, punishment is not the purpose of prison. This is accepted in the US, where state prison systems do not claim punishment is a goal: see California [1] , New York [2] and Nevada (“Protect the public by confining convicted felons according to the law, while keeping staff and inmates safe.“) [3] . Similarly, the UK’s Ministry of Justice does not list “punishment” as a priority of HM Prison Service [4] . Instead the aim is to prevent crime by holding prisoners, and to rehabilitate criminals so that when they are released they are able to reintegrate into society without reoffending.  [1] California Department of Corrections &amp; Rehabilitation, ‘Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals’, CA.gov, accessed 6/2/2014   [2] Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, ‘The Departmental Mission’, NY.gov, accessed 6/2/2014,   [3] Nevada Department of Corrections, ‘Mission Statement’, NV.gov, accessed 6/2/2014   [4] HM Prison Service, ‘About HM Prison Service’, justice.gov.uk, accessed 6/2/2014,

That system is based on security risk, not the actual offence per se. There is no extra punitive value attached to the offence in terms of prison conditions for the pure reason of the offence.  The reason why those inmates are kept separate is for their own safety (capital punishment should not be meted out by other prisoners!), not based on any ideal of punishment.

Deterrence only works if the court actually prosecutes people; however, its crippling inefficiency renders its deterrent effect nonexistent.  To date, the ICC has yet to actually punish anyone. The lack of hard power and enforcement mechanisms makes it impossible for the ICC to be effective. Tribunals like the ICTY were effective because of US support, military backing, and financial power; the ICC lacks this type of sway and is destined to fail. (See more in the opposition point #2). If the court does not actually punish people, there is little to no deterrent effect, since it poses no credible threat to criminals.1  1 Goldsmith, Jack. "The Self-Defeating International Criminal Court." The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, Winter 2003, 89-104.

If supported, the ICC will set a precedent and deter leaders from committing crimes against humanity.  The ICC demonstrates that there is an existing legal court that will hold individuals accountable should they decide to commit grave crimes. The mere existence of the court and the possibility of prosecution (even if not 100%) is beneficial in terms of deterring future atrocities. No leader wants to lose power, and an ICC warrant limits the movement and liberties of leaders. This is empirically true – in Uganda, high-ranking officials of the Lord’s Resistance Army specifically cited potential prosecution by the ICC as a reason they put down their arms. LRA officials like Joseph Kony have to spend valuable time on evading the ICC that would otherwise be used to perpetuate crimes, showing that there are still marginal benefits even if leaders themselves are not always apprehended. [i]  [i] Scheffer, David and John Hutson. “Strategy for U.S. Engagement with the International Criminal Court.” Century Foundation, 2008.  . Accessed 14 August 2011.

Pursuance by the ICC doesn't actually result in punishment of the leader; empirically, it has actually strengthened criminals' power after criticizing them.  Nations, such as African nations like Chad, have painted the actions of the ICC as signs of Western imperialism and domination. Sudan's Bashir, accused of genocide and other crimes against humanity, used the ICC's arrest warrant against him as a sign of heroism and created a rally-around-the-flag effect, further strengthening his regime. Moreover, the ICC's work encourages leaders to cling to their power rather than give it and face prosecution, making punishment even more difficult. At worst, the ICC is actually counterproductive when it comes to punishing leaders and giving them retribution; at best, it is simply an ineffective court.1  1 "The International Criminal Court: Why Africa Still Needs it." The Economist, 3 June 2010.

Efforts to strengthen the ICC will promote global cooperation, norms against crimes, and international stability.  There is a growing global consensus that crimes against humanity need to be punished, as demonstrated by the tribunals to address the crimes of Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The question is no longer whether we should set up an international court but rather how to best do it, and the ICC gives the international community a framework within which to work to establish a strong courts.1 Rejection of the ICC has become a symbol of rejection of international norms, and countries that have refused to ratify the Rome Statute in the name of national interest, such as the United States, have been seen as imperialist, isolationist, and against global efforts to tackle important issues.  1 Prakash, K. P. "International Criminal Court: A Review." Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 40, October 5-11, 2002, pp. 4113-4115.  2Carter, Ralph G. "Leadership at Risk: The Perils of Unilateralism." Political Science and Politics, Vol. 36 No. 1, January 2003, 17-22

The ICC is the best way to prosecute serious crimes because of its permanence; individual tribunals are not enough.  The ICC is uniquely beneficial because of its intention to be a permanent force that will always hold people accountable, instead of slowly reacting to crimes after-the-fact. It is intended to be universal and apply to every situation without mandating the creation of a new tribunal every time something happens, and may be even more effective than tribunals at responding to crimes. Even though tribunals such as the ones for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda may have worked, they were "necessarily limited in scope" and cannot be applied on a large scale, which is what is needed.1 Additionally, those tribunals were relatively ineffective, as they took two years to set up, and relying on establishing new tribunals every single time wastes precious time. Doing so would also let smaller but still serious crimes slip under the radar, as they would not warrant the creation of a new tribunal, but may still count as a crime against humanity.2  1 Kirsch, Philippe. "The International Criminal Court: Current Issues and Perspectives." Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 64 No. 1, Winter 2001, 3-11.  2 Marler, Melissa K. "The International Criminal Court: Assessing the Jurisdictional Loopholes in the Rome Statute." Duke Law Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, December 1999, 825-853.

Individual tribunals are actually better at addressing the specific situation.  The idea of "universal jurisdiction" becomes dangerous when it is regarded as a blanket solution. For example, after the Spanish Civil War, post-Franco Spain decided to avoid trials for the sake of national reconciliation that enabled it to become a peaceful democracy. Setting a precedent of universal jurisdiction for punishment unnecessarily precludes better reactions more tailored to the specific scenario.1 (See opposition argument #3 for elaboration).  1 Kissinger, Henry. "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction." Foreign Affairs, July/August 2001, Accessed 14 August 2011.

Promoting the ICC will only further split the global community by allowing the court to become a political tool.  The US Department of State published a report explaining that one of the reasons it opposes ratification of the Rome Statute is because it would complicate military cooperation with allies, who would be obligated to hand over US nationals even without US permission if a warrant were issued for their arrest. This would strain international relations. Additionally, this would decrease global stability by discouraging the US from conducting missions abroad that are key to political stability in numerous areas; US peacekeepers are currently in about 100 nations.1 (See the last opposition argument for more information)  1 Grossman, Mark (Under Secretary for Political Affairs). Remarks to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Washington, DC, 6 May 2002, US Department of State.

The ICC actually fails to account for the individual nature of crimes and is not the best solution for a "globalizing world" because it promotes retribution at the expense of peace.  Sometimes, amnesty and reconciliation are better than pursuing retribution and punishment. Even if the ICC does punish people, it may be doing so at the expense of the overall protection of human rights – emphasizing prosecution potentially detracts from goals like democratic reconstruction and conflict resolution. For example, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee was widely considered successful because it promoted peace even while giving amnesty to many criminals. Ultimately, it accounted for victims, allowed for open dialogue, and laid the foundation for South Africa to transition to a stable situation. The ICC’s focus on arrest and punishment precludes these types of solutions. [i]  [i] Mayerfeld, Jamie. “Who Shall be Judge? The United States, the International Criminal Court, and the Global Enforcement of Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, February 2003, 93-129.

The ICC will prosecute leaders who commit the most severe crimes and give them their due.  The only way to ensure that leaders get what they deserve is to establish a free-standing, independent court that holds people accountable. The ICC acts as a permanent international court (as opposed to tribunals set up by a specific group of nations).1 By issuing arrest warrants for leaders who would otherwise continue their actions without any blame, the ICC attempts to punish them. The goal is to ensure that no individual gets away with committing terrible crimes. Additionally, the court gives victims a role in the process, has the power to give them reparations, and ensures they see criminals brought to justice.2The court has not punished anyone yet because it is still considerably young, but has proceedings going on currently.  1 Carroll, James. "The International Criminal Court." Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 54 No. 1, Autumn 2000, 21-23.  2Duffy, Helen. "Toward Eradicating Impunity: The Establishment of an International Criminal Court." Social Justice, Vol. 26 No. 4, Winter 1999, 115-124.

The ICC is the most suited towards the rising nature of crimes in a globalizing world.  In today's world, crimes are no longer confined to single nations and affect the world due to the effects of globalization. An international court is necessary as a global solution to problems that often involve multiple actors; a permanent international court accounts for all parties involved.1 For example the Lord's Resistance Army has been mostly active in Uganda but has often hidden from the Ugandan military by crossing into Southern Sudan or the Democratic Republic of Congo. Because it is not limited to a specific territory, the ICC has truly global jurisdiction and therefore is most appropriate given the recent rise of international crimes. Joining the ICC would also encourage nations to recognize that crimes are no longer confined to specific borders and that the notion of territoriality provides a dangerously limited view of the scope of crimes today; ratifying the Rome Statute would force nations to recognize that domestic and international law inevitably interact.2 The domestic-foreign distinction has allowed states to ignore or commit certain atrocities in the name of national interest.  1 Ferencz, Benjamin B. "A Nuremberg Prosecutor's Response to Henry Kissinger's Essay 'The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction.'" Published by Derechos Human Rights, 27 September 2002. Accessed 14 August 2011.  2 Ralph, Jason. "International Society, the International Criminal Court and American Foreign Policy." Review of International Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1, January 2005, 27-44.

The ICC has jurisdiction to defy unwilling governments and is still a step towards global enforcement of rights, even if it does not completely solve the problem.  The ICC can have jurisdiction over criminals whose states refuse to prosecute them (provided certain conditions are met), meaning that they can issue warrants for those who come from or lead countries that will not comply with the ICC. Moreover, the ICC centralizes prosecution efforts under one court, making possible prosecution much more efficient and likely and increasing whatever original chance there was of prosecuting the leader.  Even if the ICC does have trouble fully enforcing its decisions, it is still a step towards the idea of "collective enforcement," which entails states agreeing upon and following international norms by incorporating them into domestic law and promoting their enforcement. Ratification of the Rome Statute represents a commitment by national governments to assist the ICC with prosecution efforts.1  1 Mayerfeld, Jamie. "Who Shall be Judge? The United States, the International Criminal Court, and the Global Enforcement of Human Rights." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, February 2003, 93-129.

To date, the ICC has empirically only issued warrants against leaders that nations have almost universally agreed upon committed heinous crimes. The existence of the ICC would only deter actions that are so atrocious, they would be comparable to the ones committed by those the ICC is currently pursuing. Countries that refuse to prosecute its own individuals should submit to the court to ensure that there is a baseline standard for rights protection, even in times of war. Otherwise, these crimes go unexposed and unpunished – for example, there has been very little discussion about certain US actions because certain presidential administrations have been adamant about prioritizing national interest over global standards of rights. US attacks on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, US invasion of Panama in 1989, US choice of targets in Afghanistan in 2001, and other actions have been left unexamined because of the lack of a third party with the consent to regulate international action; the ICC could solve this. [i]  [i] Forsythe, David P. “U.S. Action Empirically Goes Domestically Unchecked.” The United States and International Criminal Justice, Vol. 24 No. 4, November 2002, 985.

The ICC does not have enough checks on prosecutorial powers, inviting prosecutorial abuse.  The issues the ICC deals with are inherently subjective, as there is clear disagreement about what counts as a war crime or what the exact definition of genocide is. This leaves dangerous room for the prosecutor to simply decide what he thinks counts as a crime under the statute. Under the Rome Statute, the prosecutor has the power to both initiate an investigation based on reasonable evidence (of which there are no clear standards for outlined in the Rome Statute) and refuse to follow up on an investigation in the name of "justice." There are no clear higher checks on the prosecutor, putting too much power in the hands of one single individual. Additionally, there is very limited judicial review, as the pre-trial chamber is composed of 1 or 3 judges, and the prosecutor is able to find a judge who is sympathetic to his views.1  1 Rubin, Alfred P. "The International Criminal Court: Possibilities for Prosecutorial Abuse." Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 64 No. 1, Winter 2001, 153-165.

The ICC infringes upon national sovereignty by inherently implying that there is a higher court nations must answer to.  The ICC forces nations to accept that there is a binding power that overrides national law, undermining the government. John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, explains: "The ICC's failing stems from its purported authority to operate outside (and on a plane superior to) the U.S. Constitution, and thereby to inhibit the full constitutional autonomy of all three branches of the U.S. government, and indeed, of all states party to the statute. ICC advocates rarely assert publicly that this result is central to their stated goals, but it must be for the court and prosecutor to be completely effective."1 More specifically, Article 12 of the Rome Statute entails that the ICC's jurisdiction applies to all individuals, even of states that have not ratified the treaty. Governments cannot unconditionally bind its citizens to laws that are inflexible and contrary to the idea of sovereignty.2  1 Bolton, John. "The Risks and Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from America's Perspective." Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 64 No. 1, Winter 2001, 167-180.

The ICC is not democratic in nature and is likely to be used as a political tool by powerful nations.  Parts of the Rome Statue, such as the clauses relating to the Security Council, make it seem like a tool that will be used by the politically powerful. The Security Council has the power to refer cases to the prosecutor. Article 16 of the Rome Statute declares that the Security Council may postpone investigation and prosecution for 12 months if it decides, and may infinitely renew this delay, giving it final say on what gets tried and what doesn't. The ICC is not a truly independent judiciary and gives certain nations more power than others, making it an unfair and unjust court that does not treat its members equally.1  1 Teitelbaum, Alejandro. "Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Critique." Social Justice, Vol. 26 No. 4, Winter 1999, 107-114.

The ICC has no real enforcement mechanism and cannot be a force for good if it has no way of ensuring prosecution.  The court has no obvious enforcement mechanism, as it ultimately relies on states to take action in finding and turning over criminals. Although it can issue search warrants and declare that governments are not doing enough to prosecute criminals, that does not translate into real-world change that gets closer to punishing criminals. There is no reason for nations to submit to a court with no enforcement mechanism while simultaneously exposing themselves to a variety of risks as outlined in other arguments.1 For example, Chad is a party of the ICC but welcomed Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in July 2010. Although Chad was technically obligated to arrest him, there was no arrest made and Chad's president Idriss Deby welcomed Bashir with open arms, clearly demonstrating the ICC's lack of enforcement powers.2  1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428.  2 Reuters. "Bashir Returns to Sudan After Defying ICC in Chad." 24 July 2010. Accessed 14 August 2011.

The ICC does not infringe upon national sovereignty because it only has jurisdiction if the national justice system is either ineffective or unable to prosecute the criminal.  National courts still have the responsibility and ability to prosecute their own criminals, and the ICC is only meant to be used as a last resort in case these national measures fail; there is no contradiction between the two.1 Sovereignty only exists if the state has internal control, and the ICC will only have jurisdiction in cases where the national justice system has proven that for some reason, it will not prosecute the criminal.  1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428.

The ICC interferes with national operations (both military and humanitarian) because of how loosely the Rome Statue can be interpreted.  A large issue with the ICC is that it subjects member states to definitions that can be interpreted in a number of ways. For example, University of Chicago law professor Jack Goldsmith explains that the ICC has jurisdiction over “a military strike that causes incidental civilian injury (or damage to civilian objects) ‘clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.’ Such proportionality judgments are almost always contested.” [i]  First, nations have a first and foremost obligation to protect their own citizens, but states’ ability to fulfill this duty would be hindered by the threat of ICC prosecution. Certain nations face asymmetrical warfare – for example, the US routinely fights combatants who use innocent human shields, soldiers disguised as civilians, hostage-takers, etc. When put in context, the US has had to take certain actions that would constitute war crimes in order to fulfill its overarching obligation to its own people; strict compliance with the ICC’s standards would deny countries’ abilities to protect their own people. [ii]  Second, the fear of prosecution by the ICC would discourage humanitarian missions, decreasing the protection of rights globally. A study noted that the United States, a nation that sends hundreds of thousands of troops on peacekeeping missions, could have been held responsible for war crimes or crimes of aggression for its interventions in places like Bosnia and Sudan. [iii]  [i] Goldsmith, Jack. “The Self-Defeating International Criminal Court.” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, Winter 2003, 89-104.  [ii] Schmitt, Michael. “Asymmetrical Warfare and International Humanitarian Law.” The Air Force Law Review, 2008.  [iii] Redman, Lauren Fielder. “United States Implementation of the International Criminal Court: Toward the Federalism of Free Nations.” Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, Fall 2007.

The ICC is an independent court with enough checks that only pursues the most heinous criminals.  The ICC was designed to pursue the "future Pol Pots, Saddam Husseins, and Milosevics who terrorize civilians on a massive scale." The fear of politically motivated prosecutions has yet to come true; the current warrants have been issued for only the gravest violators of rights on a widespread scale. Even if the Security Council has certain extra controls, the court is still ultimately fair in its actual procedure with its prosecutor, judges, etc.1 Additionally, there are numerous checks in the Rome Statute, as outlined in the first proposition counterargument.  1 Kirsch, Philippe. "The International Criminal Court: Current Issues and Perspectives." Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 64 No. 1, Winter 2001, 3-11.

There are numerous checks that limit the power of the prosecutor and regulate the ICC's operations.  There are numerous checks outlined in the Rome Statute that limit the power of the prosecutor, eliminating any concerns of abuse. For example, Article 7 clearly defines what a crime against humanity is, and other types of crimes are extensively defined in the statute. Second, the ICC is allowed to step in only if the national government fails to prosecute criminals, meaning that it will never have to step in and exercise its power as long as countries are doing their jobs domestically, checking its jurisdiction. Third, there are multiple chambers that check each other; for example, the pre-trial chamber makes sure that the prosecutor has enough evidence before proceeding. Fourth, there are 18 judges from differing impartial backgrounds, ultimately making the ICC objective. Other checks can be found upon closer examination of the Rome Statute.1 Moreover, empirically, the prosecutor has not excessively punished any leader, so claims of abuse have yet to show true in the real world. Trials have been dismissed on the grounds of not having sufficient evidence, etc., so the ICC does not have unlimited power.  1 United Nations. "Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court." 2002. Accessed 14 August 2011.

Not only is intelligence often badly flawed, internment simply doesn't work as a strategy to combat terrorism 1. Instead it is counter-productive, because it makes martyrs of the individuals and groups who are being detained. The experience of Northern Ireland was that internment acted as a "recruiting sergeant" for the IRA, radicalising many detainees without previous terrorist contacts, and rallying supporters to their cause in response to the perceived injustice. Similar responses can be seen to Guantanamo Bay today in the Muslim world. Moreover, the confidence of ordinary citizens in their governments is undermined by such harsh measures, reducing their support for the overall "war effort". Indeed, if we compromise aspects of our free and open societies in response to pressure, then the terrorists who hate our values are winning.  1. Nossel, S. (2005, June 12). 10 Reasons to Close Guantanamo. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Democracy Arsenal .

The protection of intelligence sources is more important than trying suspects.  At a time when our society is under threat, it is more important to protect our intelligence sources than it is to try and punish individual terrorists. Even when strong proof exists, charging and trying terror suspects in open court would require governments to reveal their intelligence sources. This would risk the identification of their spies in foreign countries and within dangerous organisations. Not only might this lead to the murder of brave agents, it would also shut off crucial intelligence channels that could warn us of future attacks 1. For example, the head of police in Northern Ireland has admitted ‘if people were not confident their identities would be protected they would not come forward’ 2. In a deal with the devil, the intelligence procured is more important and saves more lives than the violation of one’s right to a fair trial. Even if special arrangements were made to present intelligence evidence in court, hostile organisations would be able to work out how much or little western intelligence services know about them, and the manner in which they operate. In these circumstances, detention without public trial is the only safe option.  1 The Washington Times. (2008, November 12). Editorial: Obama and Gitmo. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Washington Times:  2 BBC News (2007, September 11). Informants being put off

Governments clearly have powers to protect citizens from harm, but there is a limit to that extension of power. It is a limit that does not include the undermining of the very values the state is built upon, restricted executive power. Captured enemy combatants are not comparable to those captured during World War II, for the former were arrested for the perceived threat they caused, whilst the latter were captured and interned for a tangible, real threat 1. Soldiers are implicitly guilty when captured, enemy combatants who have yet to commit a crime can reasonably claim their innocence and deserve a fair trial. Furthermore, there is little evidence to suggest that internment without trial is a means to protection; the period of internment only stirs up sentiment that can be directed against the captors once eventually released. It may be the case that the safest way of protecting civilians is in fact to offer suspects a fair trial and, if found innocent, rendered back to where they were found. The existence of a strong, impartial legal framework would have infinite benefits for the moral standing of the state in the eyes of potential adversaries.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:

Tribunals are adequate replacements that maintain respect for detainees' rights.  The denial of normal legal processes does not automatically confer the absence of legal processes altogether. Though a normal public trial is not possible for security reasons, detainees' rights are still respected during the internment process. Safeguards are built into the internment process so that each case can be considered fairly, with the suspect represented before a proper tribunal and given a right to appeal to a higher authority. At Guantanamo Bay, President G. W. Bush introduced military tribunals made up of five U.S. armed force officers and presided over by qualified military judges to handle the legal ambiguities of suspects held in the facility 1 . The accused still have the presumption of innocence and proof of guilt has to be beyond that of a reasonable doubt 2. If such a trial is provided (often to standards of evidence and procedure higher than in normal courts in many countries around the world) and a sentence properly passed, then this is not internment as it has been practised in the past.  1. The Telegraph. (2007, March 16). Q&amp;A: US Military Tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Telegraph  2.Ibid

Tribunals do not respect detainees’ rights, but in fact require the undermining of those rights. Regardless of the procedures with which internment is dressed up by embarrassed authorities, it is open to abuse because trials are secret with the executive essentially scrutinising itself. Often there is not a free choice of lawyer to represent the suspect (detainees before US Military Commissions can only choose lawyers approved by the executive). Trials are held in secret with crucial evidence frequently withheld from the accused and his defence team, or given anonymously with no opportunity to examine witnesses properly. Appeals are typically to the executive (which chose to prosecute them), rather than to an independent judicial body. In such circumstances prejudice and convenience are likely to prevent justice being done.

Governments must have powers to protect citizens from harm.  Governments must have powers to protect their citizens against threats to the life of the nation. This is not merely to directly protect citizens from political violence, but also because political violence ‘handicaps the process of reconstruction’ 1 in nation-building efforts. Everyone would recognise that rules that are applied in peacetime may not be appropriate during wartime. Captured enemy combatants, for example, should not expect to be tried individually in civilian courts; it is essential however that they be held securely until they no longer pose a threat or an appropriate legal process can be established to assess their case. The war on terror is in this respect a war like earlier, more conventional conflicts whereby captured combatants are held until the conclusion of conflicts. No-one captured on D-Day expected to be granted a trial in a civilian court to establish their guilt. Just because our enemies do not wear uniforms or conform to a normal military structure (some indeed may even hold the citizenship of the state they are fighting against), does not make them any less of a threat to our society.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011

The war on terror is not like past, conventional conflicts but that does not prevent its classification as an armed conflict; soldiers are still dying in fire-fights, territory is still being fought over and the threat to homeland security is very real and visceral. According to the Bush administration, the war on terror represents a new ‘paradigm of war’, whereby the civilians directly engaged in hostilities, ‘enemy combatants’, are not permitted to enjoy the privileges of international humanitarian law. Prisoner of war status is ‘reserved (for) members of the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict…who must distinguish themselves from the civilian population in order to be entitled to POW status upon capture’ 1. Regarding the ICCPR, it has a specific derogation clause that states ‘in times of public emergency’, the states may excuse themselves from the strict provisions of the covenant. This would, in the context of threats to the safety of civilians, permit states to intern without trial enemy combatants.  1. International Committee of Red Cross, 2005

Internment without trial does not justify the bad behaviour of other states, for it is justifiable under norms of international law. For example, the measures taken by the UK government to detain foreign nationals identified by intelligence as a serious threat to Britain are justified by conflicting priorities. In normal circumstances such people would be deported to their home countries, but asylum rules prevent the forced deportation of people to countries which might persecute them. Those detained in the UK are in fact free to leave if they can find a country to take them 1. Those who cannot are in effect choosing to remain in detention here. Rather than removing completely the government's power to deport foreign nationals who pose a threat, this is the best solution from a human rights point of view.  1 Kelly, D. (2010, February 20). UK Border Agency response on 'migrant detainees'. Retrieved May 12, 2011 from Immigration Matters

Internment without trial exacerbates the antagonism of enemies and subsequent risk to civilians.  To intern without trial, for prolonged periods, the believed enemies of a state is to offer them and their supporters added reason to be antagonistic. In Northern Ireland, “violence soared following the introduction of internment and the British government imposed ‘direct rule’” 1. Moreover, Guantanamo Bay, the central symbol of the growth of executive power in United States’ war on terror, has been described by Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, as ‘a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security’ 2. Armando Spataro, a senior Italian prosecutor, has remarked ‘Muslims around the world are asking why there is so little international opposition to the U.S. policy of internment without trial. The collateral damage of Guantanamo is incalculable’ 3. It appears difficult to argue that the extension of executive power in the war on terror has had any effect on the security of innocent civilians other than increasing their risk of harm.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:  2 Rhee, F. (2009, January 22). Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Boston:  3 Greening, K. J. (2007, February 12). 8 Reasons to Close Guantanamo Now. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from In These Times:  improve this  To intern without trial, for prolonged periods, the believed enemies of a state is to offer them and their supporters added reason to be antagonistic. In Northern Ireland, “violence soared following the introduction of internment and the British government imposed ‘direct rule’” 1. Moreover, Guantanamo Bay, the central symbol of the growth of executive power in United States’ war on terror, has been described by Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, as ‘a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security’ 2. Armando Spataro, a senior Italian prosecutor, has remarked ‘Muslims around the world are asking why there is so little international opposition to the U.S. policy of internment without trial. The collateral damage of Guantanamo is incalculable’ 3. It appears difficult to argue that the extension of executive power in the war on terror has had any effect on the security of innocent civilians other than increasing their risk of harm.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:  2 Rhee, F. (2009, January 22). Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Boston:  3 Greening, K. J. (2007, February 12). 8 Reasons to Close Guantanamo Now. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from In These Times:

Internment without trial undermines democratic values.  Rights are needed to protect the few as well as the many, otherwise there would be no need for them in a democracy. Indefinite detention and lack of a normal public trial undermine the key values of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution enshrines the principle that ‘no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process’1. As such, suspects should be tried if there is evidence, deported if they are foreign nationals, but most importantly released if a proper case cannot be made against them. Internment in Northern Ireland was also said to be aimed only at a tiny minority, but thousands passed through the Long Kesh detention camp in the four years it operated. Similarly, the internment of Japanese-Americans from 1942 onwards led to a belief in the post-war environment that they were ‘radically predisposed to acts of disloyalty’1 undermining the democratic values of inclusion and multi-culturalism that the US particularly likes to attribute to itself.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011

Internment without trial fails to make society safer.  Giving the government the power to detain suspects without due process of law will not in fact make society any safer. The proposition's arguments rely upon the accuracy of secret intelligence, which supposedly identifies individuals planning terrorist acts, but which cannot be revealed in open court. Past examples suggest that such intelligence is often deeply flawed. For example, when internment was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1971 over 100 of the 340 original detainees were released within two days when it was realised much of the Special Branch intelligence that had been used to identify them was incorrect 1. Recent intelligence failures in the campaign against Al-Qaeda point to the difficulties western intelligence services have in penetrating and understanding non-white groups, while intelligence on Iraq's weapons programmes was also clearly flawed. So not only will many of the wrong people be unjustly locked up, many dangerous ones will be left at liberty.  1 West, C. (2002, January 2). Internment: methods of interrogation. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:

The war on terror is not an armed conflict, and therefore internment without trial is illegal.  The war on terror is not like past, conventional conflicts, and the government should not be able to take wartime powers simply on its own declaration. The terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 were horrific, but they did not threaten the entire life of the American nation - the economy has rebounded surprisingly quickly and no one believes that even a successful attack on the White House or Congress would have ended American democracy. Separate from warfare therefore, interment without trial is clearly illegal – as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states, ‘everyone has the right to liberty and security of the person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention’1. If it can be agreed upon that human rights are universal, internment without trial outside of the protocols on warfare is illegal. Furthermore, the war on terror is not winnable - there is no likely endpoint at which we will be able to declare an enemy to have been defeated and so allow detained "enemy combatants" to go home - so these harsh but supposedly temporary wartime measures will become the norm.  1. Davis, 2004. p4

Internment without trial does not undermine either democracy or its values. Tough measures are aimed only at very few suspects; only 11 are currently detained in Britain, only a few hundred at Guantanamo Bay. Exceptional circumstances call for special measures, but these are so limited in scope that they do not threaten our democratic values. Similarly, until the cessation of hostilities, the suspension of habeus corpus for ‘enemy combatants’ is not unlike the holding of prisoners of war until an armistice, whereby it is not legally necessary to provide recourse to judicial process. As Dick Cheney notes, ‘in previous wars we’ve always exercised the right to capture the enemy and then hold them until the end of the conflict. The same principle ought to apply here’ 1.  1. Trott, B. (2008, December 15). Don't Close Guantanamo until terror war ends: Cheney. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Reuters:

Internment without trial encourages the bad behaviour of other states.  Compromising our usual high standards of human rights encourages bad behaviour by other countries. Governments with less concern for rights are reassured by the apparent failure of liberal democracy to address a terrorist threat, and feel justified in tightening up their own measures against individuals and groups perceived as a threat. Western governments, meanwhile, lose their moral ability to criticise abuses elsewhere. Overall, the cause of freedom suffers everywhere. This can be seen clearly in the actions of governments around the world since September 11 2001, where existing repressive measures have been justified in new ways as part of the war on terror, or new ones introduced in apparent response to it. India, for example, has been using repressive measures in Kashmir for twenty years, however it still exploited the war on terror as a pretext for international support for its latest crackdowns 1.  1. Shingavi, S. (2010, July 14). India's new crackdown in Kashmir. Retrieved July 14, 2011, from CETRI:

It is essential to reach an appropriate balance of rights and freedoms. Everyone recognises the importance of protecting rights and liberties, but this cannot be done at any cost. There is a wider duty on politicians to protect society from harm, and their voters will rightly hold them to account if they fail in this responsibility. As the UK's Home Secretary, David Blunkett has written: "How best to protect ourselves effectively while maintaining the maximum freedoms is one of the biggest issues facing all democratic governments in the aftermath of September 11… I am willing to take whatever critics may throw at me, as long as history does not judge that our Labour government failed to do its best to protect us against those who would destroy our lives and our democracy.1"  1. Blunkett, D. (2001, November 20). This is not internment. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Guardian:

The period of internment, however long, does not serve to exacerbate antagonisms inherent in adversaries. If anything, the period of reflection acts as a punitive measure designed to force the suspect to weigh up his choices and potentially disavow his beliefs. If innocent, they may develop antagonisms towards their captors, but that does not automatically place them in the throes of their suspected associates. Furthermore, even if this were true, the antagonism held towards their captors would not be permitted to lead to further violence for they would be interned until the conclusion of the war.

When homework does take up time in class it is helpful for learning. And when it does not then it does not harm the classwork. Homework aids classwork by providing a space for those who have not finished the work to catch up and by helping us to remember what we did in class.

Homework takes up class time  Homework does not only take up time doing the homework at home but also takes up time in class. First there is the time that the teacher takes when explaining the task. Then more time is taken going through the homework when it is done and marked. This time could be better spent engaging with the class to find out what they do and don’t understand. The answer to this is to have more time in class rather than boring homework.

Teachers will need to mark and go through work whether it is classwork or homework. It is better that the teacher should spend their time in class teaching so leaving practising the methods taught to homework.

When out of school we should have time to ourselves  Time is valuable. We all need some time to ourselves. School already takes up a lot of time and it is necessary to have time which does not involve concentrating on learning. Education is not the only important activity in everyone’s day; physical activity, play, and time with family are just as important as all teach life skills just in different ways. The internet makes it possible to be learning at home, there are even many computer games that help with learning. Homework clashes with these other activities. It can damage family relationships as it means parents have to try and make their children do their homework.

We should expect to get a certain amount of homework per day and build other activities around the homework. Homework can be a useful part of time with family as it provides a chance for parents and other relatives to take part in schooling.

Whether homework puts us off learning will always depend on what the homework we are given is. Tasks that involve no interaction, or are not engaging will discourage learning. But homework could also mean reading an interesting book, having to find something out, create something, or doing a task with family. Homework can be as varied as classwork and just as interesting.

Homework wastes teachers time  We are not the only ones who take a lot of time on homework, our teachers do as well. The teacher needs to design the homework, explain it, mark each piece individually, and tell everyone what they got right and wrong. If all this is not done then the homework loses its value as we need to be told individually what our mistakes are to be able to learn from homework. Teachers could as easily use the classwork to find out who knows what they are doing and who are making mistakes and it would save them time.

Homework puts students off learning  Especially if we get too much homework it can take the enjoyment out of learning. No matter how engaging the teacher is in class homework will almost certainly be stressful, boring and tiring. It is simply much harder to make homework engaging and interesting as it is often done on our own. We know that there is no direct link between how much homework is set and grades. Studies done on this come to different conclusions so teachers should only set homework when they are sure it is needed. When we only get homework occasionally we will consider that piece more important and a better use of time.

Teachers should not set classwork expecting that the class will have to finish that classwork as homework. Students who are falling behind should receive more attention from the teacher during class to make sure that all the members of the class can move at the same speed.

Most homework is simply fulfilling a task that has already been explained so not truly teaching you to work on your own. Working on your own means setting your own targets, and working out how to overcome obstacles.

Doing our homework means we are taking responsibility for ourselves  We are the ones who gain from learning so we should take responsibility for some of our own learning. We can take responsibility by doing homework. When we don’t do our homework we are the ones who suffer; we don’t get good marks and don’t learn as much. We also lose out in other ways as taking responsibility means learning how to manage our time and how to do the things that are most important first rather than the things we most enjoy like playing. Homework then does not waste time; it is part of managing it.

Homework makes sure we remember what we have learnt  One way we learn is by repetition, another is by doing things, when doing homework we learn in both of these ways. When we are taught a method at school, such as how to do a type of sum, then we need to practice using that method to make sure we know how to so that we can remember it. If we just learn the method and don’t practice it we will soon forget how we do it.

Homework is needed to finish classwork.  We should think of homework as being a continuation of our classwork. Not everyone in the class works at the same rate so it is necessary for teachers to give anyone who is falling behind the chance to catch up. If this was done in class those who are faster would have nothing to do during this time, which would be a real waste of time. Homework then allows those who are behind to take as long as they need to catch up with the rest of the class.

Homework teaches us to learn on our own  The main aim of education is to prepare us for the rest of lives. Homework is teaching us a key skill that we will need in the future. When we do homework we are learning to work on our own, the discipline to get the work done without the teacher’s prompting, and when we come up against difficulties we learn how to overcome them without our teacher’s help. Millions of people work for themselves (self-employed), or work from home, they are using exactly the same skills doing homework teaches us. This is not a waste of time.

We don’t spend all of class time learning new methods so there should be time in class to practice any new method that is taught. Once some repetition has been done in class how much more do we really need at home? If we have not successfully learnt the method in the class then we will be simply repeating the mistake.

The same kind of responsibility is given to us no matter the kind of work. When given classwork we are responsible for completing it rather than playing around. The only difference at home is that it is our parents telling us to work not our teachers.

We recognise that not everyone should do every subject, but for practical reasons we have to ask them to give it a try up to a certain level. Apart from anything else, this is the most reliable way to tell whether or not the subject is right for them – how can you know that if you haven’t ever tried it? There are many different ways to set this level, and we feel that the current standard is the minimum which will give children a realistic idea of what the subject is like.

Some people find maths hard  It is a fundamental principle of education that different people think in different ways. One notable application of this is the theory of different learning styles, and it also makes people have a preference for certain subjects. [1] Many people find maths hard, 37% of teens think it is the most difficult subject, for a variety of reasons – it simply isn’t suited to all minds. [2]  Another fundamental principle is that all children are equal, in the sense that we should support them equally in helping them find the right opportunities. It follows that we should teach them something useful and relevant to their personality and preferences. But whatever that may turn out to be, it will not be maths, and maths would just waste their time.  It makes sense to teach arithmetic to even these people, but there is no need to make them study further.  [1] Cherry, Kendra, ‘VARK Learning Styles’, About.com,  accessed 12 June 2013  [2] Saad, Lydia, ‘Math Problematic for U.S. Teens’, Gallup, 17 May 2005,

It is undeniable that education is a trade-off between different subjects. However, we contend that maths is one which we want to protect. It is a fundamental subject which is of use in many others, as well as teaching children how to think about problems. (Debating lessons are a great idea, but should replace something else, like Art.)  Teaching maths as part of science just wastes time, as all different science subjects need the same maths. All this will do is add to the burden on teachers, as they will have to coordinate with each other to make sure the class has covered the right maths for that point in the course. Moreover, this will never be as effective as having a whole class for maths.

Maths is not engaging for students  Maths is one of the least engaging subjects taught at school. Subjects like chemistry are full of flashes, fires and experiments which help people see what they’re being taught in front of them. History starts with telling stories, and even though that’s not what the subject is really about, it offers a window into it. By contrast, maths has almost nothing similar. Asking children to use trigonometry to find the height of a tree does not fool them – all they see is another triangle. Some people enjoy it, but many do not.  Forcing people through maths classes which they find boring and irrelevant will only put them off maths; a recent study found that motivation was the most important factor for improving maths grades. [1] This in turn makes their children less likely to study maths, and causes a cycle in which a large section of the population have as little to do with maths as they can. [2]  It would be much better to not make these people study maths. True, they would end up not knowing any more than the bare essentials, but this is better than making them hate it.  [1] Ghose, Tia, ‘Like Math? Thank Your Motivation, Not IQ’, Scientific American, 28 December 2012,   [2] Kreutzer, Laura, ‘Our Child Hates Math. Is It Our Fault?’, The Wall Street Journal, 14 April 2013,

There are several problems with using “engagement” as a way to measure whether or not a subject should be taught. Firstly, there is no way to tell whether students are bored because the subject is boring, whether they’re bored because they are lazy, or whether it is simply how it is taught. If we always taught children what they wanted to be doing, every warm, summer afternoon would be PE. That won’t give them the best education.  Secondly, we disagree with the final line. The point of the education system is not to entertain people, it’s to educate them. We do this by exposing them to different subjects enough for them to have a real idea what they’re about. Only this way will they be able to figure out whether or not they like it.  Finally, maths, more than any other subject, requires you to be really good at the boring and tedious bits (like algebra) before you can even begin the more interesting bits (like Number Theory and Multivariable Analysis). Measuring maths (or indeed any other subject) for how much “fun” it is does not give a fair representation of how useful or important it is.

If we don’t teach maths we can teach other things instead  Schools are constantly pressed for time, money and staff. It is simply not possible to teach everything to everyone. This means that all of education is a balancing act. We try and isolate the most important parts of a subject and teach children what they need to know, but first, we have to isolate which subjects are important. So, for example, we teach History rather than Philosophy and Physics rather than Astronomy. Everything we teach therefore comes at the expense of not teaching something else and there are already some countries that choose other priorities; France for example prioritises Philosophy. [1]  Taking time away from maths has two advantages. Firstly, means we can teach other subjects instead, which will be more useful, such as dedicated classes on writing (or debating). Secondly, we can spend longer on those subjects which we already teach, making them better. As a bonus, we could even use this time to extend science lessons to include whatever maths is necessary, meaning we don’t lose out at all.  [1] Schofield, Hugh, ‘Why does France insist school pupils master philosophy?’, BBC News, 3 June 2013,

Children should not be given power over their education, but it doesn’t follow that their opinions are of no consequence. We should very much care what they do and don’t enjoy. Firstly, if they don’t enjoy their schooling they won’t put any effort into it and will not actually learn anything. Secondly, if they feel we are making them do things they don’t want to do we will lose the ability to give them sensible suggestions.  We might think they ought to learn maths, but forcing them to do it will cause more harm than good.

Many children find science interesting, 12% consider it their favourite subject, and will choose it when given an option. [1] These children will be happy to take maths lessons even if they’re not compulsory. The only ones who won’t take them will be the ones who have no interest in science in any case, for whom there is no benefit for doing maths.  It’s also worth pointing out that this argument seeks to match the educational system to the desires of companies. We feel this is wrong: it should be designed with the interests of the children in mind. That means giving them the opportunity to choose maths and science, but not necessarily forcing it on them.  [1] Kiefer, Heather Mason, ‘Math = Teens’ Favorite School Subject’, Gallup, 15 June 2004,

Maths teaches a kind of logic which is useful for other things  Most subjects are taught not just for the knowledge itself, but for the skills the subject requires. Schools don’t teach English Literature because they want children to know a few poems. They teach it to encourage children to think about how people’s perceptions have changed over time, how two authors can see the same thing differently, and the way choices of language can reveal the answers. Similarly, maths lessons show you a way of looking at a problem: what am I being asked? What information am I given? Is this similar to other problems I already know? Do those methods apply here? This is a general technique which is valuable for students to learn.  Looking at education this way makes it clear that, in fact, almost no subjects are studied for themselves. We use them as vehicles to teach children certain things. That being the case, whether maths is “practical” or “interesting” makes no difference: we should teach it anyway.

Children should not be the arbiters of the education system  To avoid teaching maths to children just because they don’t like the subject would be to shape the education system around adolescent whims. But children are not best placed to put a value on their education. They don’t know what knowledge is required for life and what skills are required for a career. They are likely to choose arbitrarily, influenced perhaps by which teachers are most strict, which subject they happen to be good at and what mood they’re in. It is for this reason that we don’t recognise children as being fully capable of making decisions about their education. Consequences of this include a government-fixed curriculum.  Adults know the value of maths: one poll in America found that 34% of people named it as the most valuable subject they had studied at school. [1] We think children should be learning maths, and it follows that they will have to do it, like it or not.  [1] Robison, Jennifer, ‘Math Tops List of Most Valuable Subjects’, Gallup, 21 January 2003,

Maths is an important subject  Every single science subject relies on maths. The whole of physics consists of using maths to model the world. At a basic level, this means drawing diagrams of forces, and at an advanced level it means writing down the gauge group which describes electroweak interaction, but it’s all maths. Even subjects like psychology, which are not normally seen as mathematical, would be lost without advanced statistics to decide whether a result is significant or not. Maths is as important to science as reading is to subjects like history and politics.  Making maths optional will mean some students don’t bother doing it. These children will find that science is closed to them. If we want to have a strong science sector – in both industry and research – as governments keep claiming we do [1] it is important to make sure we have people who are qualified. That means giving children the educational background required for them to pursue science should they wish to: maths.  [1] Osborne, George, ‘Achieving strong and sustainable economic growth’, Gov.uk, 24 April 2013,   Xinhua, ‘Premier Wen says science, technology key to China’s economic development’, Xinhuanet, 27 December 2009,

At the very least, for this argument to be true you would have to rewrite the syllabus to focus on problem-solving rather than knowledge. But even then, there is no compelling reason for having this particular way of teaching skills, and little reason why other subjects should not be teaching the same kinds of questions. Given that it is hard, not related to the real world and generally unpopular, we should drop it. Instead, design other classes, with “being engaging” specifically in mind. This will do a better job.

Parents have a right to act on behalf of their children. It is the right of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children. It is not the role of the state to intervene in the raising of a child except in exceptional circumstances and the opposition do not accept that raising a child religiously constitutes exceptional circumstances. It is not the role of the state, therefore, to intervene by banning faith schools simply to ensure that children are not educated too religiously.

State has a responsibility to protect and educate its citizens.  The state should not allow the education of a child to be polluted by what is tantamount to brainwashing. Amartya Sen argues “Under this system, young children are placed in the domain of singular affiliations well before they have the ability to reason about different systems of identification that may compete for their attention.” [1] Instead they have to learn about all religions to encourage tolerance.  It is totally acceptable for children to have religious education outside of school and to brought to places of worship but school is a place of education and they should be given an education that is not tainted by trying to ensure that they grow up with a certain attitude towards their religion. [2]  [1] Jeffries, Stuart, “To abolish only non-Christian faith schools would be taken as an affront. The answer is that they all have to go”, The Guardian, 28 July 2006,   [2] MacMullen, Ian. “Faith in Schools?: Autonomy, Citizenship and Religious Education in the Liberal State.” Princeton University Press. 2007.

Faith schools create a sense of community. This entire argument is based upon the fact that faith schools create a close sense of community within the school themselves. The opposition does not accept that this is harm and firmly believes that anything that creates a close sense of community is a force for good as it creates more accountability for actions within the community and a better support system in the case of anything going wrong. [1]  [1] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006.

Creates animosity towards religious groups  Faith schools continuously perform better than normal schools. This creates a feeling amongst parents and children of wanting to be included in these faith schools. They are, however, excluded on the basis of their religion. This will create feelings of unfair exclusion, which will lead to animosity towards the religion running the school and, by extension, people of that religion. [1] As a result of this 64% of people in the UK believe that there should be no state funding for faith schools. [2]  It would be easy to convert faith schools to normal schools.  The majority of faith schools are already tied closely to the state education system making it easy to convert them into normal schools which are not faith based. Much of the curriculum is the same or very similar so the change would not be difficult for teachers. In England for example there 6783 faith schools that are also state schools and 47 that are academies. [1] These schools would simply change to having the same systems as any other school and admission would become open to all.  [1] Department of Education, “Maintained faith schools”, 12 January 2011,   [1] MacMullen, Ian. “Faith in Schools?: Autonomy, Citizenship and Religious Education in the Liberal State.” Princeton University Press. 2007.  [2] ICM, ‘Guardian Opinion Poll Fieldwork August 12th-14th 2005’, ICM/The Guardian, 2005, pp21

Undermines separation of religion and the state.  Since education is something that the state is obligated to provide, any organisation that provides education is a representative of the state, even in private education. If religious groups are allowed to run schools then this means they are acting on behalf of the state, which undermines the separation of religion and the state, which the proposition believes is inherently harmful and undermining to the concept of democracy. [1] Even the Archbishop of Canterbury believes having greater separation of church and state would be beneficial arguing "I think that the notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness.” [2] This separation has to include the education of children.  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.  [2] Butt, Riazat, ‘Church and state could separate in UK, says Archbishop of Canterbury’, The Guardian, 17 December 2008,

Running a school is not equivalent to running the country. The opposition does not accept that faith schools undermine the separation of religion and state. The religious groups running the school do not, as a result of running the school, have an opportunity to decide on the national curriculum or, for that matter, any other aspect of running the country. The idea that faith schools undermine democracy is ridiculous and unfounded.

To be encouraged not banned. The idea of closing down schools because they are performing better than other schools seems ridiculous. Rather than banning faith schools so all schools are on an even, but lower, playing field, a logical course of action would be to try and determine exactly what it was about faith schools that made them perform so well and attempt to emulate that in ordinary schools to improve their performance.  It may be possible to convert the schools but they would loose their ethos. Without these schools religious ethos their standards would slip and the students would be worse off.

Insulting to religion. This legislation is not simply a message to organised religion telling them that they are not a higher authority than the state; it is a message saying that the state does not believe they are capable of running schools. This serves only to worsen the state’s already fractured relationship with organised religion and cause severe problems in dealing with large religious groups, who undeniably have a lot of power and influence.

Faith schools are inherently divisive.  At the age at which children are sent to faith schools, they are too young to have decided their religion for themselves, and so, their parents must have decided it for them. The proposition accepts that parents have a right to decide a child’s religion on its behalf but this means that faith schools end up segregating children based on the faith that they inherit. School should be about bringing children together not segregating them. In the UK the government allows faith schools to ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship [1] which is inherently discriminatory and divisive. Proposition believes that separating children based on what families they are born into creates communities which find it difficult to associate with people from outside their community and therefore cause massive divisions in society based on what religion people were born into. [2]  [1] Directgov, “Applying for a school place: admissions criteria”, direct.gov.uk,   [2] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006.

Shows that religion is not a higher authority than the state.  When the government allows religion to act on its behalf, it confuses the role of the state and the role of religious groups. As it stands, religious groups do not appear to be truly answerable to the state and, therefore, it is unclear whether they or the government are the higher authority. [1] For example in the UK faith schools set their own admission standards and increasingly have control over their curriculum, which in other state funded schools is set by the government, as well as they are being converted to academies. [2] This legislation would make it completely clear that the state is the ultimate authority.  [1] Dawkins, Richard. “Faith School Menace.” Channel 4. 2010.  [2] Paton, Graeme, ‘Faith schools 'get more freedom over curriculum and admissions'’, The Telegraph, 7 May 2011,

Shows submission to religion. As explained above, the proposition believes that allowing organised religion to act on behalf of the state indicates that organised religions have as much authority as the state. It is important that religious people recognise that they are answerable to the state before they are answerable to religion. Showing that religion is below the state, therefore, is actually a positive step.

This is not the government’s responsibility. The government does not have a responsibility to educate a child within the exact parameters that their parents dictate. If this were true, then each individual set of parents would be allowed to pick and choose what parts of the national curriculum they wished their child to learn.

Relationship with organised religion.  Passing this legislation with be sending a signal to the religious groups that are running faith schools that we do not think they are capable of running schools. The state’s relationship with organised religion is already a fractured one. This legislation would cause 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. [1]  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Faith schools can be necessary for a religious upbringing.  Sometimes faith schools are necessary for children to get a full picture of the religion that they have been born into, particularly religions, like Islam, that are based mainly in societies unlike our own and far away from our countries. In these cases, banning faith schools is tantamount to preventing parents from bringing their children up in the faith they want them brought up in. The opposition believes that this legislation is, therefore, equivalent to depriving people of religion. [1]  [1] Glenn, Charles L. “The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies.” Princeton University Press. 2002.

Faith schools perform better than ordinary schools.  Faith schools consistently perform better than ordinary schools. According to Ofsted, the UK schools inspectors, 73% of Catholic secondary Faith schools are good or outstanding, compared with 60% of English schools nationally. At primary level, 74% of Catholic schools are rated outstanding or good, compared with 66% nationally. [1] This shows that the religious aspect of their education must have some positive impact on the children who are educated there. Banning faith schools, therefore, would be condemning many children to a poorer standard of education than necessary. The opposition believes that it is the government’s role to provide the best it can for its citizens and banning faith schools would, therefore, be the opposite of this. [2]  [1] Butt, Riazat, “Gove defends faith schools”, The Guardian, 17 February 2011,   [2] Glenn, Charles L. “The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies.” Princeton University Press. 2002.

Relationship with religious people.  This legislation would send a message of no confidence in religion and would be tantamount to the government condemning religion. It is wrong for government to suggest that faith schools are divisive as “the average grade awarded by Ofsted to secondary-level faith schools for promoting community cohesion was "substantially and significantly" better than the average grade awarded to community schools.” [1] This will lead to religious people feeling undermined and insulted by their government who would be attacking their faith with no justification based upon the performance of the schools.  [1] Pritchard, John, “Church of England schools must serve the whole community”, guardian.co.uk, 5th May 2011,

This is not the government’s responsibility. The government has a responsibility to educate and to allow its people to practise whatever religion they wish to. The government does not have a responsibility to facilitate the practise of a religion where it would cause harms to its people in other ways. Since it is outlined in the main proposition case that it would cause harms in other ways, this is over and above the responsibility of the government.

Parents have a right to ensure their child is brought up with the values they consider important.  Parents send their children to school so that they can be properly educated. For many parents, this education includes proper moral codes and values. Sending their child to a faith school that they know will adhere to the moral codes and values of that particular faith is one of the only ways that they can guarantee their child will be brought up with the values they consider important. [1] It is this that in part makes the schools popular as Ed Balls, then UK education secretary recognises "One thing we've learnt as a government is that having a distinct ethos, strong leadership, a commitment to promoting opportunity for all, those are the kind of schools where parents want to send their children.” [2]  [1] Mott-Thornton, Kevin. “Common Faith: Education, Spirituality and the State.” Ashgate Pub. Ltd. 1998.  [2] BBC News, “Faith schools set for expansion”, 10 September 2007,

Creates animosity towards religious groups. The fact that faith schools perform better than ordinary schools is an advantage only for the children who are lucky enough to attend. This causes feelings of resentment on the part of parents and children who were not of the correct faith and were, therefore, forced to go to a more poorly performing school. This resentment grows into a general feeling of animosity towards the religious group running the school and to religion in general. The proposition believes this is far more harmful in the long run than a minor reduction in quality of education for a small number of children.

Shows submission to organised religion. The proposition believes that by maintaining faith schools the government is allowing organised religion to act on its behalf. This not only undermines the separation of religion and the state but also indicates that organised religion has as much authority as the state. The proposition believes this is inherently harmful and that indicating that organised religion has less authority than the state would be a positive move.

Students are going to forget information whether they are out of school for three weeks or ten. Therefore, teachers will be performing four beginning of the year reviews instead of just one. In addition, students often switch off mentally at the end of term in anticipation of the vacations, which will mean more teaching time wasted. Even if students end up learning more during summer months, they are likely to end up no better educated at the end of the year.

Reduce “summer learning loss”.  During long summer holidays, students completely put aside learning and forget all about their studies for up to three months. In this time, they inevitably forget quite a lot of what they have learned. Teachers then have to spend the first weeks of the new academic year bringing them back up to speed. By eliminating the long summer break and replacing it with year-round learning punctuated by shorter vacation times, this problem would be much reduced. [1]  [1] Davey, Martin, “The Case For Year-Round Schooling”, Toronto Star, July 14th 2008.

Importance of education to national economic performance.  A nation’s most important resource is its human capital, and in the modern world it is vital to have a skilled, educated workforce in order to remain competitive. Many nations have already adopted year-round schooling. By following their example, we will be giving our young people an important advantage in the employment market and thereby improving the country’s economic prospects. [1]  [1] US National Educational Commission on Time and Learning, “Report: Prisoners of Time”, April 1994.

Year-round schooling will probably mean increased administrative costs, as well as ensuring that overheads such as catering, heating and security have to be paid year-round rather than for just part of the year, as at present. [1]  Education funding in many countries has been under pressure for many years, and most schools have explored all sorts of ways of maximising the effective use of their resources and facilities. The best solution to strains on resources is to make more money available to schools, not to stretch them ever thinner.  [1] Richmond, Emily. “Year Round School Could Face Calendar Shift”, Las Vegas Sun, 16th March 2010.

Year-round schooling does nothing to help the issue of boredom. Many “problem children” are more bored in school than outside it; others are often absent from school altogether. There is no hard evidence that social problems such as crime and drug use go up significantly during breaks in the school year.

Reducing inequality.  Evidence suggests that children from lower-income families tend to “fall behind” further during long summer vacations. These children are less likely to read books, pursue additional studies or take part in useful extracurricular activities compared to their peers from wealthier families. [1] This has a knock-on effect on their academic achievement, and once they have fallen behind it is very difficult for them to catch up. (This is the logic behind government-funded programs such as Head Start in the US or Sure Start in the UK) [2]  Year-round schooling would remove this important driver of inequality, give students a level playing field on which to learn, and help create a more meritocratic society.  [1] Johnson, Alex, “Year-round school gains ground around U.S.”, MSNBC.com, 27th October 2010.   [2] “Early Head Start Benefits Children and Families”, US Department of Health and Human Services, April 2006.

Improves student achievement.  Studies show that students in year-round schooling tend to get perform better on many assessment metrics than those who do not [1] . Schools operating a year-round calendar do not have to cram so much course content into a 9 month schedule, but can space out learning better. This allows teaching to proceed at a more logical pace, helping students learn better. Furthermore, by giving students frequent short breaks (instead of two or three long ones), pupils are refreshed and ready to learn when school resumes.  [1] Palmer, Elisabeth A. and Bemis, Amy E., “Year-Round Education”, University of Minnesota College of Education, 24th October 2000.

More efficient use of school resources and premises.  Year-round schooling often goes hand in hand with multi-tracking, where different groups of students at the same school are on different schedules. This has the advantage of allowing school rooms, facilities and other resources to be used more efficiently, thus providing a better education without putting even more strain on government budgets. [1]  [1] “Year Round Education Program Guide”, California Department of Education, 25th July 2011.

In actual fact, the evidence on year-round schooling is inconclusive, with other studies suggesting that there is no educational benefit from holding classes year-round [1] .  Indeed, you could argue that some students prefer to concentrate the bulk of their learning into a shorter time frame and leave time for a long summer break to take their minds off school for a while.  [1] Ohio State University, “ Year-round Schools Don't Boost Learning, Study Finds”. Science Daily, August 14th 2007.

It is certainly true that children from disadvantaged families do not do as well as their luckier peers, but it is not clear why changing the pattern of school attendance will change this. The overall proportion of the year spent away from school will not change, so there is no reason to believe that year-round schooling will benefit students whose homes and families do not provide a positive learning environment [1] .  [1] Newland, Christopher, “Letter to Auburn School Board”, 20th October 1998.

This argument is based on the assumption that year-round schooling delivers academic benefits to students. However, as we will see in Opposition argument 6, there is very little evidence for this. Without concrete evidence that this massive change will deliver real improvements in national educational performance, it will merely divert attention from more pressing problems in our school systems.

Again, there is nothing intrinsic to year-round schooling that makes it easier for families with several children. A single mother who struggles with young children will not be any better off having to take care of their children every six weeks instead of six months.  Year-round schooling is unlikely to be applied in exactly the same way in different schools, and different classes or groups of students may well be on different timetables – thus, parents may find themselves having to take care of children almost year-round rather than having time off, as at present.

Reduce social problems from disaffected, bored youth.  The structure of the school year is often one of the few fixed points in young people’s lives. For many children, particularly those from poorer families, long summer holidays don’t mean summer camps and foreign holidays, but day after day sitting in front of the TV or hanging around in their neighbourhood. All the evidence suggests that boredom is a major factor behind social problems like drug use, youth crime and antisocial behaviour. [1]  Year-round schooling would not get rid of problems like these, of course, but it might help to reduce the level of such behaviour by giving young people something to do.  [1] “Youths bored in school holidays”, BBC News, 11th July 2007.

Year-round learning can help reduce the burden on parents.  For many parents, particularly those with more than one child, summer vacations can be a stressful and difficult time. Without the structure provided by school attendance, children become bored easily and parents struggle to cope.  This is especially true for mothers who may be bringing up children without a father present, or those who wish to continue or resume their careers after the first few years of motherhood; trying to combine a full-time job with the rigours of motherhood is hard but trying to do so during a three month school holiday is almost impossible. Year-round schooling makes such a work-life balance easier for young parents and allows women to return to the workplace on their own terms. [1]  [1] Schulte, Brigid, “The Case For Year-Round School”, Washington Post, June 7th 2009.

Year-round schooling would necessitate a change in the way extra-curricular activities are structured, not a reduction in such hobbies. Shorter breaks of two or three weeks are more than sufficient for most extra-curricular activities and by spreading them throughout the year, instead of ring-fencing them into a couple of summer months, their beneficial impact might well be greater.  If year-round schooling reduces the necessity to send students for extra tuition, as is common in some countries, then this should be considered a positive benefit of the change, not a problem. Families whose children are being educated year-round will have less reason to spend their hard-earned money on expensive and often unnecessary private classes.

Year-round schooling doesn’t place extra burdens on students; the whole point is that it reduces the stress and strain of school life by allowing learning to take place at a gentler pace that is dictated more by the needs of students than the timetable. Holidays of two or three weeks are plenty of time to recharge the batteries for another few weeks of school. Children will be better off mentally and psychologically if year-round schooling is introduced.

Imposes extra costs on education system.  Many schools are simply not set up for year-round use. In particular, most schools are not air-conditioned and often use older, poorly-ventilated buildings and classrooms. In many parts of the world, opening schools during summer would either involve expensive retrofitting and renovation, or sweltering hot classrooms with distracted children. There would also be increased overheads and costs associated with year-round catering, security, heating and administration. [1]  [1] Richmond, Emily. “Year Round School Could Face Calendar Shift”, Las Vegas Sun, 16th March 2010.

Damaging to extra-curricular activities.  A lot of extra-curricular activities take place during summer holidays. Summer camps, trips abroad - even debating competitions. Summer holidays are a sensible time to hold such activities, partly due to the weather but also because different regions or school boards often have different vacation schedules and summer is the only time when students are all likely to have free time. Year-round schooling would reduce the opportunities for such activities.  Some families use long holidays to arrange extra tuition in certain subjects, either as remedial education or to give their children an advantage [1] . Year-round schooling would make it harder for families who wish to exercise this choice, too.  [1] “Summer School”, US Education Commission of the States, 2011.

Places unfair burden on students.  Many children don’t enjoy school. Even those who do still look forward to summer holidays as a time when they can relax and stop worrying about work for a while. And for some students, school life is difficult in other ways – social awkwardness or bullying being a common problem. Taking away summer holidays would mean that students have to work hard year-round, and short small breaks don’t offer the chance to relax as a proper summer holiday does. For those who dislike school, year-round schooling would mean year-round stress and unhappiness. [1]  [1] “Academic Performance Top Cause Of Teen Stress”, Associated Press, 23rd August 2007.

Year-round schooling will increase costs in some areas but more than offset these with efficiency savings in other areas (see argument 7, above). It makes no sense for buildings to sit idle for a third of the year.  As for the argument about air-conditioning, this is only an issue in some countries round the world; in many others it would not be an issue.

Journalist Jeremy Shere describes the problems with most methods of nuclear storage:  "There have been a few other interesting ideas –such as burying nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor. Scientists have also thought about putting waste in really deep holes, burying it in polar ice sheets, and stashing it beneath uninhabited islands. [...] But there are problems with each of these ideas. For example, it would be difficult to monitor nuclear waste under the ocean floor. Waste buried deep in the earth, meanwhile, might contaminate ground water. And as ice sheets continue to melt, it’s hard to say how long nuclear waste would remain buried, or where it would end up if it floated away. Plans to store waste produced in the United States in Yucca Mountain, in Utah, have been put on hold. So for now almost all nuclear waste is kept above ground in special containers at a few hundred different sites around the country.”1  The point with underground nuclear storage is that geological conditions are often very different between states and regions; this would often mean that in some states underground nuclear storage would be completely inappropriate because it could leak due to geological changes. Further, underground nuclear storage as mentioned in the first opposition counter-argument, actively encourages a state to become reliant on nuclear power.  Shere, Jeremy. “What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?” Moment of Science. 23/03/2010

Underground nuclear storage is safer than any available alternative  Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground.  The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example.  Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly.1  As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders.2  Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions.  “Fukushima is a triumph for nuclear power.” The Register. 20/02/2010   “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet.

Storing nuclear waste underground is necessary - there are no better option available  Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with.  Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation.  The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue.  As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. 1  1. “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News.

Underground nuclear storage is not the only way to store nuclear material. Economically speaking, it is more expensive, but likely much safer to store nuclear waste above ground in facilities that can be easily monitored and dealt with. Unlike in underground storage facilities, should something go wrong above ground, it can be responded to quickly and efficiently and it is likely that problems will be detected earlier as well.  Further, widely implementing underground nuclear storage would also encourage states to be more cavalier with their nuclear energy policies. Specifically, whilst nuclear energy generation may result in zero carbon emissions, the mining and milling of uranium that initially starts the process is environmentally damaging.1  ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010

Integral Fast Reactors are not a solution for the short term. There are currently no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation and the research reactor that was to be constructed by the United States was canceled in 1994. Any attempt to use IFRs to recycle all of the world’s nuclear waste would be very expensive and would not be an immediate solution – the waste would need to be stored somewhere while it waits to be used by the new reactors.

The economic costs of underground storage are high. However, given that nuclear power is necessary to avoid what would likely be a very significant amount of economic harm, specifically from global warming. For example, it has been projected that not doing anything to address climate change would result in an overall increase in temperate of 5 degrees Celsius which would lead to economic costs in the order of $74 trillion. This means that the need for nuclear waste storage is inevitable.1  As such, whilst underground storage does cost more than alternate options, it is as mentioned within the proposition case the safest and most reliable method of nuclear waste storage. As such, proposition is willing to take the harm of extra cost in order to prevent harm to people’s health and well being.  Ackerman, Frank. Stanton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change –the Costs of Inaction.” Friend of the Earth. 11/10/2006

Nuclear waste can be put to beneficial uses  France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. 1 It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary. 2  As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation.  Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS.   BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011,

Nuclear waste can be used in other forms of power generation  There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source.1  The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required.2  Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS,   Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011,

Underground nuclear storage is excessively expensive  Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible.  Further, the maintenance of the facilities also requires a lot of long term investment as the structural integrity of the facilities must consistently be monitored and maintained so that if there is a leak, the relevant authorities can be informed quickly and efficiently.  This is seen with the Yucca mountain waste repository site which has cost billions of dollars since the 1990s and was eventually halted due to public fears about nuclear safety.1  ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010

Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground.  This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.1  “Nuclear Waste Faces uncertain future in Europe.” The Nuclear N Former. 2/11/2010

Sexual identity is confusing in any situation. It becomes even more confusing when one is exposed to sex education and the broad spectrum of sexual preference and practice before one is emotionally equipped to understand and appreciate it. Understanding one’s sexual identity is an exploration that must be pursued at one’s own pace, not at the rate mandated from the state or school. Children mature physically and emotionally at very different rates and mandatory sex education which offers the information and the emotional guidance at the same rate to everyone is not well tailored to the different development rates. [1]  [1] Measor et al, Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000

A safe framework for understanding sexuality and sexual identity are essential to human existence  Sex and sexual identity is fundamental part of human life. Sexual desire, for both procreation and recreation, forms one of the core human drives that shapes behaviour. [1] Young people want to explore their own, and one another’s, bodies from quite an early age, long before they would be likely to settle down and get married. Sex for almost everyone in Western countries is not something exclusive to marriage, and most people have multiple sexual partners in their lifetimes. In order to face this reality, young people must be armed with the knowledge of what sexual intercourse entails and the pleasures and the risks inherent in it. [2] Sexual identity itself can be very confusing, especially for young homosexual or transgender people who may not understand their sexuality. A safe, objective environment in which the objective physical facts and the emotional aspects of sexual involvement and activity is provided is essential to facilitate young people to come to grips with sexual identity as it is essential for full development as a person.  [1] Weeks, Sexual Politics and Society, 1981. Mort, Dangerous Sexualities, 1987  [2] Blake, Teenage Sex, 2003

Parents know their children better than anyone. They know what s/he is like, and in what environment s/he will grow up and often live. The state is not infallible and its decisions are not purely objective. When children are not adequately mature for sex education, parents must have the ability to make the decision on their behalf to withhold information that could be potentially damaging to their future development. As to homophobic or bigoted families, such views are considered to be socially acceptable insofar as people have the right to express such views. This does not, however, give parents license to abuse their children if they have alternative sexual preferences. Sex education is not necessary to ensure against abuse, that is the purview of law enforcement.

Sex education provides “Immunization” against sexually transmitted diseases and prevents unwanted pregnancy  It was said at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic that the only vaccination against the virus was knowledge. Knowledge about what is out there is essential to guarding the self. There are a several of ways in which this knowledge is essential; finding out about the risks of sex is just one, having accurate information about the pleasures as well as the risks is another. [1] Knowledge also prevents misinformation.  Young people must be informed about sex, how it works and what the risks associated with it are, and how to access the risks and the pleasures. When sex is not talked about and kept behind closed doors, young people are forced often to grope around in the dark, so to speak. This can result in unwanted pregnancies, and even STDs, some of which can be permanent, a threat to fertility or even life threatening. IT leaves young people confused. [2] The state thus owes an obligation to its citizens to prepare them adequately for their interactions in society, including those of a sexual nature.  A mandatory sex education regime serves as a defence against misinformation about sex. Religious organizations, most notably in the United States, promote abstinence by lying about the effectiveness of contraception and about the transmission of STDs. [3] When such activity is not countered by a scientific explanation of sex and sexual practices a culture of ignorance develops that can have serious negative social and health effects on those who are misinformed. An example of the benefits of sex education is highlighted in the case of the United States. In primarily liberal states where sex education is mandatory, young people are statistically more likely to be sexually active. At the same time in states where sex education is banned or deliberately misleading, teen pregnancy rates are much higher. [4] Clearly the trade-off between high promiscuity rates on the one hand and much higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs on the other stands in the favour of sex education.  Young people live now in a society which is very sexualised [5] it has been described as a carnal jungle. Adults need to offer guidance about negotiating a way through the messages about sex which proliferate in the mass media and consumer culture. [6] Underlying this discussion is controversy about what sex education should be. Sex education has become a shorthand term for the broader subject of personal relationships , sexual health and education about sexuality [7] it is clear that views about what sex education should be and what it should contain has changed significantly over time. [8]  High quality sex education should not only contain factual information about the physiological issues of sexual development and reproduction. It should also offer safe spaces for young people to consider the social and emotional aspects of sexuality and the social and peer pressures that arise in youth cultures.  [1] Sex Education Forum, Teaching about contraception, 1997  [2] Trudell, Doing Sex Education, 1993  [3] Mombiot, Joy of Sex Education, 2004  [4] NPR et al, Sex Education in America, 2004  [5] Roberts, Too young to unwrap a condom, 2998  [6] Sachs et al, How adolescents see the media, 1991. Moore and Rosenthal, Sex roles, 1990. Jackson, Childhood Sexuality, 1982.  [7] Mayock et al, Relationships and Sexual Education in the Context of Social, Personal and Health Education, 2007, P.20  [8] Reiss, What are the aims of school sex education, 1990

Sex education is not necessary to protect children from disease and unwanted pregnancy. Young people can be informed of the dangers of sex without sex education. Besides, if enough people are versed extensively in sex education they should provide sufficient herd immunity that the minority who object on ethical grounds can abstain from sex education without negatively effecting the overall amount of safe sexual practices in a society.

Sex education does not benefit conservative communities as sex education is not simply a provider of information. Rather, it entails at best an acknowledgement that kids will have sex regardless of what they are told, and at worst a positive endorsement of sexual activity. It is a shameful abrogation of responsibility on the part of adults to essentially allow children to make bad decisions. Sex education encourages students to make a choice, meaning more will make the wrong one. [1] Teaching children about sex will necessarily make them more prone to experimentation, and will likely cause them to view their peers in school in a sexualized context, leading to less focus in the classroom on study, and more on sex. Conservative and religious households have every reason to fear such developments.  [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998

Parents cannot be guaranteed to provide a suitable amount of sex education  Parents have a great deal of responsibility in raising children, but they are unsuited to teaching about sexuality as the resulting education will not be consistent, be biased and in some cases may not be carried out at all. Parents tend to view their children as less sexualized; they want them to be innocent. Thus it is often the case that parents seek to shield their children from the realities of sex, and themselves from the young person’s developing sexuality maintaining their innocence through enforced ignorance. This tends to be particularly harmful to young women, as culturally boys are often expected to be more sexually active than girls, and such activity is usually considered appropriate for boys, while not so for girls. A double standard undoubtedly continues to exist. [1] It is in the interest of the state, however, to produce well-rounded individuals who can interact with society effectively on all levels, including the sexual level. When parents do not provide adequate sex education, it is the state that is forced to pick up the tab to pay for STD treatment and teen mothers. People dropping out of school due to pregnancy, and individuals who are unable to work due to debilitating venereal disease impose a steep cost on society. It is thus the state’s duty to provide what parents often cannot for the sake of society as a whole. [2]  Leaving sex education in the hands of parents has the further negative impact of normalizing incorrect or bigoted views regarding sexuality. Homophobic families, for example, will not be able to provide the necessary information to homosexual children, who will suffer not only from lack of education, but also from a lack of sexual self-worth. [3] Mandatory sex education can right the wrongs of such misinformation and bias.  [1] Lees, Sugar and Spice, 1993  [2] Ciardullo, Moving towards a new paradigm, 2007  [3] Galliano, Sex Education Will Help Gay Children, 2009

Even religious and conservative communities will benefit from mandatory sex education  sexual activity and lewd behavior, as religious groups fear, because everything in life is already sexualized. One need only watch a typical perfume ad on television to know that sexuality inculcates popular culture already. Sex education would not lift the scales from the eyes of children entirely; they already have some idea of what is going on. The danger is when they know something about sex, but not enough to be safe. That is why mandatory sex education is essential to people’s wellbeing.  The research evidence from across the world is clear that sex education holds back the age of first intercourse and most certainly does not foster early promiscuity. [3] The abstinence programmes that have been developed in the united states in particular have been spectacularly unsuccessful in reducing rates of sexual exploration and STD and unwanted pregnancy rates. [4] Research has made it clear which kinds of sex education are most effective. [5]  [1] Reiss and Mabud, Sex education and Religion, 1998  [2] Blake, Teenage Sex, 2003  [3] Boethius, Swedish sex education and its results, 1984. Swedish National Board of Education, Sex Education in Swedish Schools, 1986.  [4] Oakley et al, Sexual health education interventions for young people, 1995  [5] Kirby et al, School Based Programmes to reduce sexual risk taking behaviour, 1992

While certainly there should always be room for self-exploration in sexuality, a set mandatory curriculum is essential to understanding the basics of sex and offering opportunity to consider the emotional and social aspects of it in the cultures of young people. [1] It is unfortunate that some students may feel unprepared to undergo sex education, but the value of the information outweighs any potential discomfort. Certainly there is nothing so scarring about the nature of sex that someone who is a bit immature cannot handle with some effort. We need also to have some confidence in the abilities and sensitivities of our teaching professionals to be able to respond with effective sensitivity to the different needs of their students in the classroom situation. This means that we need properly trained teachers to be delivering sex education and teachers themselves have asked for this to be the case.  The research evidence does make it clear that young people are at varying stages of maturity when they are at the same chronological age. Young men may lag behind young women and act with considerable immaturity in sex education lessons. [2] The effective answer to this may be to offer single sex lessons in sex education rather than removing the opportunity for sex education from all young people.  [1] Thomson, Unholy Alliances, 1993  [2] Measor et al. Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000

Parents do not always know best, particularly when it comes to sex education. Parents cannot be trusted to instruct children effectively in sex education because they themselves are often uneducated in the matter and have personal biases regarding the subject. [1] Often they will not understand the finer points of contraception and STDs, things that have each changed substantially in the past few decades, with things like the morning after pill becoming readily available in many countries, and diseases like Chlamydia much more prevalent in populations than they were in past generations. [2] Parents’ ignorance may thus misinform children to their detriment. The parent may not understand their child best preventing their children from ever developing a meaningful understanding of their sexuality. Such is the problem for gay children raised in homes that say being gay is sinful and unnatural. [3] With the only authority figure on the subject he knows telling him he is defective, a gay child is left to suffer and wallow in self-loathing.  [1] Farrell, My mother said…, 1978. Frankham, Not under my roof, 1992. Measor et al, Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000.  [2] Blake, Teenage Sex, 2003  [3] Galliano, Sex Education Will Help Gay Children, 2009

Sex education damages the education system  Sex education damages the education system by confusing the children and by alienating some parents. When children receive mixed signals from home and at school they can suffer real confusion. When parents tell their children that the teacher is wrong about sex, it causes the student to raise his mental defences toward the school thereafter and become less engaged in the process of education. [1] Children will be told by their parents, and will thus come to believe, that the school is promoting a liberal view that is fundamentally contrary to their own. For example, a Muslim girl will find schooling a horrific and alienating experience if she is forced to attend a sex education class that conflicts with her faith as this will be clashing with what she has been taught at home. This will alienate the parents of these children who hold the view that discussion of sex in such a framework is morally repugnant.  [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998

The state has had no historical role in sex education to no ill effect, so should it develop one now.  Sexuality should not be within the purview of the state. The state maintains order and security and provides essential services. Sex education does not fall within its responsibility. Sexuality is for many people deeply personal and should be respected as such; young people should be allowed to explore their sexuality independently and with the guidance of family, not under the watching eye of the state. [1] Sex education programs reduce sexuality to biology and fail to adequately address the emotional elements of sexuality in a way that is not seen as a joke by often-immature students. Inevitably teachers’ personal opinions on sexuality will bleed into their teaching, as will that of the state officials that set the teaching standards for the subject. In this way there is always a normative judgment in sex education that will be seen as the state mandating certain sexual behaviour and practice. This fundamentally attacks the rights of individuals to develop their mode of sexual expression independent of the nanny state’s instruction and can irrevocably harm peoples’ sexual identity.  [1] Lord, Condom Nation, 2009

Sexual development is a process of gradual discovery and cannot be effectively taught in a classroom  Having a one size fits all sex education system cannot effectively deal differences within classes. Sexual experience is a gradual process and cannot be meaningfully taught in the structured environment of the classroom. People must discover much about their own sexuality, through experimentation and self-exploration. By trying to impose a strict curriculum that explains sexual processes and practices along set guidelines, much of the opportunity for self-discovery is lost. Furthermore, when people are forced to conform to the set sex education program, they cannot move at their own pace. This is particularly harmful to people who are physically or emotionally less mature than their fellow students and who would be better served if they were allowed to pursue sexual knowledge at their own pace. When other students are involved in the classroom, there is necessarily a degree of peer pressure, which places a further strain on the later bloomers of the class to conform and experiment sexually before they are ready. [1] Another example is the case of gay and gender dimorphic students who will be left isolated within the class, even singled out as different, in a way that may not be conducive toward the promotion of understanding and acceptance. Teachers cannot cater their lessons to every single student, and thus students with less conventional sexual preferences and identities are left without meaningful engagement in the classroom.  [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998

Parents should have the final choice in sex education for their children  Parents are the ones who are responsible for their children and they know what is best for their own. Parents are the people who best know their children; they live with them, feed them, understand them, and know how and when is best to broach the topic of sex with their children. Parents are in a very real way the shapers of children’s psyche and development, so their input on a central moral and physical issue such as this must be respected. It is a myth that somehow parents lacks the capacity to deal with an issue like sex. Rather, they are the best suited to it. The fact is that children generally listen to their parents, or at least consider seriously what they are told by them. Furthermore, parents are more capable than teachers, in light of their intimate relationship with their children, to discuss the emotional aspects of sex and relationships, topics that would become jokes in the classroom and the subject of ribald humour. [1] It is better to leave sex education in the hands of parents who can apply the delicate touch.  [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998. Measor et al. Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000. Woodcock et al., All these contraceptives, videos and that…, 1992. Kehily and Nayak, Lads and Laughter, 1997.

This argument is based on a particular view of the state and its role in society.it is a view of the state which is particularly innocent of and which fails to acknowledge the range of cultural messages relating to society and sexuality [1] which are broadcast hegemonically although not entirely openly by the state. [2] The state does have a role in sex education. It has taken an ever more holistic view of young citizens, and this is reflected in schools whose remit stretches not just to the academic education of students, but to the preparation of young people for the full spectrum of activities and responsibilities they will face in adult life. Sexual interaction is a fundamental part of that life. Schools have evolved far beyond the provision of skill in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and this should be reflected in such programs as sex education. The state does not in mandating sex education make any normative judgment regarding sexual practices, but rather provides the necessary information and the space to consider the emotional and social issues involved to make informed choices about sex.  [1] Plummer, Sexual Cultures, Communities, Values and Intimacy, 1996  [2] Foucault, Studies in governmentality, 1979. Throughgood, Sex Education as Social Control, 1992

A disagreement over sex education will not alienate someone, whether child or parent, from the entire education system. Students can differentiate between contentious aspects of education like sex education and the general education over which parents, teachers, and state do not disagree. Both parents and teachers will be able to explain the reasons for the difference in teaching in cases where the student is taught different things at home and in school. Saying that just because one issue is contentious all of education is ruined is merely alarmist.

States should not be overly concerned with size as a measure of strength since this is merely increasing the area that needs defending. Instead they should be concerned with having common sense of identity that encourages cooperation. Russia, Nigeria and India are examples of large federated states which suffer from internal insurgencies caused by political grievances.1 The Democratic Republic of the Congo is an excellent example of a large federated state which has proven incapable of defending its borders.2 It may be the case a common identity is better formed in independent nation states. Smaller states like Monaco and Singapore continue to exist with relative security in contrast. 1 AlertNet, 2011, 'Bin Laden death weakens Russia insurgency- official,' The Washington Post, 2006, 'Grievances Fuel Insurgency, Says Nigeria Media 'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand state', BBC News  2 BBC , 2010, 'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand State

Federal states are better able to protect their citizens.  Federal states allow local decision making to suit local needs due to their tiered decision making structures. This ensures that citizens are able to determine how they should live their lives without infringing upon the rights of citizens in other federal units who may have different opinions. However on security matters which affect the entire federal state, citizens are better protected because the federal units are stronger together than apart. A federal state also creates a common sense of purpose than can dissuade conflict between the federal units. A good historical example of this behaviour was the agreement of the Swiss Cantons to come together to collectively protect and enrich themselves from outside threats in 1848.1 1 History of Switzerland, 'Switzerland's History,'

It is true that there are few states which include homogenous national groups. However, there are some (Iceland and Japan for example) but there are many states which are predominantly a single "nation." And given that proposition has accepted that nations are constructed, it is possible for people to opt-into nationhood. Thus autonomous nation states can exist where groups of people agree to live with common cultural and political values. Therefore, it is not futile to attempt to accommodate a common set of political values within a state. Indeed, it is necessary to have some kind of common history, culture, practices or ethnicity often to bind groups together.1 1 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'

Federal states are economically stronger  Federal states are able to remove trade barriers between members which would otherwise exist if there were independent states (such as difficulties in moving goods due to borders). This increases internal trade and economic growth and encourages investors.1 Federal units are able to share resources and concentrate on producing what they are best at (called comparative advantage) at a better economy of scale. Even in cases of agreed free trade areas between states, there is no overarching authority to ensure timely compliance to agreements.2Finally, larger economic units are more able to influence international trade regimes.3 1 EU Business, 2007, 'EU Single Market- benefits,' Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007, 'Guide to Benefits of the EU,' 2 BBC , 2011, 'US and Mexico end cross-border trucking dispute 3 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism

Free trade areas are able to operate quite successfully even if they lack an overarching authority and full integration of currencies, such as NAFTA.1 Economic homogenisation is not necessarily a good thing. Common currencies are best deployed in Optimal Currency Area, which are areas with sufficiently similar economies that a common currency can successfully function. Problems exist where there is a lack of political capital between nations in a federation or when there are logistical barriers (such as the different languages within the EU or the differing strength of public finances).2 There is no reason why federal states are required for comparative advantage to exist, though economies of scale could be less. 1 Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2004, 'NAFTA: A Decade of Success,' . 2 Wikipedia , 2011, 'Optimal Currency Are

In most cases parts of federated states remain in similar economic positions relative to other sections. California and Texas are regularly the most economically successful US states. Rather than receive economic benefit, they have federal taxes transferred to the weakest performing states in the Union. A similar argument is apparent with the German bailouts in the 2010-11 Eurozone financial crisis.1 1 The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,' The Economist, 2011, 'German business and politics: Goodbye to Berlin,'

Nationally homogenous states are rare and most states have local differences  It is not clear what the logical end point for splitting countries over political differences would be. Since each individual has a unique set of preferences, or at least there are large numbers of groups of people with different preferences, the state must aggregate preferences at some point. It makes more sense for the state to aggregate preferences in such a way that creates effective states that can meet their (aggregate) goals rather than attempting to find "pure" nation states. Furthermore, nations are often scattered in areas which do not provide a clear location for a state. An example of this is Eastern Europe or Africa where ethnic groups and tribes regularly cross state boundaries and exist as unconnected pockets.1 It would be impossible to create states to cater to these groups. 1 Guardian, 2007, 'Biafran Lessons,'

Being a federal state helps large states deal with divergent economic performance  Federal states tend to be larger and have different economic cycles. This allows the overall state to cope with different economic cycles by using fiscal transfers (tax) between wealthier states and poorer states to fund government programmes.1 So for example if Mississippi and New Mexico were paying for all their services themselves from their own taxes they would have debts of over 500% of GDP,2however at the beginning of the Republic it was the Southern States who were the richest due to their cotton wealth. 1 Euro Economics, 'Example: Fiscal Transfer 2 The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,'

Often decisions are forced on states by powerful neighbours. Examples include the South African policy of dumping crops in neighbouring states, Russia's brief war with Georgia and the United States' treatment of Latin America.1 Under the proposition they at least have the ability to influence and challenge decisions that are being made.2 There are also the comparative benefits of being within the federal state, detailed in the Proposition section. 1 'A Good neighbour? South Africa forcing GM maize onto African markets and policy makersACB Briefing Paper p. 14 'The Russia-Georgia war, three years onThe Economist 'Bullying Latin AmericaQuarterly Americas 2 'FederalismSection 3.1, Stanford

The comparative situation is that of a resource rich region being surrounded by aggressive neighbours which desire its resources. Weak states are usually incapable of defending their borders and thus fall victim to invasion and occupation (such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo).1 Long term control by a federal state is preferable to repeated violence and conflict as outside forces move in and out of the region. Moreover, being part of a federal state ensures that there is only one party attempting to control the region rather than multiple competing governments which are likely to bring long term violence. Finally, there is the other side to the opposition's case. By being part of a federal state, there is international pressure for members of that resource rich federal unit to have something in return and for their state to adequately look after them. 1 Consultancy Africa Intelligence, 2010, 'Security Situation in the DRC: A case of a weak state leaning on the UN,'

Independent States can suit their populations.  Firstly, Federal states involve compromise between different parties in order to reach proposals which can be acceptable to all members of the federation. This often means that states are forced to compromise on important issues. An example of this is Abortion in the USA.1 Often, in order to protect minorities, voting is skewed towards smaller federal units (for example the US Senate with two Senators per state, regardless of population). This does not fulfil the principles of equal democratic representation. Such an issue exists to far less a degree in independent states, which can be more homogenous in preferences and more reflective of local needs.2 Moreover, given that it is unlikely that any state has chosen the appropriate position of compromise, all federal units will end up with a policy which is sub-optimal for them. Secondly, Federal arrangements tend to be complex, inhibiting transparency as vested interests at different levels of government defend their spheres.2 1 USA Today, 2010, 'Abortion deal helps ensure enough votes for health care,' 2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'

Federal States often have persistent losers.  Within federal states, some federal units are often persistently weaker within the state that others and thus have to repeatedly accommodate (this links to the argument above).1 In countries such as Nigeria, resource rich parts of the country are consistently used by the rest of the country as a source of wealth with insufficient investment in return.2 1 Centre for European Economic Research, 2011, 'Poor States, Rich Federal Government- Winners and Losers of the Emissions Trading Scheme,' Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,' 2 Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007.

Federal governments often extend their powers and usurp local authority, especially if one or more federal units are disproportionately powerful.  The proposition arguments repeatedly rely on the federal state being limited in strength enough to allow local differences and choices. However, historically, federal states have moved to extend their control from the centre often with the justification of necessity. Both the USA and Russia are examples of this trend.1 In the USA, debates about overstretch of federal control are numerous and time consuming. This argument is especially likely if one or a group of federal units are significantly stronger than the other unit, for example the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1871 German Union. In this case, Prussia was able to use its financial strength and size to eventually dominate the Union and control the other federal units.2 1 Garratt , Thomas and Rhine, Russell. 'On the Size and Growth of Government.' Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. 88 (1). 2006. World Savvy, 2008, 'Centralization of Power in Modern Russia,' 2 Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,'

It is harder to deal with internal repression than the invasion of another sovereign state.  Federal states offer convenient guises for the exploitation of resource rich areas or areas of strategic importance. The Niger Delta is used by the Nigerian government to provide oil wealth that is insufficiently invested in the Delta leading to insurgencies1. The Nigerian government is able to remove international pressure to reform by allying itself with UN principles of non-intervention in sovereign states which is only rarely overridden in cases of serious, systemic and widespread human rights abuses when 'all peaceful means have failed'.2 In reality, this gives government's considerable leeway to commit abuses within their own territory. If the Niger Delta were a separate country, there would be much more political capital to ensure it was appropriately treated and a stronger legal basis to hold Nigeria to account. 1 Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007. 2 United Nations, 'An Agenda for Peace: Preventative Diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-making,'

This point ignores the fact that weak federal units would make weak states unable to protect their interests anyway. Mississippi would have very little global influence if it were not in the USA. Within the USA it gains the benefit of collective bargaining. Weaker federal units together are more powerful than apart and have the protection of more powerful units in global diplomacy.

Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing; it prevents federal units from selecting extreme policies which could harm minority groups.1Moreover, the devolved power structure of federal states means that the decisions which have to be collective are normally in areas of collective interest, for example defence, where there is a "whole" which should have preference over individual federal units. Whilst different levels of federal arrangements will have different interests, this reflects their different functions and prevents any one function from being overridden completely. Finally, this argument ignores the comparative which includes the benefits of federation to the constituent units 1 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'

People are not stupid. They will not vote for someone who is using the powers of the executive to enrich himself. Rather, leaders will only be able to stay in power so long as they do what the people want. If leaders are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on the leader, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states, in such cases as with Chavez the executive will have enough power simply to override the imposed term limits. [1]  [1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available:

The longer a single leader remains in power, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage.  Power has a strong tendency to corrupt; it is highly intoxicating. For this reason, it should not be left in the hands of one person for too long. When a leader 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 the executive runs the risk of becoming a personal fief, rather than the office of first servant of the people, as it should be. This is seen particularly in parts of the developing world where leaders use state funds to generate electoral support from key groups and to maintain the loyalty of essential supporters. A current example of this is in Venezuela where Hugo Chavez has been able to monopolize power to the point where it is unclear who his successor would be should he die suddenly. [1] Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to enact self-aggrandizing policies and to retain power indefinitely. [2] Instead, by maintaining term limits, leaders have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.  [1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available:   [2] Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available:

Voters will choose the leader they think will do the best job, if this is the incumbent then that is democracy. Election machines and lobby groups may be able to help an incumbent somewhat, but at the end of the day the leader must be able to convince the people that he has done a good job and is still suitable to lead. As to the issue of countries like Zimbabwe, if the people want to keep electing a revolutionary hero, that is their choice. The overruling of election results, as occurred in the most recent Zimbabwean election, however, is not democratic and thus unacceptable for a mature state. Mugabe’s ability to flaunt the will of the people was not due to a lack of term limits, however, but on an inadequate separation of powers inherent in the system. [1] Adding term limits to that system, and indeed any system, will do little to redress imbalances between branches of government. The case of Vladimir Putin is similarly instructive, despite stepping down after his second term, he thereafter took the office of Prime Minister and maintained effective power. Term limits are no barrier to those determined and popular enough to hang on to power.  [1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

The executive branch of government, having no countervailing voices to the leader s’ within it, must be checked by limiting tenancy in office.  Term limits are a necessary check on executive power to prevent an over mighty executive. Whereas the legislature and judiciary are composed of many competing views, with members of various parties and outlooks represented, the executive of a country speaks with a single voice. In legislatures, party leaders are not the sole sources of power, with factions and alternative nexuses of influence forming throughout that branch of government. [1] Executive power, on the other hand, rests solely in the hands of the leader, usually a president. The leader has full power over the policies of the executive branch of government. Cabinets, which form part of the executive in practice, are usually directly answerable to the leader, and ministers can be dismissed if they are uncooperative or dispute the leader’s policies. Even in parliamentary systems, leaders with a majority and a strong party whip can command the same powers as a strong president, if not more. It is thus necessary to have a check on the highly individual power that is the executive. Term limits are the best such check. Term limits allow leaders to enact their policies over a set time period and then usher them out of office. [2] This is essential, because too much power in the hands of a single individual for too long can upset the balance of power in a country and shift power in favour of the executive, thus damaging the protections to society that checks provide. This is exactly what happened in the United Kingdom under Tony Blair where from the start cabinet government virtually disappeared Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler said “In the eight months I was cabinet secretary when Tony Blair was prime minister, the only decision the cabinet took was about the Millennium Dome,” [3] and power continued to be ever more centralized in response to terrorism.  [1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.  [2] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available:   [3] Press Association. 2007. “Blair cabinet ‘took one decision in eight months’”, guardian.co.uk, 29th May 2007, Available:

Leaders may have a single view and be the sole centre of power in the executive branch, but that does not mean the leader’s remaining in office will somehow shift power away from the other branches. The separation of powers is constitutionally protected in most countries, and leaders’ powers will be circumscribed by these whether term-limited or not. In the example of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while Blair was centralizing power in Number 10 Brown at the Treasury always had an independent voice and enough power to prevent the prime minister getting his way on domestic policy.

A leader who is term-limited suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term leader will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Furthermore, as to lobby-group support, a leader on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favour groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for leaders, paid for often at the expense of the public.

Term limits check the power of incumbency as an election-winning tool and allow new and energetic leaders and ideas to flourish.  Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Leaders and politicians generally, almost always win re-election. Such has been the case in the United States, for example, where presidents are almost always re-elected for a second term. Leaders are re-elected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for those who they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. This problem has become particularly serious in developing world in which revolutionary leaders from the original independence movements are still politically active. These leaders often command huge followings and mass loyalty, which they use to maintain power in spite of poor decisions and corruption in many cases. Such has been the case in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe winning presidential elections in spite of mass corruption and mismanagement. [1] Only recently have the people finally voted against him, but it was too late, as his power had become too entrenched to unseat him. The uphill battle that will always exist to unseat incumbents makes term limits necessary. Countries need new ideas and new leaders to enact them. Old leaders using election machines to retain power do their country a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.  [1] Meredith, Martin. 2003. Mugabe: Power and Plunder in Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Freeing the executive from re-election concerns can help focus attention on the public interest  A focus of a leader who is looking toward the next election is on getting votes. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by leaders, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are concerned with being re-elected. A leader has an incentive to put tough decisions off if he can retain power by doing so. When constrained by term limits, leaders must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform. [1] Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places leaders 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 behaviour, it is curtailed by term limits, as leaders in their final term will not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again.  Furthermore, leaders who develop strong party structures can influence the choice of their successor, ensuring that they have a legacy. In this way term limits encourage the development of party-based systems, rather than personality based systems of government.  [1] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available:

While some continuity is desirable in leadership, it is not worth the costs of allowing a single individual to retain so much power for so long. If there are crises to face or long-term legislative agendas to push forward, the leader may still offer insight and support out of office and may back a candidate to succeed him who will continue his policies. The boons of continuity can thus be maintained without the risks of despotism and corruption that too long held office encourages.

Term limits protect democracy. While people may not be able to vote for a leader 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 leaders to specified terms, however, prevents them from becoming too powerful and damaging the democratic system of checks and balances.

Term limits on leaders unbalances power in favour of non-limited legislators and the judiciary.  When one branch is in constant flux and another retains the ability to maintain a degree of continuity, the power balance is naturally unequal. An executive who can continuously seek re-election is better equalized with the other branches. Fear that a leader somehow will be able to override the checks instituted by the constitution and laws of a state are entirely unfounded. A third-term president in the United States, for example, is no more innately powerful than a second-term one. [1] He can no more change the constitution, or take power from the other branches of government than he could previously. In cases where leaders have wrested power from the other branches and become dictators, as in Zimbabwe, the cause of the problem is not a lack of term limits, but rather a lack of adequate separation of powers in government. Term limits do not stop tyranny, as a would-be dictator can easily enough remove term limits by fiat. The solution to dictatorship is the establishment of robust democratic institutions and a genuine separation of powers. Furthermore, a strong leader may be necessary to counter the potential tyranny of a dominant legislature as much as the reverse. Removing term limits ensures balance among the power centres of government.  [1] Koenig, Robert. 1995. The Chief Executive. Florence: Wadsworth Publishing.

The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits.  With term limits, a leader 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 leaders 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. Furthermore, lame duck leaders 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 heads of state and government find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement. [1] Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behaviour, as leaders look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people.  [1] Wynne, Michael. 2004. “Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy”. University of Wolongong. Available:

A strong, consistent executive may be desirable in many cases.  Continuity and experience in leadership has real value. Experienced hands can be best for navigating the often-treacherous waters of politics, and such experience is especially necessary in the executive. Furthermore, the prospect of future tenure gives incumbent leaders the leverage to get things done. When there are no term limits, lame duck leaders are generally eliminated. The status quo undermines the ability of last-term leaders to act effectively, since members of the other branches of government, and the public, know they are on the way out and thus lack the same ability to enact policy. [1] Eliminating term limits allows leaders to make the most of every term they serve to enact policy. It also allows leaders to focus on long-term projects that might take more than the time allotted to them by their term limits. When considering the ascension of new leaders, it is necessary to consider that they will always take some time acclimating themselves to their new office, time that is thus not put to efficient use in governing. Constant changing of leadership brought about by term limits serves only to exacerbate this problem. In other words, leadership is like anything else—one gets better with experience. Additionally, lobbyists and powerful legislators will more easily exploit amateurish newcomers to leadership. Naiveté on the part of new leaders who are unused to the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Continuity in leadership is especially important in times of crisis. For example, the United States needed the continuity and strength of Franklin Roosevelt during Great Depression, and later during World War II. Americans were willing to break with the tradition of presidents serving only two terms of office for the sake of that leadership. [2] Clearly, it is better to have a tried and tested leader in times of struggle than a potentially disastrous, untested newcomer.  [1] Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available:   [2] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their leaders on their own.  Term limits are grossly undemocratic. If a leader is popular and desired by the people to continue to lead them, then it should be their choice to re-elect him. The instituting of term limits assumes voters cannot act intelligently without proper guidance. This is an insult to the intelligence of voters. The electorate will see whether a leader is doing a good job and will vote accordingly. Preventing a potentially popular candidate from standing for re-election simply removes the right to make important political decisions from the electorate. The reason some countries have overpowered presidents and executives is not due to a lack of term limits, but because of a system designed to suppress opposition. Term limits are not a concern when considering why countries have corrupt and authoritarian leaders. [1] In such countries or where the leader is very popular the leader will be able to overturn the term limits anyway rendering them redundant. This occurred in Venezuela in 2009 when Chavez the Venezuelan President won a referendum to end term limits. [2] The people, if they have the freedom to choose who should lead them, should have the freedom to choose incumbents, and to do so indefinitely if that is what the popular will demands.  [1] Meredith, Martin. 2003. Mugabe: Power and Plunder in Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  [2] Voice of America, 2009. “Chavez Celebrates End to Venezuela Term Limits”, 16th February, 2009, Available:

A leader who has to constantly concern himself with re-election is likely to be far more beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited. While a term-limited leader may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to the ability to do what is right for the nation. Leaders who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a leader who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision.  Furthermore, reducing the incentive to pander to self-interest groups in one’s final term can be achieved through offering good retirement benefits to ex-leaders, including international jobs. [1]  [1] Ginsburg, Tom, James Melton and Zachary Elkins. 2011. “On the Evasion of Executive Term Limits.” William and Mary Law Review. Available:

The executive, at least in Presidential and Parliamentary systems of government, already has the extra power of being an individual wielding the entire power of the branch of government. There are always competing power groups within legislatures, so it can never run the risk of becoming tyrannical in the same way the executive can. Term limits are an essential check on the huge individual power that the executive bestows on leaders.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice in the US are high ranking female politicians who mostly deal in traditionally 'male' topics. Not all female politicians will represent women's views or needs. Indeed, sometimes they are bad advocates for women. For example, Nadine Dorries proposed a bill in Parliament for teaching abstinence to girls in school, but excluded teaching boys; this is a clear bias and suggests that boys can get away with being irresponsible.

Women must gain positions in Parliament quickly as they would raise awareness about 'less important' issues such as family and employment rights  Whilst is it possible for men to speak on women's issues, some topics of debate (e.g. on family issues or equality in the workplace) are still seen as less important than economics or foreign policy. Creating more female MPs would encourage more debates about social policy, and so do more to produce constructive legislation of relevance to real people's lives. For example, Harriet Harman is the first MP to seriously confront the gaps in the treatment of women and other minorities in the workplace1. This was previously seen as a 'soft' issue unworthy of parliamentary attention; she was more in touch with women's (and, of course, many men's) priorities and acted upon them. If we want our political system to be in touch with the priorities of everyone, we must to act to increase women's representation.  1 'Harman pushes discrimination plan', BBC, 26th June 2008

Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must.  1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011

Female role models are needed urgently to raise aspirations among young women and change parliamentary practices  At present there is a vicious circle whereby women see no point in standing for politics because it is viewed as a male-dominated institution. Positive discrimination is the only way to encourage women to stand. Only if one generation is pushed towards politics can there be role models for potential future women MPs to follow; for that reason it need not be a permanent measure, just one that gets the ball rolling1. It has been proven by a study at the University of Toronto, Canada, that women need inspirational female role models more than men; they need it to be demonstrated that it is possible to overcome barrier2 . Positive discrimination would provide this evidence and support. This measure would simply allow women to overcome the institutional sexism in the selection committees of the established political parties, which has for so long prevented a representative number of women from becoming candidates, and would encourage other women to try and emulate that. It's about changing stereotypes and perception (particularly of the concept 'leadership', which we automatically think of as a male trait1). This will help achieve true progress in the future.  1 'Increasing the numbers of female MPs', Thinking and Doing, 14th May 2010  2 'Women need female role models', Research Digest, 16th March 2006

A true role model has to be admired. Encouraging more women to stand for election should not be about 'making up numbers': women are extremely capable of becoming elected without help from male party leaders. Shirley Chisholm, in a famous speech on gender equality to Congress in Washington, U.S., on 21st May 1969, aired a similar sentiment: "women need no protection that men do not need. What we need are laws to protect working people, to guarantee them fair pay, safe working conditions, protection against sickness and layoffs and provision for dignified, comfortable retirement. Men and women need these things equally. That one sex need protection more than the other is a male supremacist myth as ridiculous and unworthy of respect as the white supremacist myth that society is trying to cure itself of at this time"1. Apportioning a quota of seats for women or all-women shortlists will be a patronising implication that women cannot succeed off the back of their own merits, and that men are innately superior. This does not create inspirational role models.  1 Full transcript of speech, 'Equal Rights for Women' by Shirley Chisholm:

Parliament must be representative of our society and that requires a substantial increase in the number of women which only positive discrimination can achieve  In a 'representative' democracy it is vital that every part of the population be accurately and proportionately represented. The present lack of female voices in parliaments across the world symbolises the continuing patriarchal societal bias. Women are over half of the population, yet less than 20% of the House of Commons is made up of women. As of 2011, there are only 72 women (constituting 16.6% of all Representatives) serving in the House of Representatives in the US. In order to truly have a representative government, numbers must be increased to fairly mirror numbers in society. All women shortlists and other artificial means are a quick and effective way of doing this. Even David Cameron, a traditional opponent to positive discrimination for women, when asked whether a meritocracy was more desirable, said "It doesn't work"; "we tried that for years and the rate of change was too slow. If you just open the door and say 'you're welcome, come in,' and all they see is a wave of white [male] faces, it's not very welcoming"1.Indeed, a recent report by the Hansard Society2 said that the numbers of women in UK Parliament could fall unless positive action is taken3. Sarah Childs, launching the report, said that "unless all parties use equality guarantees, such as all-women shortlists, it is most unlikely that they will select women in vacant seats" 3. Compulsion is necessary to begin to achieve parity of representation4. The Labour party used all-women shortlists in the 1990's and many well-known female MPs were elected this way. Positive action is vital for reasons of justice and fairness.  1 'David Cameron: I will impose all-women shortlists' by Rosa Prince, The Telegraph, 18th February 2010  2 The Hansard Society  3 'All-women shortlists a must, says report' by Oliver King, The Guardian, 15th November 2005  4 'Call for all-women shortlists' by David Bentley, The Independent, 11th January 2010

All-women shortlists were declared legal in 2001 after a debate, and there has not been an issue about its legality since then1. Judges have ruled that quotas and other forms of positive discrimination are not in breach of any human rights or democratic law, and thus should be used. Positive discrimination compensates women for the many years that they were excluded and placed in the political wilderness. There is an unavoidable discrimination at work in the electoral systems worldwide, and if another type of discrimination is temporarily necessarily to combat it then it must be used. A true 'meritocracy' only works when candidates are starting from equal positions. Dame Ann Begg MP has said that positive discrimination is absolutely crucial for ensuring the best candidates apply: "If under-represented groups are not encouraged to apply, you cannot get the best person for the job. Women, for example, are less likely to put themselves forward as MPs"2. Nobody is saying that positive discrimination is without its problems, but in this circumstance the end must justify the means.  1 'Election bill will make all-women shortlists legal' by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 18th October 2001  2 'Positive discrimination crucial for democracy, says disabled MP' by Alev Sen, The Beaver, 15th March 2011

MPs will still be freely chosen representatives. Constituents can vote for any of the candidates on the ballot; if they disagree with a party's use of quotas or all-women shortlists they can cast their vote elsewhere. The emphasis, as always in voting, will be on the party. It does not limit their freedom of suffrage at all: we still vote for the candidate we feel will best represent our interests.

Artificial increases in numbers of women are not necessary, as there are other, less intrusive, alternatives to increase visibility of women in politics  Positive discrimination is an extremely heavy-handed way of increasing the numbers of women in parliament. Women should of course have the same opportunities for participation in politics (and other male-dominated institutions should as business) as men; but they should not have more; Ann Widdecombe has argued that female campaigners, such as the Suffragettes, "wanted equal opportunities not special privileges"1. Many believe that other empowerment programs, such as education, would be much more effective for creating equal opportunities and create less controversy which could end up being counter-productive for the cause. Statistically, 1 billion people in the world are illiterate; two thirds of them are women2. Education is the most crucial tool to give women the same opportunities of men, particularly in developing countries. That will insure that women too are participating in the governance of their countries.  It is also important to note that the situation is improving across the world on its own. Canada elected a record 76 candidates in the 2011 election, up from 69 the previous election3. Nordic countries average around 40% women candidates, which is about the ideal given that competency must be taken into account and 50-50 is unlikely4. Even in Iraqi elections, all political parties had to submit lists of candidates where every third person was a woman; this guarantees at least 25% of all elected delegates are women4. The numbers of women in power are also increasing: 20 countries currently have a female leader5, and to that list must be added Thailand who recently elected Yingluck Shinawatra as prime minister6. With this rate of change, equality will be achieved fairly quickly and the controversy and heavy-handedness of positive discrimination is not necessary. It may even be detrimental to the cause.  1 'All women shortlists', Wikipedia  2 'Women and Literacy', SIL International  3 'Record number of women elected' by Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News, 3rd May 2011  4 'Women's representation worldwide', Fairvote  5 'Female World Leaders Currently in Power'  6 'Thailand: Yingluck Shinawatra wins key election', BBC, 3rd July 2011

THIS HOUSE WOULD INTRODUCE POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION TO PUT MORE WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT Women are vastly underrepresented in democratic legislatures across the world. Until 20 years ago women had never been more than 5% of MPs in UK Parliament1. Even today wom  How is this different to being elected because of the particular party you represent? Certainly Margaret Thatcher was not helped as a woman, but she was elected to represent Finchley, in Middlesex, which is a traditionally Conservative constituency; it was inevitable that she would be elected because she stood in a Tory 'safe seat'. Thatcher was thus elected not through her own individual merit or competence, but rather because she represented the party who always won there. It must also be noted that quotas and all-women shortlists do not necessarily mean that the best person is unavailable. Jacqui Smith, the first female Home Secretary, was elected on an all-women shortlist1. She would not have been appointed to the Labour government's cabinet if she had not been an outstanding politician; the all-woman shortlist not only did not prevent constituents from being represented by a capable MP, but in fact gave her a higher chance of being elected, which was to the benefit of all of us.  1 'All women shortlists' by Richard Kelly and Isobel White, House of Commons Library, 21st October 2009

Positive discrimination for women is discrimination  Merely glossing 'positive' discrimination does not hide the fact that it is still discrimination. The Labour Party's policy in the 1990s of discriminating in favour of women in selecting candidates for parliament was rightly found to be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as it disadvantages potential male candidates1. The law may have been changed, but the principle of the objection remains and all-women shortlists are only legal until 20152which demonstrates a level of uncertainty and reservation about its true legality. Equality is enough to compensate for past unfairness. MPs should be the best on offer, and the one chosen freely by constituents, otherwise this is not democracy. All-Women shortlists seem to, in some ways, detract from the purpose of having elections if candidate lists are restricted.  1 'All women shortlists', Wikipedia  2 'Election bill will make all-women shortlists legal' by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 18th October 2001

All-women shortlists or quotas restrict a constituent's freedom of choice  Article 21 of the Human Rights Act, clauses 1 and 3, state that "everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives and the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedure". Candidates on all-women shortlists would not be freely chosen by constituents but imposed upon them. Some constituencies would have all-women shortlists, and some wouldn't, and this would be completely arbitrary; people's choice of candidate would vary immensely according to where they live, and this is undemocratic. By allocating a specific number of seats to women in parliament parties would be infringing this universal law which will impact upon the fundamental human rights of the voters.

If people feel that a woman has been appointed simply for her gender rather than for her talents, then this will damage rather than enhance the status of female MPs1: they will, many argue, become simply "token women"2. Many leading female MPs oppose all-women shortlists on a matter of principle. Ann Widdecombe claims they are "an insult to women": she said, "Neither Margaret Thatcher nor I needed this kind of help to get into Parliament"3. At a different time, Ann Widdecombe has said: "The concept of merit is going out of the window. I don't care whether an MP is male or female, black or white, rich or poor, old or young. What matters is the merit they bring. We really cannot have targets for particular categories. It's frankly insulting because it suggests women and ethnic minorities cannot get there on their own merit"4. Whether it is true that a lesser-able candidate gets an easier ride in on all-women shortlists, the fact remains that people will perceive that as having been the case. This may result in their views being taken less seriously than MPs elected in an open ballot, and this is not democratic. It is far better than women fight their way in and are respected once they are in parliament.  1 'Women-only shortlists are a patronising stunt

Other options will not have a large enough or fast enough impact on the state of politics. Most women have found that "Even where women have indicated willingness and self-confidence to stand for public office, their efforts had been thwarted by male dominated and administrative structures"1. Certainly women must be empowered through education and other such indirect methods, but that is not enough alone to increase female MPs. Shortlists and quotas are a necessary step to raise the profile of women in politics, and would only be needed up until the point where their representation is equal without this. Education is a crucial part of a long-term strategy, but we also need short term impetus. Positive discrimination gives women a temporary platform from where they can make a difference for generations to come.  1 'Director calls for affirmative action for women into leadership positions', Modern Ghana, 19th December 2006

Countries can develop their nuclear-related technologies without the need to direct efforts to the construction of extremely dangerous, miniature nuclear weapons. Rather, if superior technology is desired, the resources exist in Western countries to do most research without even touching nuclear materials, being able to do much of the research by means of computer. Dominance in nuclear engineering does not require the creation of such weapons. It is better to direct research toward peaceful applications of nuclear technology.

Designing and constructing tactical nuclear weapons allow a state's scientists to maintain a competitive position in nuclear technology.  Research and development into tactical nuclear weapons are essential for countries to maintain their technological edge in the field of nuclear science. The United States has long enjoyed technological dominance in the field of nuclear weaponry. However, in recent years China and Russia have begun to pour effort into developing ever-smaller nuclear weapons for tactical deployment. If the United States and the other nuclear powers wish to maintain their position within the nuclear tech order, they must begin investing further in development of similar miniaturized nuclear devices. Research into the design and construction of mini-nukes provides a number of benefits beyond the tactical flexibility conferred by such weapons. First, developing mini-nukes puts designers and scientists in the West on the same intellectual page as those seeking to devise nuclear weapons suitable for use in terrorist attacks, such as so-called suitcase-nukes1. By learning how to build such weapons scientists will be able to devise means of counteracting them should an enemy attempt to employ them in an attack. Furthermore, the miniaturization of nuclear weapons has applications in other nuclear technologies such as in the design and manufacture of smaller nuclear power facilities. Military technology always finds an outlet in civilian use. Such was case with Cold War technological endeavors, such as the Space Race, which yielded everything from superior computer processors to ballpoint pens. Clearly, the public will in many ways reap the boons arising from the development of smaller tactical nuclear weapons. 1 Jervis, Robert. 2001. "Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs.

All rogue states that might attack the United States or other Western countries would likely be unable to withstand a conventional military attack from one of them. For this reason, any retaliation to a crude nuclear attack from a rogue state would more likely, and more justifiably, incur retaliation by conventional military force. With its massive conventional bombs, air and sea dominance, and tactical superiority, the United States, for example would be better served by responding to nuclear aggression with overwhelming conventional firepower. Rather than validating nuclear retaliation, and thus opening the door to similar responses in the future, it is better to respond to such situations with conventional power.

All countries have an inherent right to self-defense even when they lack the capacity to do so with conventional weapons.  States, as the building blocks of international society, have an inviolable right to self-defense, and this right extends to the possession of miniature, tactical nuclear weapons. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of small and poor states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. When armed with tactical nuclear weapons, all states become equal in terms of capacity to do harm to one another. If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to severely damage, or even destroy, the would-be invader's military capacity with a few well-placed miniature nuclear missiles [1]. An example of this is the 2008 invasion of Georgia by Russian troops, which would likely never have occurred had Georgia possessed an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, as Russia would have thought twice when considering that its large tank formations could be wiped out by a single well-placed tactical warhead. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves.  [1] The Economist. 2011. “A Rivalry that Threatens the World”. The Economist. Available:

Countries need to design nuclear devices to adapt with changing defensive technology.  There are a number of technological developments that have made the use of conventional weapons ineffective in combating certain threats. For example, some bunkers are buried so deeply underground that conventional bombs cannot penetrate them. Weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), currently in development in the United States, would be able to penetrate such bunkers, while leaving no more surface damage than a conventional bomb1. Deployment of a weapon such as the RNEP might prove necessary in order to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons in rogue states, as for example, Iran has built extremely tough bunkers for the purpose of nuclear testing and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Blocking the development of necessary tactical nuclear technologies actually raises the chances of these dangerous states obtaining nuclear weapons. Another instance of tactical nuclear devices proving useful is in the destruction of clandestine biological and chemical weapons factories. Were such facilities destroyed by conventional bombing, some of the materials being manufactured could easily leak into neighbouring population areas, leading to increased casualties. Clearly, in light of these defense innovations, tactical nuclear weapons are an essential addition to a nuclear power's arsenal. 1 Reynolds, Paul. 2003. "Mini-Nukes on US Agenda". BBC News.

Conventional weapons are perfectly capable of dealing with the issues and conflicts for which tactical nuclear weapons are designed, and are less risky to employ. The predictions by the United States government that the RNEP would produce little fallout, for example, appear unfounded. On the contrary, the weapon would likely scatter deadly nuclear fallout for miles around a target site, causing terrible destruction and collateral damage1. Furthermore, developments in conventional weapons can serve the same purposes, if with slightly greater difficulty. New super bunker-buster bombs are in development in the United States that do not carry a nuclear payload, and fuel-air bombs can, with their wide incendiary range, destroy factories and incinerate any hazardous materials quite effectively. New nuclear weapons are not necessary for the tactical concerns of the future. 1 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005. "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator".

While states should of course have the right to defend themselves, this does not extend to the possession and use of tactical nuclear weapons. Just as biological and chemical weapons are banned by international treaty, so too has the international community generally acknowledged that nuclear proliferation is negative, which is why so many treaties are dedicated to non-proliferation [1]. It is a tragedy that nuclear weapons exist, even more so that a few countries are still seeking to develop them. It is better to fight this movement, to keep nuclear weapons in as few hands as possible so as to prevent their development, testing, and use by rogue states, terrorists, and other dangers to international security. This is all the more true of tactical nuclear weapons, whose smaller size and destructive capacity make them not only easier for terrorists to acquire, but also to be used, and thus to instigate a rapid escalation to full-scale nuclear war.  [1] Shah, Anup. 2009. “Nuclear Weapons”. Global Issues. Available:

The unwillingness of the United States and Russia to give up tactical nuclear weapons shows some of the hypocrisy running through the New START. The treaty should make an effort to eliminate nuclear weapons completely, not just some. Furthermore, tactical nuclear weapons are more dangerous than their larger strategic counterparts because they are much smaller, and thus lend themselves to actually be used, which raises serious risks of escalation.

Tactical nuclear warheads are more serviceable for use in intimidation and retaliation toward enemies, as they are considerably less catastrophically destructive than those of current nuclear arsenals.  For deterrence to function, rogue states and other international actors with nuclear capabilities, such as North Korea, must believe that their would-be target will retaliate in kind if attacked, tactical nuclear weapons provide a middle option. Given that these rogue states would likely only have access to low-yield nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that they would be able to launch a nuclear attack capable of more than damaging a Western city. Furthermore, the relative difficulty of developing deliverable nuclear weapons means that rogue nations are increasingly looking toward the acquisition and development of alternative weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. Were the United States, or another nuclear power, to be attacked by any of these weapons, it is unlikely that it, or the international community would consider the deployment of a strategic nuclear strike in retaliation to be justified. The response would certainly be disproportionately large, as strategic nuclear missiles can easily level cities, even with the smallest possible payload. This means that in order to maintain effective deterrence, nuclear powers must shift from the paradigm laid out by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction to a "flexible response" doctrine, in which countries deploy arsenals of much smaller, tactical nuclear weapons that their enemies honestly believe they will use if provoked. By equipping themselves with a range of weapons, so as to be able to scale responses appropriately, nuclear-armed countries are far likelier to deter potential aggressors in future 1. Pakistan's military serves as an example of such tactical nuclear capability ready for action; its army is armed with an arsenal of mini-nukes that can be used to destroy whole tank formations, with little radioactive fallout dispersing beyond the battlefield. These weapons serve to redress the balance between Pakistani and Indian conventional military capacity. As Pakistan is woefully outnumbered and outgunned in conventional weapons, its tactical nuclear arsenal can deliver devastating damage to massed Indian army formations, preventing any potential invasion2. Clearly, tactical nuclear weapons are useful weapons in a country arsenal, preparing it to be more flexible in its application of nuclear force. 1 Reynolds, Paul. 2003. "Mini-Nukes on US Agenda". BBC News. 2 The Economist. 2011. "A Rivalry that Threatens the World". The Economist.

The feeling of security generated by possession of tactical nuclear weapons will give states the political will to decommission standing nuclear arsenals.  Development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons can be viewed as a suitable replacement for the thousands of strategic nuclear missiles and launchers being decommissioned as part of the recently ratified New START between Russia and the United States, which represents a major step toward non-proliferation of strategic nuclear weapons. The treaty exempts tactical nuclear weapons by omitting them from the language of the treaty, including as yet undeveloped miniature warheads, as both the United States and Russia have come to see the possession and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons as key to their national security. Replacing large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons with a smaller quantity of lower capacity tactical weapons marks a major movement away from proliferation of potentially world-destroying weaponry. Furthermore, the movement from proliferation of unusable strategic weapons to tactically viable, smaller nuclear weapons can be used as a means of allaying the fears of citizens in the United States, Russia, and other countries pursuing policies of non-proliferation that their countries nuclear defenses are not only still viable, but more practicable.

Safeguards can be put in place to ensure that power over nuclear weapons is not devolved too far. Central control of launch codes, for example, can allow dispersed deployment and tactical control, without compromising the overall strategic security of the weapons. Furthermore, in the case of Pakistan, it seems more likely that its deployment of tactical nuclear weapons will simply serve as an additional deterrent to potential Indian incursions into the country. It is Pakistan's right to defend itself by whatever means available to it, tactical nuclear weapons included.

Much of the technology of tactical nuclear weapons is still in the early stages of development. While many of the weapons, such as the RNEP, cannot yet be applied in the field, their eventual development could open the door to a broad range of strategic considerations. For that reason, it is imperative that work in this field continue, to guarantee that states can have the best defenses available to them and the greatest tactical flexibility in the event of conflict.

Moving nuclear diplomacy away from the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction undermines world stability.  Tactical nuclear weapons undermine the overarching structure of deterrence in nuclear diplomacy. Nuclear weapons create stability, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war1. If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place. Furthermore, armed with a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another 2. If a large state attempts to intimidate or to invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively subdue it, since the small state will have the power to seriously injure, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles3. The dynamics created by MAD are entirely lost when miniaturized, tactical nuclear weapons are brought into the equation. By considering nuclear weapons to no longer fit into the rigid framework of MAD, which ensures that they are not used except in response to existential threats, their use becomes more likely and more accepted as a strategic tool. For example, the 2002 United States Nuclear Posture Review recommends the integration of nuclear weapons into the broader strategic framework of the military and defense department. Such reconsideration can only make the use of nuclear weapons more likely4. Clearly, the development of tactical nuclear weapons will only destabilize world relations, not offer greater security. 1 Waltz, Kenneth. 1981. "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better". Adelphi Papers 171. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies. 2 Jervis, Robert. 2001. "Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs. 3 Mearsheimer, John. 1993. "The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent". ForeignAffairs. 4 Arkin, William. 2002. "Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable". Los Angeles Times.

The development of tactical nuclear weapons by one state would lead to a new global arms race.  When one state develops a new military technology that could potentially tip the strategic balance in its favor, other countries are quick to take notice and to attempt to develop the technology themselves. During the Cold War, the nuclear arms race between the United States and Soviet Union reached a fever pitch, with both states spending vast quantities of money and resources to build newer, deadlier, and ever more plentiful nuclear arsenals. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, the nuclear arms race has been at low ebb. Recent moves by the United States, as well as Russia and China, to develop newer, smaller nuclear weapons, as well as to open discussion of tactical application of such weapons outside the paradigm of MAD, however, threaten to bring the nuclear arms race into the 21st century1. If nuclear weapons begin to permeate the tactical decisions of states, from use in bunker-busting to destroying armor formations, they will cease to hold the special power of fear that has kept them from ever being employed in combat since World War II. A race to develop easier to use, less accountable weapons, while eroding the taboo against their use, spells a recipe for disaster. 1 Jervis, Robert. 2001. "Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs.

The way tactical nuclear weapons need to be deployed control of their use is devolved to field commanders, vastly increasing the probability that in the event of conflict they would be used.  Tactical nuclear weapons are much smaller than their strategic counterparts, and are designed to be deployed in higher numbers and nearer the enemy. This reality has a number of very negative consequences when considering the likelihood of nuclear war. First, control over tactical nuclear weapons is necessarily devolved to field commanders, since they control both the warheads and delivery systems for the weapons deployed near the enemy. This necessarily increases the likelihood of trigger-happy commanders using nuclear weapons, and little practical means of stopping them. Second, because of their deployment positions, should an enemy make an incursion into a country's territory, its tactical nuclear weapons batteries could risk capture by the invader. This generates a "use them or lose them" problem, and when coupled with the fact that the weapons are under the direct control of individual field commanders, the weapons might well be used. The result would likely be rapid escalation of hostilities, and possibly full-scale nuclear war. In Pakistan, for example, tactical nuclear weapons have been deployed and war games practiced for the eventuality of an Indian invasion (The Economist, 2011). The risks of war and of nuclear holocaust are only raised by tactical nuclear weapons. 1 The Economist. 2011. "A Rivalry that Threatens the World". The Economist.

Tactical nuclear weapons are very expensive to design and build, yet will likely have no new strategic value.  Countries have spent many billions of dollars developing tactical nuclear weapons in recent decades in the hope of maintaining their positions as nuclear powers with access to a whole range of terrifying weapons. However, little real applicability exists for most of these weapons. Weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), being developed in the United States at enormous cost, is designed to burrow deep underground to destroy enemy bunkers, yet it is as yet unusable, since the weapon cannot as yet burrow even a tenth of the distance underground necessary to prevent considerable radioactive fallout in the area surrounding the blast site1. In fact, many scientists say the weapon is a chimera and will never be capable of doing what it is meant to without risking huge collateral damage. Furthermore, it is unlikely that many states would consider the use of nuclear weapons appropriate, regardless of size. This international taboo should be considered a positive step toward peace, and not be tampered with by overzealous governments seeking strategic advantage. Overall, tactical nuclear weapons will likely prove to be little more than expensive dust-gatherer in most cases.  1 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005. "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator".

There is no real risk of a new global arms race arising from the development of tactical nuclear weapons. No country is suggesting, nor would ever likely suggest, a relaxing of controls on the use of nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons are simply more advanced, more discriminating nuclear weapons. They would not be used except in the utmost extremity, as with all nuclear weapons. While tactical nuclear weapons may find greater applicability in the field, it does not mean they would result in a new arms race.

MAD is not an effective means of maintaining world security. It relies upon states being too afraid to ever attack one another with nuclear weapons, but the risk of one doing so remains, irrespective of the doctrine. It has too many inherent risks and raises the very real chance, as weapons amass and proliferate, of their being used1. At the same time, should a nuclear weapon be used by a rogue state against another country, that country must have some means of retaliation. The problem is that the weapon likely to be used in such an attack will be crude and incapable of doing the sort of damage that a refined nuclear weapon of the Western nuclear powers could. This makes the question of what constitutes a proportional response difficult to answer. Should North Korea, for example, ever be able to attack the United States or its allies with nuclear weapons, its crude missiles will warrant a response, but quite possibly not a strategic nuclear missile-sized response. For this reason, the development of smaller, more versatile nuclear weapons makes these strategic considerations easier to manage, and allows for a range of responses left unavailable by the current blunt instrument of strategic nuclear missiles. 1 Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

The rules under which an individual citizen operate are different from those of corporations and should remain that way. Corporations and individuals are two completely different entities and they represent different interests. While an individual accounts for her interests, a company represents a large number of people. In addition, difference in the size of individual and corporate campaign contributions is usually quite significant.  Despite increasing number of individual contributions, the donations from large interest groups, such as corporations, often exceeds sums from individuals as in 2000 and 2001- by $176 million and &amp;171 million respectively. Empirical evidence suggests that large sums from corporations almost never buys votes but access to policy-makers at key moments of policymaking after campaigns which has serious implications on the levels of corruption. [1] While individuals often contribute as an act of democratic participation, the interest groups donate money in campaigns as investment. Therefore, the rules regulating them should be different.Reforms like the BCRA that limit donations from corporations and unions enable individual contributions and minimizes the role and influence of interest groups.  [1] Franz, Michael. "The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 66-83. P.70

In regards to free speech, corporations should have the same rights as individuals if they are spending money on the campaigns.  When a corporation and an individual are both trying to achieve the same goal, they should be able to do so in the same way. It would be unfair if the campaign finance reform limits the amount that an individual could contribute, but not that of a corporation when it is apparent that corporations are contributing considerably larger amounts than individuals as seen in the case of the pharmaceutical industry. Corporations need to have the same rights and limitations on campaign contributions and economic freedom.  This was why the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal ban on spending by corporations was unconstitutional under the First Amendment Act in 2010. This led to the Super PACs because they represent an association of people and have the right to freedom of speech and political preference. Reforms, such as Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) may have been successful in curtailing interest groups role as investors in campaigns, they failed when it comes to candidate advocacy as a result of super PACs. Such regulations that limit large-scale political spending from interest groups serves to limit speech crucial to political groups without a broad base of support or political entrepreneurs like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that got its message aired when the national media was ignoring the issue. Moreover, bans on corporate contributions did not prevent alternative ways for candidate advocacy, such as the private satellite radio station of the National Rifle Association or the movies made by the Citizens United [1] These alternative ways could undermine the principle of fair and transparent campaigns more than the lack of such limit on spending from individuals and corporations and their political expression.  [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.58-9

Even under the most radical proposals for reform, loopholes will exist and enable candidates to spend more or reach their audiences through alternative means. This was precisely the kind of development which led reformers to want to close the soft-money loophole. As with the tax system, the more elaborate the regulation, the more obscure and distorting the ways that are adopted to get around it.  There is actually a higher turnover in public office than some critics of the present campaign finance systems would like to admit. Retirements, scandals, and careful allocation of party resources make turnover possible under a variety of scenarios. Turnover also has significant negative effects, as critics of term limits have pointed-out. The more often new officeholders begin their jobs the steeper the "learning curve" for a new Congress or other legislative body becomes.  Moreover, the effect for challengers could be different. Finance limitations benefit the most popular candidates who already have a large base of support. Political minorities, newcomers, and outcasts will find it difficult to reach enough people to raise the money they need through many small contributions. The financial limitations further limit the possibilities for such campaigns in the future.

Anonymity increases the distortive effects of money in American politics.  Allowing anonymity of contribution to “Issue Ads” and to Super PACs only amplifies the corrosive effect money has on American politics.  Without knowing where the funding for particular “Issue Ads” come from, the intentions of contributors can be obfuscated and issues can be easily branded into political palatable campaigns by allowing contributors to keep themselves and their agendas hidden [1] . Using names such as the “America Future Fund” [2] and the “Coalition of American Seniors” [3] political allegiances and agendas are hidden from view, removing a much needed critical evaluation of those who contribute and what their ends are. Further to this, the anonymity of Super PACs make it easy for foreign contributors, who are banned by US law from contributing to campaigns, to secretly contribute to campaigns, helping to skew American democracy by giving undue political influence to foreign corporations and their interests [4] .  Anonymity of Super PACs allows people to obfuscate their intentions and turn campaigns into opaque propaganda, removing the capacity for proper democracy and political debate.  [1] "Campaign Finance: Ignore that $800,000 behind the curtain." Economist 04 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.   [2] ibid  [3] "ibid  [4] Parnell, Sean. "A campaign finance 'reform' twofer from Think Progress." Campaign Freedom. Center for Competitive Politics, 05 Oct 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2011.

Neither individuals nor corporations should be permitted to make unlimited contributions  Currently, Super PACs are organizations that can receive unlimited contributions, which encourages the belief that the amount of money contributed is directly correlated to the amount of influence the donor could have. By permitting individuals or corporations to make unlimited contributions, the current legislation undermines the democratic character of the elective process. Political figures related to the sponsored Super PACs have an incentive to satisfy the needs of those who contribute huge amounts of funding towards their campaign rather than meet the needs of the average citizen. This is not the way that democracy should be; it must represent the viewpoint and needs of the majority of the population, not just the small fraction of it that is wealthy enough to effectively pay for policies they want. Furthermore, caps on contributions to Super PACs will bring competition in elections back into the mainstream and when more citizens contribute to politicians, they will be more engaged in politics. [1]  For example, the pass of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) eliminated soft money for parties and attempted to handle the elections contributions through PACs. With the elimination of soft money for parties, the role of interest groups investment decreased in the 1990s. [2] Obama’s campaign in 2008 raised 114.1 million or 34% of his general election fund from small contributions. His unprecedented small donor fundraising success can be interpreted as increased credibility and public visibility for Obama and through this the benefit of mobilizing lots of small donations. In 2008, Obama used online communications and social networking tools to reach and mobilise more people. In effect of this approach, he not only inspired an unprecedented number of young and retired people to get involved in the campaign, but also achieved the highest rate of small contributions. [3]  [1] Malbin, Michael, Anthony Corrado, Thomas Mann, and Norman Ornstein. "Reform in an Age of NEtworked Campaigns." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. By Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 84-106. Print.  [2] Franz, Michael. "The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 66-83.  [3] Malbin, 2011.

To limit the ability of any person or a group, to influence a democratic political process is rather undemocratic and discriminatory. Groups should to be able to express their voice, and attempt to influence politics. Any form of limitation of that is an infringement of their rights as citizens in a democratic country.  Limiting contributions could equally be used to achieve a partisan advantage. The Tillman Act banning corporate contributions to campaigns in 1907 is a good example. It was sponsored by the South Carolina senator Tillman who wanted to embarrass President Roosevelt for his heavily reliance on corporate funding in his 1904 election campaign. Tillman often bragged about his role in vote frauds; thus, revealing his bill was less about public good and more to gain partisan advantage. [1] This was repeated a couple of times since, despite the numerous regulatory bills that have been passed. According to Smith’s research, the effect of campaign-finance regulations has been to help people who passed them and to strengthen special interest, rather than to cleanse American politics of the influence of self-interested factions. Money is the means by which those who lack talents or other resources with direct political value are able to participate in politics beyond voting. This reform favour people and corporations skilled and able to afford political advertising over those skilled in other building homes or other fields with no media influence.  Thus, the reform undermines efforts for equal access to the political arena by restricting campaign contributions.  Data analysis of the last three elections also shows that campaign –finance regulations are of little value. Many scholars, such as Stephen Ansolabehere, James Snyder, and John de Figueiredo, believe that it is not the contributions that corrupt politicians, therefore, limiting contributions will not tackle the problem of corruption. Legislators’ votes usually depend on own beliefs and preferences of their voters and their parties and contributions have no detectable effects on legislative behaviour. [2] The past two elections at which Obama won over better known and funded leaders like Hillary Clinton and Romney who did not lack funds shows that support for ideology was more important than funds.  [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.52  [2] Smith, 2011, P.54

Releasing the names of individual people who have contributed to a campaign will in no way indicate what interests were at play in creating a particular political campaign ad or strategy. Moreover, this is at best an argument against propagandizing political ads, not one for releasing the names of people who financially donated to that ad.  The campaign finance reform failed to achieve political equality and does not affect wealthy donors or prominent candidates. Often, the most authentic grassroots candidates and campaigns are burdened by such regulations. In 2000, Mac Warren ran for Congress in Texas and spent just $40, 000, half of his money. 2 pieces of the literature failed to contain the required notice that the literature was paid for by the committee and his campaign was fined by $1,000. [1]  [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.59

Even the most radical campaign finance reform proposals have yet to eliminate corporate or union contributions. Short of such bans, the potential for large organizations to swamp the donations of individual voters still exists. Additionally, limitations on the voice of unions, businesses and special interest groups are another form of potential infringement on the rights of free speech and assembly. Who is to say that a union member’s contribution to their organization’s political action committee is not significant speech comparable to the individual gesture they make when they donate to a candidate themselves? It is reasonable that union members or shareholders choose to trust their leaders to use their money in order to best advance their interests.

Further reforms would create a level playing field  A further reform limiting super PACs would have the effect of leveling the playing field for candidates. Candidates with enormous leadership potential but small wallets have failed due to the lack of resources. Under a reformed campaign finance system, it will be more difficult for well-financed candidates to win purely because of the money they have. Incumbent candidates have a unique advantage over challengers in the present system because of their direct connections to important sources of money.  Campaign finance reform will make elections more competitive and thus enhance higher turnover or "fresh blood" in politics. This is essential for challenging old orthodoxies and bringing in new ideas. It will also make it easier for members of ethnic minorities and the working class to seek office - such groups are disproportionately deterred from candidacy by the current need to raise large sums of money.  Quantitative analysis of elections involving incumbents from twenty-five states across three election cycles indicate that more stringent campaign finance laws increase the likelihood of new challengers to the current incumbent. [1] Financing laws limiting fundraising increase the likelihood of minority-party and independent challengers and produce higher rate of election competition. As a result challengers feel they have better chances against the incumbents.  [1] Hamm, Keith E., and Hogan, Robert E., “Campaign Finance Laws and Candidacy Decisions in State Legislative Elections”, Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 171-191.

Stopping super PACs would place an emphasis on actual issues rather than politicians selling themselves.  Campaign finance reform gives the individual donor a voice more comparable to other donors’ interests. At present, the enormous amount of money channeled into campaigns by large corporations, unions, and special interest groups through PACs overwhelm the smaller, limited contributions of individual donors. Reforming the super PACs and limiting these large group donations would increase the significance of donations by individual voters, likely increasing the responsiveness of candidates to voters/donors and so increasing their accountability to their electorate. Additionally, the increased significance of individual contributions encourages voter participation and activism.

It is exactly because certain organizations have particular interests that it is important to reveal when they fund Issue Ads or campaign initiatives [1] . People hold these biases and views of organizations like the National Rifle Association for a reason. If the involvement of this organisation invokes suspicion in a conscientious voter, then that voter has the right to be alerted about that suspicion.  [1] McIntire, Mike. "The Secret Sponsors." New York Times 02 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.

In the context of sponsoring a campaign figure, there should be no differentiation between corporations and individuals. The incentives to fund a candidate and the political outcomes that result from corporatist and individual contributions are the same, therefore, legally treated as such. The idea that the government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is against the First Amendment.

Further campaign finance reform is simply unrealistic and too ambitious.  It is simply unfeasible for this policy to work effectively. There are two key issues that arise to prevent this policy from having any positive impact.  Firstly, when dealing with the general public actually knowing who is contributing, the vast majority of these contributions, whether from a corporation or an individual, are contributed under the names of individuals. The first problem with this is that thousands of names of individuals cannot fit into a commercial advertisement. There would have to be a list created which is made public, but, unfortunately, the vast majority of people will not seek this list out and so will not become any more informed about who is behind the advertisement.  The second problem is that even if the public did find the list, individual names do not hold any weight or indication of the types of interests that are backing campaigns and advertisements. “John Smith” and “Joe Jones” will not indicate to a normal person that this advertisement was funded by an oil company even if these people are the oil company’s CEO and Managing Director.  Secondly, corporations and large businesses that want to avoid detection will simply donate the money under an individual’s name or donate ‘in the name’ of multiple employees of the company in quantities small enough not to raise any suspicion as they already do with current campaign donations to stay under funding caps. There are already instances, such as ASG in 2012, where CEOs pressurise their employees into making donations, [1] if they are no longer able to spend as much as they wish themselves they will be much more likely to use their employees.  Therefore, this policy does nothing to help the American political situation.  [1] Volsky, Igot, “CEO Asks Employees To Help Company ‘And Yourself’ By Donating $2,500 To Romney”, Think Progress, 20 October 2012,

Anonymity Ensures that Campaigning Rises above Identity Attacks.  Certain political groups are politically disenfranchised because of perceptions about them that exist of in the society. Some groups are considered as being political enemies by their counterparts from more powerful opposing political parties and therefore, they cannot engage meaningfully in the political discourse without being dismissed at the get-go.  Allowing anonymity in Issue Ads allows people and groups to fund political speech and support certain policies and political discussions without having social perceptions of their membership to certain groups taint their political activity. This is especially important in America where membership to certain groups is considered to coincide with political allegiance like in the case of the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party. 39% of people say that they would be less likely to support a candidate if they were supported by the NRA so it is clear that the NRA can best support a campaign anonymously. [1]  Anonymity will enfranchise certain forms of political activity by individuals and associations which otherwise would have been dismissed by voters. Therefore, allowing anonymity allows for less partisan policy discussion.  [1] Jensen, Tom, “Americans consider NRA endorsement to be a negative”, Public Policy Polling, 5 February 2013,

Corporations are fundamentally different than individuals and have the right to influence politics differently.  The rules under which an individual citizen operate are different from those of corporations and should remain that way. Corporations and individuals are two completely different entities and they represent different interests. While an individual accounts for her interests, a company represents a large number of people and may not fully represent the views of any of them. Thus many big companies while favoring one party or the other actually give to both parties, Honeywell International for example to July 2012 had given more than $2.2million with 63% going to the Republicans and the rest to the Democrats. [1] These companies clearly then bet on both sides, presumably however their senior staff are actually supporting one or the other.  Empirical evidence suggests that large sums from corporation almost never buys votes but access to policy-makers at key moments of policymaking after campaigns which has serious implications on the levels of corruption. While individuals often contribute as an act of democratic participation, the interest groups donate money in campaigns as investment. Therefore, the rules regulating them should be different. Reforms like the BCRA that limit donations from corporations and unions enable individual contributions and minimize the role and influence of interest groups.  [1] McIntyre, Douglas A., and Hess, Alexander E. M., “10 Companies Making the Biggest Political Donations: 24/7 Wall St.”, Huffington Post, 2 July 2012,

Although it may not be immediately apparent to the average TV-watcher who is funding these campaigns, the importance of releasing the names of funders is to allow investigative journalists to conduct research on these names and draw together any conclusions the public may need to know about who is funding candidates. This also applies to other techniques that corporations may employ to get around publicity. Nevertheless, there is a much better chance that the dots will be connected for the public if the names of donors are released.

Airport profiling is a violation of individual rights because it targets and harms certain groups more than others. Muslims and ethnic minorities will be especially harmed by security profiling as it will predominantly be members of these groups who are detained at departure gates and subjected to extra scrutiny. This will make them feel like second-class citizens; they will believe that the government presumes them to be terrorists, even when they are innocent.  Consequently, Arab, Asian and African Muslims, and migrants from majority Muslim states will benefit much less from security profiling than whites and non-Muslims do. If the proposition is correct and profiling is successful these groups may benefit from being safer when flying, however many more of them will also suffer far more and more detailed checks in order to be able to fly. Individual rights suffer when a particular person or group is subject to unwarranted discrimination; something which profiling, particularly if it had an ethnic component would bring. The government violates individual rights here by treating and benefitting its citizens unequally on the grounds of race and religion.

Profiling is consistent with individual rights:  Profiling is not about demonizing people or violating their rights. As Mark Farmer argues: "It still amazes me how words can be so quickly demonized, so the very mention of the word causes irrational outrage. “Profile” doesn’t mean baseless discrimination against a certain nationality or race — in this case, it means judging people at airports by set of criteria which raise a red flag." [1]  Profiling, by making security more effective, would in fact better safeguard everyone’s rights. Khalid Mahmood, a Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham, argues: "I think most people would rather be profiled than blown up. It wouldn't be victimisation of an entire community. I think people will understand that it is only through something like profiling that there will be some kind of safety. If people want to fly safely we have to take measures to stop things like the Christmas Day plot. Profiling may have to be the price we have to pay. The fact is the majority of people who have carried out or planned these terror attacks have been Muslims.” [2]  The state has a duty to protect its citizens by ensuring that its security apparatus is effective and adaptable, even if this means running afoul of political correctness and the rights of those individuals affected. According to Michael Reagan, president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation: "Political correctness killed innocent people at Fort Hood, an Army base in Texas, when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down 13 people and wounded many others despite the fact that his fellow officers were aware of his attachment to radical Islamism and all that it implied. It is the same political correctness that is stopping us today from doing what we truly need to be doing at airports and other public places: profiling all passengers." [3] As long as there is a net benefit to everyone of increased security, then individual rights are actually better protected, as everyone who travels has a greater chance of not being blown up.  The state should accord a higher priority- when balancing the competing rights claims of citizens- to policies and powers that protect individuals from terrorist attacks than to protecting citizens from the transient feelings of victimisation and isolation that result from profiling. The harm that results from failing to uphold the former is much, much greater than the harm that would attach to the later.  Therefore the state should protect the individual rights of its citizens by ensuring that they are protected first –by instituting security profiling at airports.  [1] Reagan, Michael. "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010.   [2] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [3] Reagan, Michael. "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010.

Broad screening at airports does make travellers safer. As Bruce Schneier, a security technologist, argues: "As counterintuitive as it may seem, we’re all more secure when we randomly select people for secondary screening — even if it means occasionally screening wheelchair-bound grandmothers and innocent looking children." [1] This is because otherwise terrorists can observe what profiles our security forces are using, by seeing who is stopped and checked more closely, and thus adapt themselves to not be caught by them. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that al-Qaeda could recruit children or the elderly to be its suicide bombers, and hence random checks are essential in order to allow us to have some chance of catching these terrorists,. If we simply resort to profiling, we will always be one step behind the terrorists and will have no chance of catching any of their operatives who fall outside the profiles.  [1] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.

Profiling is effective and necessary:  It is an unavoidable fact that most terrorists today fit into certain demographics and categories, and so it is worth creating profiles of these categories and investigating more thoroughly anyone who fits into these profiles, as they are far more likely to be potential terrorists. As Asra Q. Nomani argued in 2010: "As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have." [1]  This resolution would not require the targeting of all Muslims, but rather those who meet further profile characteristics. As Dr Shaaz Mahboob, of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, said in 2010: "We have seen that certain types of people who fit a certain profile – young men of a particular ethnic background – have been engaged in terror activities, and targeting this sort of passenger would give people a greater sense of security. Profiling has to be backed by this type of statistical and intelligence-based evidence. There would be no point in stopping Muslim grandmothers." [2] Profiles would be compiled and acted on using a range of information, not just details of passengers’ ethic and racial backgrounds. Information about passengers is already voluntarily provided so this information can be used to eliminate the 60-70% of passengers who are of negligible risk.. State-of-the art screening technologies could then be applied to the remaining pool of passengers, for which less information is known. As a consequence, these individuals may be subjected to the highest level of security screening, and in some cases, prevented from flying. [3]  Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, argues: "I have been an ardent supporter of passenger profiling for many years. It is the only solution that addresses the problems of the past as well as those of the future. The problem is the word “profiling” itself, as it conjures up negative connotations. A traveler’s appearance, behavior, itinerary and passport are factors to consider in effective profiling. Effective profiling is based on the analysis of the appearance and behavior of a passenger and an inspection of the traveler’s itinerary and passport; it does not and should not be based on race, religion, nationality or color of skin. We need an intelligent approach to aviation security that deploys common sense to the security checkpoint. We require highly trained, streetwise, individuals who can make risk assessments of passengers as they arrive at the airport and determine which technology should be used for screening." [4]  Intelligent, well designed and responsive profiling systems study passenger’s behavior in-situ in addition to their background and appearance. Police officers and security camera operators can be trained to recognize signs of nervous or apprehensive behavior that passengers might exhibit. Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America, said in December of 2009: "We're not talking only about profiling Muslims. We need to take a lesson from the Israelis. When you go through security checkpoints in Tel Aviv airport, you have very highly trained screeners. Someone who is about to carry on a terrorist attack acts nervous, acts suspicious [under such scrutiny]." [5] Profiling would probably have picked up on would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who notably paid for his ticket in cash, did not have any checked luggage, had booked a one-way ticket to the United States, and claimed he was coming to a religious ceremony. [6] Together, these actions are extremely suspicious and it would have been correct, justified and indeed prudent for airport security to have investigated him on the basis that he met the profile of a possible terrorist. It was only later luck which meant that he was caught instead of succeeding in his attack, all on the basis of the absence of security profiling – fully eight years after the 9/11 attacks.  Passenger profiling has a record of success in Israel. As Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, argues: "No country has better airport security than Israel – and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts. Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs? 'Security' may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this [G. W. Bush] administration in other areas is all too apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures. [...] What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security does not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter - and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.” [7] Therefore until such security resources are used appropriately, we will never achieve a secure air transportation system, and terrorism and its awful human consequences will remain a constant threat and fear.  [1] Nomani, Asra Q. "Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims". The Daily Beast. 29 November 2010.   [2] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [3] Jacobson, Sheldon H. "The Right Kind of Profiling". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Baum, Philip . "Common Sense Profiling Works." New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [5] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.   [6] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.   [7] Sowell, Thomas. "Profiling at airports works for Israel". The Columbus Dispatch. 24 November 2010.

If terrorists were really unintelligent and unimaginative enough to be beaten by such a blunt tool as security profiling, we would have been able to stop them long ago and would not have the difficult security situation we do now. Rather, if we introduce invasive security profiling similar to the procedures used in Israeli airports, terrorists will simply adapt their methods in order to circumvent it. Terrorists will recruit from different, non-profiled groups. They will alter their dress and train their operatives to act differently.  With respect to American air transportation, al-Qaeda already appears to be changing its tactics in response to the stricter screening and checking processes introduced by the Department for Homeland Security: since 9/11, two attempted attacks on US aviation involved a non-Arab Nigerian and a Briton with the last name of “Reid.” [1]  Terrorists can adapt in countless ways which will render security profiling not only useless but also counter-productive. Innocent men and women who fit the profiles designed by the security services are subjected to further scrutiny when passing through airports. In American airports, they are frequently removed from queues by TSA officials, segregated from other passengers and exposed to close contact body searches. Prima facie, these individuals will understand that they have been singled out because of their race or religion. This does nothing to address or rebut religious radicals’ attempts to portray America as inherently racist and imperialist, and its foreign policy as arbitrary and cynical. The resolution may serve to alienate migrant communities that could otherwise provide valuable intelligence to the security services. Members of these communities will be less likely to voice their concerns if they feel that the authorities will use the information they provide to justify further summary searches and interrogations of air passengers.  Moreover, an Israeli-style profiling system would simply not be scalable to the volume of passengers passing through major airports in America or other countries larger than Israel. As Mark Thompson argues: "I think it’s pretty clear that the reason a “profiling” system would not work and indeed has not been attempted in the US is that it’s not scalable. Israel has one major airport, which by US standards would only be “mid-sized.” Yet look at the security line at that airport, which is more befitting of Newark or Atlanta than it is of Pittsburgh or St. Louis. A good profiling system is labour-intensive in a way that our system simply does not have the capacity to implement, and would unacceptably undermine the numerous sectors of our economy that rely heavily on air transportation. And this says nothing of the direct economic costs of appropriately training and paying security officers charged with conducting the profiling. Nor, as the article above suggests, does it say anything about eliminating the bureaucratic infighting and secrecy amongst American intelligence agencies in a manner that would allow tens of thousands of airport security personnel access to the intelligence necessary to adequately do their jobs." [2]  [1] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.   [2] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.

Profiling is preferable to the alternatives:  Expanding the use of profiling will help to restrict the use of invasive security monitoring strategies such as body scanners and intimate, full contact pat-downs. Body-scanning and patting-down all travelers, including older disabled men and women, is an excessive, expensive and humiliating approach to passenger safety.  Many civil rights groups in addition to consumer’s rights organizations and air-travel business analysts feel very strongly that invasive security procedures violates passengers’ privacy. Profiling those individuals that are a real potential threat is a good way to avoid these problems. As Thomas Sowell argues, proponents of invasive pat-downs and body scanners “would rather have scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for questioning." [1]  Alternatives to profiling are far more invasive and likely to be more offensive to Muslims than profiling would be. With broad screening of all travelers for example there is likely to be less security as security resources are directs onto people who are not a threat so offending everybody rather than just a tiny minority. For each search of a passenger who a profiler would regard as highly unlikely to engage in violent activity in plane or an airport , there is a near-negligible impact on security attention and resources. However, when this impact is accumulated over the millions of passengers who fly each year, the effect does indeed become measurable. In essence, by spending billions of dollars on scrutinizing the wrong people, security forces are depleting a reserve of resources that could be spent in screening passengers who are materially more likely to constitute a threat. [2]  Broad screening also creates long lines of people awaiting security at airports. Not only does blanket screening reduce the efficiency of airport operations, impacting on the profits of airlines and the businesses that contract with them, security queues themselves could become targets for terrorists, for example through suicide bombings designed to kill an airplane’s worth of passengers before they even get through security. By definition, pat-downs and body scanners cannot prevent such a threat (indeed they add to them by creating long lines), but profiling can, by picking up on suspicious individuals from the moment they enter the airport, or even from when they book their tickets. [3] Profiling also rightly shifts the security focus from cargo to people. Better knowing who is flying allows security forces to know which cargo (luggage) they do need to or do not need to investigate for explosives or drugs, instead of having to search all or do (ineffective) random checks. [4] Therefore security profiling is preferable to the alternatives of body scans and invasive pat-downs, both in terms of security efficacy and also in terms of sensitivity to travelers.  [1] Sowell, Thomas. "Profiling at airports works for Israel". The Columbus Dispatch. 24 November 2010.   [2] Jacobson, Sheldon H. "The Right Kind of Profiling". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] Baum, Philip . "Common Sense Profiling Works." New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Sela, Rafi. "Multilayered Security". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 4 2010.

Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider).  [1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001.

More screening of travellers who display suspicious behaviour does not mean no or insufficient security surrounding travellers who do not. Security profiling would simply me a part of the security operation. What it does mean is individuals who buy one-way tickets with cash and no luggage will be more closely investigated. Yes terrorists may adapt to this, but this will make it harder for them to operate (as their operatives have to act identically to normal passengers or face exposure) and increase the chances that a ‘slip-up’ of theirs will actually be noticed and investigated by airport security. Moreover it is not so easy for terrorist organisations to find ‘clean’ operatives: the process of radicalization and terrorist training is bound to bring such individuals to the attention of police or security forces at some point, meaning most such individuals will be identified as potential terrorists and observed accordingly. Security profiling could actually aid this process.

Profiling is racist:  Profiling in many ways would simply result in institutionalized racism, as Mark German argues: “racial profiling is wrong, un-American and unconstitutional. It is institutionalized racism.” [1] Mark Thompson adds: “So it’s not 'political correctness' (aka the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment) that is standing in the way of replacing full-body scans with a strong and effective profiling system: its reality. All that 'political correctness' is preventing is the implementation of an equally (and likely even more) ineffective piece of security theater in which we single out one minority group for intensive screening while giving a pass to everyone else. This would certainly annoy fewer people, but it wouldn’t make us safer and its sole benefits would be accomplished by treating an entire minority group as second-class citizens." [2]  In any legal system which claims to give its citizens equal rights or equal protection of the law, security profiling is unacceptable. Profiling will target certain groups more than others. Even innocent members of these groups are made to feel like second-class citizens, and that the government suspects them of being terrorists without evidence – simply because of who they are. These individuals will be very visibly reminded of this every time they are segregated out at airport security, while they watch other non-suspects (who will be predominantly white and Christian, or at least non-Muslim) not being subject to the same scrutiny. The non-suspects will see this as well, and this may re-enforce any notions they have that all Muslims are potential terrorists and thus are suspect. Therefore because security profiling harms certain groups of citizens in unacceptable ways, it should not be instituted.  [1] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [2] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.

Profiling will increase terrorism not combat it:  Profiling alienates groups needed in the fight against terrorism. Treating all Muslims as suspects, or being perceived as such, undermines efforts to gain intelligence on terrorists. Profiling the very communities we need information from to catch terrorists would be counter-productive as they would be less inclined to come forward. Umar Abdul-Muttallab’s father for example gave us such information to prevent the Dec. 25 terror plot. [1] Even if security profiling did make airport security more effective as supporters claim (although it would not) without personal intelligence and assistance the security situation will be far worse than it is now.. Normal security screening does not alienate these groups in the same way, as it is applied to everyone (and so they do not feel singled out) and it can be applied in culturally sensitive ways (for example, ensuring that pat-downs of Muslim women are always carried out only by female security officers). [2]  Profiling also gives terrorists a justification for their acts. As Michael German argues: "when we abandon our principles, we not only betray our values, we also run the risk of undermining international and community support for counterterrorism efforts by providing an injustice for terrorists to exploit as a way of justifying further acts of terrorism." [3] In general profiling contributes to an environment of fear and insecurity, in which some communities feel victimized and others feel under constant threat, leading to even more tensions and an increased risk of violence on either side. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in December of 2009 after the Christmas Day Bomber incident: "While everyone supports robust airline security measures, racial and religious profiling are in fact counterproductive and can lead to a climate of insecurity and fear." [4] True success in preventing terrorism will require the active co-operation of Muslim communities, both at home and abroad, in identifying and isolating terrorist suspects and training groups. This cannot be achieved if it is perceived that the West regards all Muslims as terrorist suspects. The distinction which almost all Muslims currently see between themselves and the violent jihadis of the terrorist networks should be fostered, rather than sending the opposite message by implying we cannot tell the difference, or even that we believe there is no difference between them. For this reason, instituting security profiling at airports would be counter-productive, and thus should not be done.  [1] Al-Marayati, Salam. "Get the Intelligence Right". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [2] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.

Profiling is ineffective at increasing security:  Terrorists simply do not conform to a neat profile. Many suspects linked to past terrorist attacks that have been apprehended or identified come from within the United States and European Union countries. Profiling does not help against individuals with names and ethnic backgrounds like Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, David Headley and Michael Finton. [1] Many terrorists have been European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. A significant number of domestic and aspiring terrorists have been found to be “clean skins” – individuals with no prior link to known fundamentalists, who have radicalised themselves by seeking out terror related materials on the internet.  Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was Nigerian. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was British with a Jamaican father. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla was Hispanic-American. The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. Timothy McVeigh was a white American, as was the Unabomber. The Chechen terrorists who blew up two Russian planes in 2004 were female. Palestinian terrorists routinely recruit 'clean' suicide bombers, and have used unsuspecting Westerners as bomb carriers. [2]  Racial profiling is a shortcut based on bias rather than evidence. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a “terrorist profile.” There was in 2005a Belgian woman who became a suicide bomber in Iraq, would profiling have picked her up? [3] It is sometimes suggested to target Muslims, reasoning that some are bound to be “radicalized.” But Islam is a global religion. Which characteristics should the security services look at to determine whether someone is a Muslim? Name? Appearance? In 2000 63% of Arab Americans were Christian and only just under a quarter were Muslim. [4]  Inevitably only certain groups will be profiled, this then leaves open the possibility that terrorist organisations will simply recruit from other ones, as Michael German (a former FBI agent) argues: “Racial profiling is also unworkable. Once aware of national profiling, terrorists will simply use people from “non-profiled” countries or origins, like FBI most-wanted Qaeda suspect Adam Gadahn, an American. What will we do? Keep adding more countries to the list of 14 until we’ve covered the whole globe?" [5]  Terrorists can easily out manoeuvre profiling systems. Profiling creates two paths through airport security: one with less scrutiny and one with more. Terrorists will then want to take the path with less scrutiny. Once a terrorist group works out the profile they will be able to get through airport security with the minimum level of screening every time. [6] Massoud Shadjareh (the chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission,) argues: " What's to stop them dressing up as orthodox Jews in order to evade profiling-based searches?" [7] Moreover, the model of security practices, including profiling, in Israel is not applicable to other Western nations, such as the United States. Terrorists that threaten Israel are from well organised local groups, and from a particular group. America on the other hand faces groups from around the world. [8] This makes profiling far more efficacious in Israel and much less so in the United States, for example.  [1] Al-Marayati, Salam. "Get the Intelligence Right". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [2] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] World Directory of Minorities, ‘Arab and other Middle Eastern Americans’,   [5] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [6] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [7] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [8] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.

As conservative columnist Deroy Murdock put it: “We are not arguing that the TSA should send anyone named Mohammad to be waterboarded somewhere between the first-class lounge and the Pizza Hut.” [1] There is simply no reason why security profiling necessarily has to be, or be perceived as, racist or targeted against certain groups. The vast majority of Muslim travellers do not display the kinds of suspicious behaviour which profiling will largely be based on, there will be no reason for them to seem nervous, and so will not be negatively impacted: indeed they will benefit by not being forced to submit to invasive pat-downs or body scans. They will similarly benefit from being safer in the air, as security profiling will improve the efficacy of airport security and decrease the chances of a terrorist attack which would kill Muslim and non-Muslim passengers alike. If profiling does end up resulting in more of a particular ethnic group being checked then this will not be because the profiling is racist but because these people are acting suspicious – at very most the ethnic profile would be one among many factors for deciding who should submit to greater security.  [1] Nomani, Asra Q. "Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims". The Daily Beast. 29 November 2010.

The distribution of the vote is more important than the percentages for each candidate. The entire point of having the electoral college is to that it can act as a check on the majority vote is to ensure that the candidate who is best suited and had the broadest amount of support wins the presidency. If it was simply determined by popular vote than certain regions of the country would have a greater influence on the outcome of who won. The electoral college acts as a counterbalance to that.

The electoral college violates the democratic principle that the winner should be the candidate receiving the most votes.  In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and probably 1960, the candidate receiving the most votes for president lost the election [1] .  This occurs because all but two states award all their electoral votes to the candidate winning a plurality in the state; because all states receive two electoral votes corresponding to their two US senators; because the number of House seats (which serve as the basis of the remaining electoral votes) often poorly match the population of the state; because states cast electoral votes no matter how many people actually vote; and because the size of the House is arbitrary.  [1] Factcheck.org, ‘Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote’, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 24 March 2008,

No one defends this aspect of the electoral college. It is indefensible.  However, it is important to note that the election has never come to the House of Representatives choosing the president. It is merely a plan of last resort to ensure that there is a president.

The electoral college weakens incentives for voting and party building.  There is no incentive for candidates to mobilize voters in states they are sure to win – or sure to lose, and voters have little incentive to vote in noncompetitive states where their vote is likely not to matter.  Some states like Texas just have a fairly predictable voting record- they have voted republican 9 out of the last 10 presidential elections. Democratic presidential candidates do not spend much time in Texas for that reason. [1]  [1] “Texas” 270 to Win.

The electoral college violates the democratic principle of equality in voting  Under the electoral college, all votes do not count equally. Voters in some states have more say in selecting the president than voters in other states.  For example, California has 55 electoral college votes, while Delaware only get 3 votes. There is not equality in that, every state should be equal, California for voting purposes is no more important that Delaware. [1]  [1] Electoral Map. Wikipedia. [Online] Available at:

The US is not a pure democracy. The electoral college is one of the checks on majority rule. It is not violating the principle of equality of voting, because it gives every state a proportional voice based on their population.  The states that have more of a say also have a larger population of voters, therefore it is proportional. California has the largest population for any state, and therefore gets the largest number of votes in the electoral college.

This argument is suggestion that there is simply a strategy behind elections- which is true for every election. The electoral college framework does make a candidate have to acquire a number of states, in order to win, and while there may be some states that it is not the best use of time and resources to campaign as hard in.  But this does require candidates have a broad base of support in order to win the presidency.

The propositions argument is not only a logical fallacy, but also discourages democracy.  It is illogical to argue that because Ralph Nader got a few votes in New Hampshire and Florida that if he was not on ballot they would have voted for Al Gore instead.  Furthermore, the American electoral framework is comprised almost exclusively of a two party system, and any candidate who runs on a third party ballot needs to be given extra support just to have any chance at all of even securing just a few votes.

If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives chooses the president, with each state receiving one vote.  This provision allows the 7 smallest states with a population of about 4.9 million to outvote the 6 largest states with a population of 119 million. [1] This is blatently unfair.  [1] Congress, XII - Manner of Choosing a President and Vice-President, 27 July 1804,

The electoral college allows small third parties to tip the balance in a state and distort the preferences of the voters.  In 2000, Ralph Nader siphoned a few votes from Al Gore in New Hampshire and Florida, costing Gore victories and thus the election. Nevertheless, Gore was the preferred choice of voters in a match up with George W. Bush. [1]  [1] Archives.gov, ‘Historical Election Results’, ‘Electoral College Box Scores 1789-1996’,

The electoral college encourages third parties.  Under the electoral college, a third party with regional support can win something: a state. The winner take all aspect of direct election of the president with no runoff discourages third parties because they have to come in first to win anything.

There is no such thing as a small state interest. States do not embody coherent, unified interests, nor do they require protection. The Constitution places many constraints on the actions of simple majorities, and the Senate provides extraordinary representation to small states. Moreover, candidates ignore most small states in their campaigns.

The electoral college is an essential bulwark of federalism.  The electoral college emphasizing the role of states, and abolishing it would weaken federalism. This system reinforces the division and sharing of powers between the states and the national government. Without it the national government would have much greater power over the state governments, and the voice of the people would be quieter. The electoral college is essential to preserving the power of individuals through their state.  Additionally, the Electoral College helps reinforce stable institutions that are essential for maintaining a political regime and preserving a free society. [1]  [1] England, Trent. “What is ‘National Popular Vote’?” Save Our States.

The electoral college forces candidates to win broad coalitions across the country, encouraging national harmony.  In direct election of the president, candidates might appeal to clusters of voters, whose votes could be aggregated across states and regions, perhaps representing only one strata of society.

Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign.  The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that make candidates pay attention to local issues, and actually do what they are elected to do- serve the interests of their constituents.  A presidential candidate is of course going to focus on a more national level interest, but in order to visit and campaign across the country, the candidate must be at least aware of the issues that of particular interest to the local area.

The electoral college inhibits the emergence of third parties and thus acts as a bulwark against extremist candidates.  The founding fathers had a reason to fear the emergence of extremist parties. A modern day example is with Rwanda. When they gained a multiparty democracy, without checks on majority rule, it allowed for extremist parties to enter politics and made possible the use of public resources to manipulate the population which set the necessary precondition of ethnic hatred that enabled the genocide to occur [1] .  [1] Mamdani, M., 2001. When Victims Become Killers. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press. p209

Candidates ignore large areas of the country in their campaigns. Moreover, George W. Bush lost most major demographic groups in winning election in 2000 under the electoral college.

The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority.  The interests of states, especially small states, would be lost in a majoritarian national campaign. The electoral college forces candidates to be attentive to state interests.  When the founding fathers created the electoral college it was with the many purposes in mind, but the tyranny of the masses is the most appropriate in mind here. It is important to remember the timeframe that the US was created in, there was not a very high literacy rate, and it would become very easy without a check on majority rule for someone to manipulate the population when entering power [1] .  [1] United States of America, 1787. The Constitution of the United States. [Online] Available at:  [Accessed 27 April 2012].

Candidates do not focus on local interests because of the electoral college. The evidence is overwhelming. Candidates do not campaign in most states, nor do they run advertisements in them. Instead, the electoral college provides incentives to focus on competitive states, especially large competitive states. Moreover, candidates do not focus on local interests in the states they do visit.  We do not need a presidency responsive to parochial interests in a system that is already prone to gridlock and which offers minority interests extraordinary access to policymakers and opportunities to thwart policies they oppose.

The electoral college is not a federal principle. Federalism was not mentioned at the Constitutional Convention in relation to the electoral college. The electoral college does not enhance the power or sovereignty of states. Federalism is based on representation in Congress and the Constitution’s allocation of powers to the states, not on the electoral college.

Politicians are not true stand-ins. They represent the interests of the people on a policy basis not on the basis of their personal lives. Trying to divine personalities in politicians inevitably results in misallocation of the limited resources of time and energy people can generally spend informing themselves about candidates. Rather, the focus of voters should be drawn to the issues, which is where true policy comes from. Of course temperament and actions in one’s private life may be an indicator to how the politician will react but their ideology and policy positions are likely to be a much more certain indicator. Focus on private lives only obscures the truth of policies and reduces the quality of representation as a result.

Citizens have a right to know who is being elected to represent them  Beyond the discussion of the balancing of the right to privacy, it is important to understand the nature of representatives as stand-ins for the citizens who elect them. In other words, politicians are surrogates. Their duty is to represent the people in public life across all issues and policies. [1] Yet it is impossible to ascertain the desires of the citizens on all issues in the course of an election campaign. Even harder is to understand political decision-making in a context that had not existed at the time of the election. For example, if a war was to begin suddenly in a country that had not expected any conflict and had not elected representatives on the basis of how they stood on fighting this war. But that is exactly why politicians are elected as much for who they are as what their avowed policy aims are. We elect politicians who we believe will act best under such changing conditions; the ‘3 am phone call’, how a candidate will react in a crisis, is often a major issue in U.S. Presidential elections and temperament is often the only way to judge this. [2] Mitt Romney as candidate in the 2012 election was widely considered to have lost out to Obama on this measure. [3] Understanding the personal lives of politicians allows voters to elect one who best represents them in the sense of being able to act in their place in a changing world. Thus it is critical for the good electoral decision-making that the right to privacy of politicians be infringed.  [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011,   [2] Fallows, James, “Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call”, the Atlantic, 12 September 2012,   [3] Drum, Kevin, “Obama Wins the 3 a.m. Phone Call Test”, Mother Jones, 14 October 2012,

All intense scrutiny will do is make fewer people be willing to enter politics. This does not mean the most capable will stay, only those with a higher tolerance for media intrusion, and those with a talent for concealment and spin. The result is not better governance, because the pool of potential leaders is reduced by the added pressures of losing all hope of privacy. Loss of the right privacy means worse governance.

The right to privacy is not absolute and is sacrificed in standing for public office  A right such as that to privacy is not absolute. Rights are general statements of principle that are then caveated and curtailed in the interests of society. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role is a special one in society. 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. Leadership includes leading by example as well as simply directing policy. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. But confidence can only be developed through increased scrutiny and transparency. This means understanding the private life of the politician, since it so often informs their public life. 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 the only way true representativeness may be achieved.

Even if one concedes that such rights are not entirely sacrosanct, it is important to recognise that rights should apply universally and should still be defended. The right to privacy is also important, and must include politicians who, while fulfilling an important societal role, are not so special as to merit significant curtailment of rights. So long as politicians do their duty by representing the interests of those that elected them in a legislative framework, they are fulfilling their end of the covenant with the people, leaving no room for any nebulous additional right of citizens over politicians. They are elected to do a job not for their life.

The power structures that command people are best challenged through attention to policy and shaping the discourse in a positive manner. Attention to private lives is simply salacious and does nothing to actually forward the cause of groups outside the elite. In fact, focus on the foibles of the few serves only to confuse and misdirect public sentiment away from where it might do the most good in the furtherance of change. If anything deserves intense scrutiny it is the power structures themselves, such as Oxbridge in the United Kingdom, not on the individuals who are mere products of it.

Heavy scrutiny forces politicians to dedicate themselves fully to their public service  When politicians see themselves constantly under the lens of public scrutiny, they are essentially forced to dedicate themselves wholesale to their duties as representatives. They are disincentivized in the extreme to pursue any transgressive or hypocritical activities behind closed doors, resulting in more energy dedicated to legislating, and less to lining their pockets or chasing interns, since the added risk of being discovered increases the cost of trying to conceal their foibles. [1] Having a culture of scrutiny of politicians private lives will mean those who most see their work as a public service and so will be dedicated to it will be the ones who seek to become politicians. Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s lurid sex life has thrown light on the sexual misconduct rife in French politics and has actually sparked a major effort to reform the system and a change to a more demanding culture towards politicians. [2] Politicians are human, after all, and susceptible to the base human urges that power unchecked is wont to accommodate. A powerful probe into politicians’ private lives can only serve the cause of better governance.  [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011,   [2] Clifford, C. and Vandoorne, S. “Scandals Put a Spotlight on France’s Hidden Sexism, Privacy Laws”. CNN. 3 June 2011,

Heavy scrutiny serves to challenge existing power structures  The power structures that command peoples’ lives are often difficult to identify. While there are usually multiple candidates to choose from at election time, in many polities they all tend to come out from small-based elite. Oxford and Cambridge, for example, serve as the incubators of power in the United Kingdom. They hold vastly disproportionate sway in composition of Parliament and other political posts, and tend to dominate the front benches of all the parties. What media scrutiny, particularly with the advent of new media, has served to be is a massive check on entrenched elites. They challenge them in their lofty offices and strike at their very hearts when they behave in ways inappropriate or hypocritical. [1] This scrutiny is often one of the only pure democratic powers available to ordinary people, even in a liberal democracy.  [1] Thompson, J. 2011. “Shifting Boundaries of Public and Private Life”. Theory Culture Society 28(4): 49-70.

Even if the media occasionally distracts from more pressing issues, it does not make the issues attending politicians’ private lives entirely unimportant. The media can be admonished, as it was in the case of Lewinski, to stop getting overly fixated. As society’s watchdog, the media owes a duty to the people to provide as much information as possible, including information about their representatives’ private lives. Without that information they would never be able to adequately gauge who might best represent their interests.

Even if privacy is a fundamental human right, it is certainly not an absolute one. When the authorities have probable cause they can search the property, residence, and computers of suspects in pursuit of greater societal justice. Politicians are not simply doing a job for the electorate they are in a special position as the effective embodiment of the people’s will, and as a result the powers 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 private lives. This is exactly the same as outside politics; the more senior and powerful the job the more rigorous the checking of the qualifications and background of the candidate must be.

Fixating on personal lives results in infringing the rights of more than just the politicians themselves  Politicians, like all people, are not islands. They have loved ones and families. When a citizen chooses to offer him or herself up as a candidate for office he or she takes on many responsibilities. However, the politician’s family can never be considered to have wholly consented to the arrangement, even if they support them in the election. They are in many ways innocent bystanders, yet when politicians are treated as having no freedom of privacy, their families too are stripped of that right unjustly. [1] Thus, the right to privacy is worth protecting for politicians even if it could be shown that they had no real personal right to such respect. Rights exist in part to protect innocent parties, and the families of politicians are innocent, and would undoubtedly be prime victims of limitless media intervention. The recent ads produced by the National Rifle Association that target President Obama’s daughters and their security detail has dragged girls who did not choose to be the president’s daughters into the spotlight. [2] Additionally, the fear of scrutiny of family might well have a serious chilling effect on anyone who might seek public office, resulting in a worse candidate pool, harming everyone.  [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68.   [2] AFP, “White House slams NRA ad targeting Obama daughters”, Google News, 16 January 2013,

The focus of politics and politicians should be on policy  Delving into the private lives of politicians does nothing to improve citizens’ understanding of who represents them except to show that a certain politician may have issues in his or her private life that is unsavoury, or slightly hypocritical. But that focus on hypocrisy is itself legislatively meaningless. If voters select a representative who then votes in accordance with their wishes, then he is doing his duty, irrespective of how he lives his own life. Thus when Newt Gingrich, for example, as Speaker of the House sought to increase federal recognitions and incentives towards stable, monogamous relationships, while at the same time leading an extramarital affair of his own, he was not acting in bad faith with the voters who backed him, but doing their will, which is the duty of a politician at base. [1] Furthermore, when personal lives are open to attack, candidates can focus their energies on denigrating their opponents instead of addressing the issues that matter. The result is worse elections, as voters are unable to distinguish candidates effectively on the basis of policy, but are rather pushed to make decisions on the basis of personal lives, which results in decision-making that is less thoroughly in their interest.  [1] Kurtz, K. “Legislatures and Citizens: Communication Between Representatives and their Constituents”. National Conference of State Legislatures. December 1997,

The private lives of politicians are a harmful distraction for the media  When the lives of politicians are fair game, they necessarily become a major target for journalists. Salacious gossip sells much better than more complicated stories about policy, so they are given pride of place. The result is the media wasting time and resources on pursuing stories that are ultimately generally useless in divining policy and progress in a society. The media is society’s watchdog, and its duty is to protect the people from untruths in policy and to shield them from wicked decisions. Focusing on the personal lives does nothing to serve the actual material interests of the people. Thus when the media reports on the private lives of politicians over the more meaty issues of the day, it abrogates its most fundamental duty to its citizens. The best example of this occurring is certainly the Lewinski affair in America. While it was deeply unfortunate that the president would use his power to solicit the sexual favours of an intern, the near maniacal fixation with which the media attended the story served to halt the process of government for many months. Bill Clinton spent much of his time and energy obfuscating and apologising for his private life, while the Congress dithered over who could be the most righteous in their opposition to the president. [1] The result was one of the most farcical standstills in the history of American governance. Absent the media reporting on this story and delving into the lives of those involved, America might well have been able to focus on the things that mattered.  [1] Gitlin, T. “The Clinton-Lewinsky Obsession: How the Press Made a Scandal of Itself”. The Washington Monthly. December 1998,

All individuals have a legitimate right to privacy  Privacy is a fundamental human right that is universal, a right that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us. [1] What people get up to in their private lives is by and large their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. While some people may think their politicians owe them a special duty and thus have to give up certain privileges like privacy, the covenant between citizen and representative cannot be justified on such stringent grounds. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. If this was justification for scrutiny into the private lives of elected officials then why should it not also be justification for intrusion into the private lives of unelected civil servants? Both these groups are doing a job for the public, but undertraining this job does not give the public the authority to intrude into their privacy beyond questions about whether they are qualified for the job. The duty of an elected politician is not so special as to demand an abrogation of his or her ability to enjoy a private life. If a right is to have meaning, it must apply to everyone with a semblance of equality. Making politicians fair game for reporters only serves to undermine the rights all citizens enjoy.  [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68.

Politicians are not merely elected to enact policies as stated but to act as a surrogate for the views and values of the voters who elect them. That is why politicians are expected, and are considered legitimate in doing so, to legislate on issues not necessarily discussed on the campaign trail. It is the scrutiny of private lives that allows the public to know how a politician will represent their views with regards to questions that are not asked in the election. That is why it is essential to understand the private life and character of the representative. With regard to political attacks, voters are trusted to select leaders, and can reasonably be expected to make decisions in their genuine interests. Thus they can be expected to discern policy from the campaigns effectively only in the case of access to the candidates’ private lives will they now have additional information to make an even better decision.

While it is no doubt unfortunate that the innocent family members of politicians might feel unpleasant scrutiny, it remains essential to the promulgation of political accountability. Furthermore, it is valuable that citizens understand who their leaders are, and what kind of people they are, which necessitates knowing what kind of people they associate with in their private lives. Obviously, not all personal associations, such as biological family, may be chosen, but all the same those relationships can reveal much valuable information about the politician’s character. All of this is part of the trade-off politicians must accept if good, accountable government is to be achieved and maintained.

Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten [1] . Young people are not completely detached from the political or the non-electronic world. Many are passionate about politics and exercising their right to vote [2] . Low voter turnout is a general trend across the nation, and if young people are failing to vote then this too reflects disillusionment with government. For example, many young people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the UK recently were shocked when he expressly went against his promise to prevent tuition fee rises [3] . Political disillusionment among young people is also a problem in the USA [4] and Europe [5] . It is the state of politics itself, rather than the literal process of voting, which deters people from full political participation.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11

Modernisation  In modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices [1] [2] [3] [4] . Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people – especially young people [5] – voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor [6] , it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning ‘Is Big Brother really more popular than election?’ [7] , indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election [8] . In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population.  [1] In the UK:  , accessed 24/08/11  [2] In Europe:  , accessed 24/08/11  [3] In Asia:  , accessed 24/08/11  [4] In the USA:  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11  [6]  , accessed 24/08/11  [7]  , accessed 24/08/11  [8]  , accessed 24/08/11

Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines [1] . In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election [2] . Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  ,, accessed 24/08/11

Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.  Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet [1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers [2] . Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems [3] . Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID [4] , it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible  In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote [1] . In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote [2] . Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend [3] . When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations [4] . As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’ [5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home [6] [7] .  [1]  , accessed 22/08/11  [2]  , accessed 22/08/11  [3]  , accessed 22/08/11.  [4]  , accessed 25/08/11  [5]  , accessed 22/08/11  [6] In the USA:  , accessed 22/08/11  [7] In the UK:  , accessed 22/08/11

Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government [1] . Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy [2] . The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern [3] .  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11

The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal [1] . Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [2] , supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11

The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote [1] . A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run [2] . Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes [3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11

Efficiency  Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster [1] , and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system [2] . For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election [3] . The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate [4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise  Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise [1] , Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million [2] , and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion [3] . Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult [4] . In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups [5] . Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use. [6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11  [6]  , accessed 24/08/11

It is impossible to tackle potential problems in party politics without an input from the electorate. Young people may have the opinion that politics itself is inaccessible, but this will never change if they refuse or fail to vote. A democratic government can only ever be truly representative when everybody casts their vote. At least this mechanism is an attempt to reach those young people – and in cases where they say they do not know enough about politics, to try a different medium of teaching. Ultimately, those who have no intention of voting will continue to refuse. However, this is at least a step towards educating and enabling those who do wish to vote, but perhaps do not currently feel well-equipped enough to do so.

Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet [1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers [2] . Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems [3] . Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID [4] , it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability  The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting [1] [2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out [3] . If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically [4] . It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’ [5] . 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet [6] ; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression [7] , which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11  [6]  , accessed 24/08/11  [7]  , accessed 24/08/11

Engagement with democracy  If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people [1] [2] , despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced [3] . Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11

Democratisation  If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.

Voter apathy  The need to travel to a polling station might be a minor consideration, but growing disillusionment with the political system in general is a far bigger cause of voter apathy. Young people in particular believe that their vote will not make a difference [1] , or are confused over politician’s aims [2] and intentions. Others do not believe that a change in government necessarily means a change in real life situations [3] , or state that they do not feel as if they know enough about politics to make a decision [4] . Some have even stated that they are embarrassed and patronised by politicians’ eagerness over using the internet to ‘harness’ the votes of young people [5] . Using the internet to portray party policies does not necessarily tackle the problems with the policies themselves. It is politics more generally, rather than the practical system of voting, which is seen as inaccessible.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11

At what stage do we deem that an individual has considered their vote enough to cast it? Would we stop less-educated people from voting at all in case they hadn’t fully considered it? This argument goes completely against any democratic principle which values everybody’s vote as equal, and denounces the idea that one person’s vote is worth more than another’s. Even if a low turnout means that a minority can impact more on society, this is still legitimate – as long as everybody has the opportunity to vote. If the majority choose not to voice their concerns in online elections, then they lose the right to complain about the outcome. Many general or presidential elections have had a low turnout [1] [2] , but we still see them as legitimate. If we did not, nobody would ever be elected and progress could never occur.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion  No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal [1] . Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [2] , supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11

Computer literacy is constantly on the rise [1] [2] . In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide [3] , and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors [4] [5] . Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate.  [1] Children in the UK:  , accessed 24/08/11  [2] In the USA:   [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4] Across the USA:  , accessed 24/08/11  [5] In the UK:  , accessed 24/08/11

Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance.  This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1]  [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Separation would show acceptance of other religions.  It is important to note that it is not religion in general which has this special access to the state in the UK but the Church of England specifically. This means that the state is showing favouritism to the Church of England over other religions by allowing it a far greater contribution to the running of the state. Therefore, separating the church and the state would put all of the religions in the country on an even level of contribution, which is none, and in the process show acceptance of these other religions. [1]  This is especially important as the number of people who identify as following religions other than Christianity in the UK has doubled in the last 20 years. [2] Additionally, many people identify more with their religion than with any country and so this move would help show acceptance of those cultures by the British state.  [1] Hannan, Daniel. “The Conservative Case for Disestablishing the Church.” The Telegraph. 2008.  [2] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.180.

There are little to no barriers to non-religious people contributing to the state. In present day UK, there are no issues with non-religious people being or feeling unable to contribute to the state. It is far from a necessity to be part of a religious group, or to even be religious, in order to be part of, or contribute it any way, to the government. [1]  The idea, therefore, that it is important to make non-religious people feel as if their contributions are more valued, or that the separation of the church and state would achieve this, is ridiculous.  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

The church’s involvement undermines the role of the state.  The role of the state is to protect its people and to create the conditions for its people’s prosperity. The Church does not share these objectives. The Church’s objectives are, instead, to either convert as many people as possible to its own religion, and to ‘save souls’ brining people into its own perceived afterlife. [1] The Anglican church itself considers its mission to be “transformation - transforming individual lives, transforming communities and transforming the world.” “that calling is carried out at the national level of the Church of England in evangelism, development of parish congregations”. [2] Such a mission is inherently aimed solely at benefiting those within the church or those who can be converted not society as a whole.  The current confusion of state and Church, therefore, is likely to cloud the state’s judgement and limit the state’s ability to provide the maximum possible prosperity and security for its people.  [1] Weller, Paul. “Time for a Change: Reconfiguring Religion, State &amp; Society.” T&amp;T Clark Int’l. 2005.  [2] Church of England, ‘Mission’.

The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government.  There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1]  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence.

Separation would show non-religious people that their contributions to the state are valued.  In the last 25 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as non-religious has gone up from 31% to 50% of the population, while people in the UK who identify as religious has gone down by the same amount. [1] Clearly then, there are growing numbers of non-religious people in the UK and falling numbers of religious people.  Separating the church and the state would highlight that one does not have to be part of a certain religion to contribute to the state. With the non-religious now making up half the population it no longer makes sense for one denomination of Christianity to have such an official connection to the state.  [1] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.173.

International signalling.  As a government, the UK aims to promote democracy in the international community while reducing the number of countries adhering to other forms of government that do not listen to their people. This includes opposition to theocracies, where the country is run by a religious group according to religious doctrines, particularly in the case of Iran.  It is difficult for the UK to legitimately condemn such a governmental system while the Church of England has such a heavy role in the running of its own government. Although these are not on the same level, it can still be perceived as hypocrisy by the international community and the separation of church and state would greatly benefit the UK’s ability to condemn these states.

The government is not going to suddenly stop listening to the views of religious minorities in the country and will keep listening to the views of the Church of England. It will simply stop the government being prejudicial towards the Church of England compared to any other religion or belief. Currently what we see is the Church of England having privileges that other religious groups do not have. Religious groups and people do not see this as a representation of the involvement of religion in general in the government, they see this as the involvement of the Church of England in the government. The separation of the church and the state, therefore, will actually be inclusive to religious people who do not identify as Church of England. [1]  [1] Hannan, Daniel. “The Conservative Case for Disestablishing the Church.” The Telegraph. 2008.

The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup.

Separation would create animosity towards immigrants and non-Christians.  Currently, we already see problems in the UK with extremist groups blaming immigrants and non-Christian religious groups for pretty much everything from unemployment among whites to a lack of patriotism. Completely separating the church and the state could be seen as a move made due to political correctness and/or to try not to offend immigrants or those from non-Christian religious backgrounds.  This would be providing ammunition to extremist groups, as well as inspiring people who do not share these views to sympathise with them. This would be extremely harmful to the groups who are perceived as responsible for this change. [1]  [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

Minimal practical effect.  As it stands, the Church of England’s involvement in the state actually has little effect on it. Decisions are taken by the Prime Minister and his/her government rather than by religious officials and indeed the Church of England can often be a vehicle for the government’s views rather than the Church having an influence on government. As Bishop of Rochester Nazir-Ali states ‘The church is seen simply as the religious aspect of society, there to endorse any change which politicians deem fit to impose upon the public.’ [1] Therefore, separating the church and the state will make little difference in terms of the way the state is actually run but may result in a reduction of the influence of the government on some of the population. [2]  [1] Liddle, Rod, ‘The C of E has forgotten its purpose. Why, exactly, does it exist?’, The Spectator, 7 April 2009.  [2] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

Disestablishment sidelines all religious people.  Rather than other religious groups seeing the removal of the Church of England’s involvement of the state as them all being put on a level playing field, it is more likely to be seen as a total removal of religion from the government. [1] Bishop John Pritchard of Oxford argues that Anglican Bishops can be seen as acting as community leaders for all faiths and are respected as such, as a result they often support other religion’s such as Pritchard himself arguing a mosque in Oxford should be allowed to issue the call to prayer. [2]  This separation of church and state, therefore, will be seen as a declaration by the government that religious groups have nothing to contribute to the operation of the state. Since nearly 50% of people in the UK identify as religious [3] this is likely to cause a feeling of being undervalued amongst a huge part of society.  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.  [2] Bardsley, Fran, ‘Bishop backs mosque’s call to prayer’, The Oxford Times, 11 January 2008.  [3] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.173.

Separating Church and State in England would be harmful to national identity.  The reason the Church of England has the involvement that it does in the state is because it is important part of the UK’s cultural heritage. Completely separating the Church of England from the state would be perceived to many people as severely damaging to British national identity. As a national church the Church of England has been at the heart of the country’s political and cultural life since the sixteenth century, religion helped make Britain the country it is today. [1] A separation would be the country turning its back on this history and its own culture.  [1] MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ‘How God Made the English’, BBC, 2012

That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.

Separation would be inclusive to immigrants and non-Christians. People will not be disillusioned by the separation of church and state at all, it is even less likely that they will look for a scapegoat upon whom to pin the blame. The Church of England routinely condemns racist and extremist attitudes and separation will not change this. [1]  [1] The Church of England, ‘Countering Racist Politics’.

Legislation already exists in most countries where this issue is in dispute – including the UK where the NOP poll was conducted – have the option to opt out of working on a Sunday [i] . In addition there is an entire body of case law in the USA where various states have upheld the rights of individual workers not to work on a Sunday should they so choose [ii] .  The contention that a shared day of rest is beneficial to the community simply ignores the fact that for many those leisure activities require others to be working. For example eating out, going to bars or shopping routinely feature as among peoples’ favourite pastimes [iii] .  [i] ACAS Guidance on Sunday Working  [ii] Estate of Thornton v. Calder, Inc. (1985) and others  [iii] “Statistical Abstract of the United States 2009”. Landmark Research.

A shared day when there is no commercial activity encourages family life and recreation  There is extensive evidence that reserving one day for communal recreation has benefits in areas as diverse as community cohesion and the reduction of childhood obesity. The Colombian initiative, Ciclovia, which closes some streets altogether on a Sunday has demonstrated impressive results in these areas in the thirty years it has been established. [i]  An NOP consumer poll in 2005 showed that 85% of respondents in the UK suggested that they would rather have a shared day off for community, family and recreational activities than see shopping hours extended on a Sunday.  Representatives of those employed in the retail sector routinely condemn the impact that Sunday trading has on the family lives of those required to work [ii] .  [i] Hernandez, Javier C., ‘Car-Free Streets, a Colombian Export, Inspire Debate’, The New York Times, 24 June 2008  [ii] “USDAW lobbyists say extending Sunday shopping hours would be ‘bad news’ for shopworkers’ families” USDAW Press Release. 9 May 2006.

For many marginalised workers the opportunity to work what many would consider antisocial hours is their only chance of employment. Legislating to enforce leisure time removes a valuable opportunity for earning.  There are entire micro-economies based around this reality and it is unsurprising that marginalised individuals, families and communities operate within these sectors.  As a result their leisure time is also shared. It is worth noting that were members of these groups excluded from the opportunity to earn would considerably diminish their capacity to enjoy any leisure time at all.

Peoples’ rights to freedom of worship would be undermined if they were compelled to work on a Sunday  The right to freedom of religious practice and association is acknowledged by most countries and is enshrined in Article 18 of UN Declaration of Human Rights [i] . In those countries that can, on the basis of their history be deemed to be Christian nations it makes sense to recognise this fact by acknowledging Sunday, the Sabbath which was made for all mankind, [ii] as a day free for worship or leisure as the individual sees fit.  Equally Article 24 of the same Declaration maintains the right to reasonable leisure time. It seems only practical for governments to recognise the confluence of these two principles by reserving the same day.  [i] The United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights.  [ii] New International Version, Mark 2:27, 2011

Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion.  Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.

Compelling employers to close for a day is the only way to ensure that marginalised groups are not forced to work a seven day week  Unions consistently argue that vulnerable workers – migrants, part-time workers, the young and other groups – are simply unable to choose their leisure time at their own preference. It is unlikely that all members of a family all of whom are in such employment would be likely to have leisure time to share.  It is simply a democratic principle that the right to an active family life and access to shared leisure should not be the preserve of the wealthy.  This divide can only be met by enforcing a day shared by all members of society.

Opposition is making an excellent argument for ensuring that workers should be remunerated at a level to support a reasonable level of existence but does not speak to the issue of keeping Sundays as a day of rest.  Indeed it is possible to take the issue further and suggest that the understanding that everybody has the right to leisure time would require payment at such a level that would allow that time to be enjoyed.  A work-life balance should not be defined purely in terms of time spent active and time spent idle. Rather, it must speak as much to time spent earning and time spent spending and relaxing.

Exactly the same group that Opposition identify are also those least likely to have any leisure time at all. They are also least likely to have leisure at a time when they can share it with their families and communities.  Sunday is already the day when most people are likely to be away from work all enshrining it in legislation would achieve is expanding what is already the case for the majority to those who do not currently benefit from a shared day of rest.

It is prejudicial to other religions to give Sunday a significance not ascribed to the holy days of other traditions  It is already difficult enough for members of minority religions to have time for their own religious celebrations. It seems unlikely that employers would be likely to respect the rights of other religious groups to celebrate their own days of rest if employers were already compelled to recognise Sundays as a compulsory day of rest.  Equally, for the state to identify one particular day as the ‘religious’ day worthy of commemoration would be a statement that one particular religious persuasion was in some way superior to others.

It is simply unfair to force low-paid workers to lose a day’s work if they do not choose to do so  Many people work long hours not out of greed or obsession but out of simple necessity. To deny people the right to work when they need to is unfair and, potentially, financially crippling. In an ideal world everybody would have a good work-life balance but that is not the reality faced by millions of workers, even in developed economies.  Obliging workers to lose a day’s pay when that may impoverish then and their families is unlikely to enhance their family life, their level of relaxation, their spiritual experience or their access to leisure services.

People should be allowed to take their leisure at their own convenience and not on the basis of religious decree  It is unfair to compel people to take their leisure at a time that is not of their convenience. Workers who have to work a certain number of hours per week just to cover their costs should not be obliged to take their leisure time at a time when they cannot access services such as shops and banks.  For those with no religious conviction there is no particular benefit for Sunday being their day of leisure. Instead a more fluid relationship between work and leisure ensures that those with the least available free time can take it to their greatest convenience.

Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest.  The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.

Realistically speaking, music is not even property - for property to really be property, it needs to be tangible (something physical you can touch). [1] If it is tangible, it is easier to keep you from using it, whereas when it is intangible, I can’t. What if you hear a song on the radio which stays in your head all day long because you liked it so much? In economic terms, we call such a good “non-excludable”. [2]  Private property is both a rival good (see above), and excludable. The above shows that music is neither, even though we happen to call it “intellectual property”. That means that music can’t be private property, and copying it can’t really be theft in any normal sense of the word (see above). In addition, the moral right of the artist to be known as the author of a piece of music is also not broken by downloading. People usually sort the music on mp3-players by musician’s name, which means that we’re always recognizing that a certain artist made a certain song.  [1] Law.jrank.org, ‘Theft – Larceny’,   [2] Blakeley, Nic et al., ‘Non-excludability’, in The Economics of Knowledge: What Makes Ideas Special for Economic Growth, New Zealand Policy Perspective Paper 05/05, November 2005,

A legal transaction is the only way to achieve free exchange of value  Because the artist made the music, it is their property, in this case “intellectual property”. Property means that the owner/artist has the right to ask something from you in exchange for you gaining access to the music. This may be money. It may also be the requirement that you clearly recognize the artist’s moral right to always be mentioned as the creator of that music. This is called the “free exchange of value”, and this is the most fundamental relationship in our free market economy.  Whatever the artist chooses as payment through a legal transaction, it is his/her basic right to ask this of you. The only way to make sure that he/she can actually exercise that right is by making sure you only take music from the artist through a legal transaction, i.e. with their permission. Only then can we be sure that the desired free exchange of value has taken place

It’s true that musicians have to eat, too, but it’s not true that downloading cuts their income. Most of the money spent on music goes to record companies, not to artists, from each retail CD sold the artist only gets between 3 and 10%. [1] Those record companies have been keeping musicians on a leash for decades, paying them less than they could. They paid them enough to make sure they would remain fulltime musicians, but not so much that they didn’t bother to create new albums. So if downloading music files means record companies miss out on some income, we shouldn’t feel bad about it.  [1] Information is Beautiful, ‘How Much Do Music Artists Earn Online?’, 13 April 2010,

Theft is an assumption of property rights  Theft is taking something from someone who is the rightful owner without their permission. It doesn’t matter if the rightful owner keeps an original version or not. If you are downloading music from an unofficial source, you are stealing it: you can start listening to that song, without the permission of the original owner. The only way you can get the right to listen to that song is via a legal transaction from which the rights owner can make a profit

Theft always involves a thief taking something away for themselves with the result that the original owner can’t use it anymore. For example, if I steal your bike, you can’t use it anymore. And this is exactly why theft is wrong: you had something which you wanted to use, and now you can’t anymore, simply because I took it.  That’s why downloading music is not theft because it is a form of copying. You download a copy from an original, but the first owner still has the original on his or her computer, and can still enjoy it. In more complicated terms: music files are “non-rival” goods, meaning that my use of the good does not diminish your future use of it. [1]  [1] Investopedia, ‘Rival Good’,

Musicians have to eat  Apart from the moral reason, there is also a simple societal reason why it is wrong to download music without permission. The reason is that musicians have to eat, too. Suppose you are an up-and-coming young musician thinking about what to do with your future. You can either become a full time musician or take up a job. If you become a fulltime musician, you’ll be doing what you love. But at the same time, everyone will be downloading all your music for free, simply because they can. This means that music won’t be a good, stable source of income for you, and this means you’d rather take up a job. Since you’re not working on your music every day, your talent will be underdeveloped, and the little pieces of music you do write, for example in the weekend, are not as good as they could have been. So, downloading music without permission will lead to fewer good musicians. That’s not only bad for the musicians, but also for us: we’ll have less good music to listen to.

It is a mistake to think that when you’re downloading, there isn’t someone else making a huge profit. Torrent sites and other “pirate” sites gain huge amounts of income from the advertisements on their site. This means that they profit from material which is not theirs. Why should they profit from material they have gotten unfairly and without permission?

Downloading does not fall under the so-called “private copy exception”. The private copy exception only covered those rare cases when you took the effort to make a copy from a lawful source (perhaps putting a song you owned on CD on to a cassette so you could listen to it in your car). With the internet, the situation changed hugely. Firstly, copying became a lot easier. Secondly, the home copy-exception applies to when you borrow an album from a friend - someone you know. Online, you’re downloading from anyone, anywhere who happens to have the song you want. Thirdly, when you start downloading using peer-to-peer software, you will usually also start uploading at the same time. It’s the nature of p2p-technology that you both distribute and consume. So, you’re not just making a copy for yourself, you will also be distributing the same song, and that distribution is in any case wrong. These changes together mean that the three step-test is not met, so downloading does not fall under the private copy exception and is therefore illegal.

Downloading is morally right  Even when downloading is illegal, it still is right from a moral viewpoint. The reason is that by downloading, you’re not hurting the artists, but the record companies. And these record companies have engaged in unfair practices towards consumers for decades. They asked €20 euros for a CD, when a blank CD only costs about 5 cents. They still engage in unfair practices, for example via DRM. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management, and it means that companies limit how and when you can listen to a song. For example, you can buy a song and listen to it on your MP-3 player, but if you want to play it on your laptop, you have to buy the same song again. Moreover, record companies have sued individual consumers for huge fines for downloading just a few songs. Most recently one ordinary woman was fined $1.92 million dollars, which just doesn’t add up to the “damage” these individuals are supposed to have done. [1] That’s unfair, and because it’s unfair, we are justified in download without permission.  [1] Kravets, David, ‘Feds Support $1.92 Million RIAA File Sharing Verdict’, Wired.com, 14 August 2009,

Downloaders spend more on music  Downloading songs could mean more income for musicians. Concerts (plus merchandise like T-shirts) are becoming a bigger source of income. But suppose a new musician comes to town. How am I supposed to know if I want to go to their concert if I don’t know their music? Previously, I wouldn’t have gone since I didn’t want to spend money on first buying their album and then buying the ticket. Now, I can quickly check out their music by downloading some songs to see if I like it, and then go to their concert. I save money on the albums, and will go more to concerts. Indeed a study by Demos has shown that people who illegally download music spend £30 more on music per year than those who do not. [1]  [1] Demos, ‘Illegal downloaders are one of music industry’s biggest customers’, 1 November 2009,

There is a private copy exception  Downloading music without permission is allowed under the “private copy exception”. Practically, the exception meant that you were allowed to copy, but not distribute any music. Downloading music from a torrentsite or newsgroup is essentially the same. People who download music do it purely for their own enjoyment and use. They have no intention to resell the songs and make a profit from it. So, if it was legal to make a copy for personal use before the internet was invented, why then should it suddenly be different afterwards? Indeed while the private copy exception is not universal it is allowed under the Information Society Directive within the EU. [1] And when it comes to peer-to-peer software, you can turn off the option to upload automatically. This allows you to only download, but at a slower speed.  [1] European Parliament, Article 6/4, ‘Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’, Official Journal, L 167 , 22 June 2001, pp. 10 – 19,

Record companies have been blamed for unfair practices, like DRM, “milking” artists (see opposition argument 3), or suing individual downloaders for unfair damages. But record companies also have a very positive role to play: they scout every day for new talent, and offer training and production studios for up-and-coming musicians. Moreover, they provide valuable marketing services, making sure that new artists get heard instead of drowning in the vast sea of information that is the internet. Consider this, how do you even know which song to download? A large part of that is because record companies get the music out there, on to radio stations, all over MySpace, on MTV, so that you get to hear it for the first time. Those are things a musician is not trained to do and very often does not want to do, which is why it is good to have record companies [1] .  [1] Hole, Max, ‘The future for record companies’, ifpi, June 2007,

People have enough means to protect their careers  Whistleblowers shouldn’t be protected by internet anonymity, but by legal measures, making it illegal to fire people for whistleblowing, and by building a corporate culture that actually ‘prevents whistleblowing by encouraging it’. [1]  In the case of job applications, social networking sites like Facebook might not be anonymous, but lack of anonymity isn’t equal to full publicity. This is why, after criticism, Facebook has increased the visibility and usability of its privacy controls, which means that users themselves have more control over who is allowed to view their pictures and who is allowed to read their newsfeed. [2] If an employer still discovers someone’s fraternity party pictures with just a simple google search, then really the ‘victims’ themselves should take part of the blame by deciding to publish these pictures for all to themselves.  Moreover, when employers take a peek at someone’s Facebook-profile, they might be looking for something different contrary to expectations: a lot of party pictures may be associated with the personality trait of extroversion, which many employers actually consider a good not a bad thing. [3]  [1] Lilanthi Ravishankar, ‘Encouraging Internal Whistleblowing in Organizations’, 2003. Published online for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, URL:   [2] The Guardian, ‘Facebook to improve privacy controls over public visibility’, December 12, 2012. URL:   [3] Forbes, ‘What employers are thinking when they look at your profile page’, June 3, 2012. URL:

Internet anonymity allows people to speak the truth without fearing harm to their careers  People might do things online that can have negative consequences for their career. Think of ‘whistleblowers’ for example: whistleblowers are employees of a company that have direct and first-hand knowledge of their employer doing something illegal or immoral. If they speak out about it publicly, they might lose their job and therefore their sole source of income. Allowing them to speak out anonymously enables them to invite public scrutiny to their employer without fear of getting fired. [1]  Or think of employers using social media in the job application process. Some people during adolescence (or in their student years) might ‘misbehave’ – where misbehaving can be something as relatively harmless as drinking a bit too much, then doing something silly and then having pictures of that end up on Facebook. Because Facebook doesn’t allow anonymity, this means future employers can easily trace someone’s adolescent shenanigans to a person they are currently considering to hire. Around 37% of companies admit to doing this and take what they find into account when hiring. [2]  [1] IEEE Spectrum, ‘The Whistle Blower’s Dilemma’, april 2004. URL:   [2] Webpronews, ‘Employers Are Still Patrolling Facebook, And Your Drunk Stripper Photos Are Why You’re Not Hired’. April 18, 2012. URL:

Internet anonymity can actually make online non-heteronormative communities less safe  Internet anonymity allows people to ‘catfish’: to create a completely different online identity with the specific purpose of engaging in emotional/romantic relationships. In the case of non-heteronormative identities, a malicious ‘catfisher’ could construct an identity to lure someone into a trap. [1]  But even without malicious intent, catfishing can have negative effects on non-heteronormative communities. Take the example of the ‘Gay Girl from Damascus’, a blog written by a male student from the University of Edinburgh pretending to be a lesbian girl called Amina Arraf in Syria: by faking he inadvertently reaffirmed a heteronormative pattern that marginalized identities can’t speak for themselves. [2] Moreover, some marginalized identities might see the chance to pretend to be heteronormative: the MTV show ‘Catfish’ sometimes shows gay men or women pretending to be of the other sex, to be able to maintain a fake, heteronormative relationship. Obviously, they do this because for them this feels like the only way to reach out and connect – but it nonetheless is a fake identity, and the backlash after they’re found out doesn’t help the public perception of non-heteronormative communities at all. [3]  [1] Real Clear Politics, ‘The Problem with Online Anonymity’, March 13, 2012. URL:   [2] NPR. ‘White privilege and ‘Gay Girl in Damascus’, June 15, 2011. URL:   [3] Daily Mail, ‘'Catfishing:' The phenomenon of Internet scammers who fabricate online identities and entire social circles to trick people into romantic relationships’, January 17, 2013. URL:

Internet anonymity enables citizens to exercise their right to free speech  Citizens have a right to speak their mind without government interference – which is why in the offline world people also have a right to speak anonymously. [1] Internet anonymity guarantees that people can actually exercise their right to free speech: anonymity takes away the fear of potential political consequences.  The reason why governments are cracking down on internet anonymity is exactly this: they don’t like being criticized. For example, China recently introduced a bill requiring ‘real name registration’ of every Chinese internet user, thus hampering free communication and the airing of political dissident opinions. [2]  Conversely, internet anonymity has helped in the Arab Uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia: people used anonymising software like TOR to come online and communicate, organize and criticize freely without fear of political repercussions. [3]  [1] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘Anonymity’. URL:   [2] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Renewed Restrictions Send Online Chill’, January 4, 2013. URL:   [3] University for Peace, ‘Tor, Anonymity, and the Arab Spring: An Interview with Jacob Appelbaum’, August 1, 2011. URL:

Internet anonymity isn’t necessary to exercise citizen’s right to free speech  Even when we accept the theoretical principle of free speech, the past years have shown that internet anonymity is not necessary for citizens to exercise their right to free speech.  First, look at ‘access to the internet’ as a prime factor, regardless of whether it’s anonymous or not: In the case of the Arab spring, the causes of the unrest were increased oppression and a declining economic climate. [1] Internet access wasn’t that much of an enabling factor in the Arab Spring: the countries that saw the highest mobilization of citizens (Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen) actually rank lowest in internet penetration of all Arab countries. [2]  Secondly, let’s look at anonymity on the internet, provided that access is given: Again, the Arab Spring shows that anonymity isn’t a decisive factor at all. In Egypt and Tunisia, Facebook was a main vehicle to organize protests, [3] yet Facebook doesn’t allow anonymity – up to the extent that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks called Facebook ‘the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented’. [4] All this shows that internet anonymity isn’t as crucial a factor in fostering political dissidence as its proponents like to believe.  [1] Foreign Common Wealth Office, ‘The Causes of the Arab Spring’. URL:   [2] Yale Global, ‘Three Myths About the Arab Uprisings’, July 24, 2012. URL:   [3] The National, ‘Facebook and Twitter key to Arab Spring uprisings: report’, June 6, 2011 URL:   [4] Cnet, ‘Assange: Facebook is an appaling spy machine’, May 3, 2011. URL:

Internet anonymity allows people to experiment and construct with new social identities  People can use the internet to experiment with and construct new identities. Think for example of people who don’t have a heteronormative lifestyle (where heterosexuality is considered the norm/default lifestyle): in their own communities they could be condemned, despised and even prosecuted, but because of internet anonymity, they can safely join an online community without fear of social repercussions. [1]  Or think of people who through certain life-experiences needed to invent a new identity, for example someone who was addicted to drugs but now has come clean and is ready to build a new life – with an ‘authentic’ profile, this person will continuously be confronted with his or her previous identity. [2]  One solution would then be to require social networking sites like Facebook to drop the ‘real-name requirement’, which is something that the regional German data protection agency ULD has been arguing for in court. [3]  [1] TechPresident, ‘In the Middle East, Marginalized LGBT Youth Find Supportive Communities Online’, September 6, 2012. URL:   [2] The Guardian, ‘Online identity: is authenticity or anonymity more important?’, URL:   [3] The Verge, ‘Facebook wins legal battle to force Europeans to use real names online’, February 15, 2013. URL:

Banning internet anonymity wouldn’t decrease cyberbullying and trolling  Cyberbullying is bad, but internet anonymity isn’t the cause of rising suicides - cyberbullying is a circumstantial factor that triggers deeper, underlying problems in its victims. [1] Actually, banning internet anonymity can increase cyberbullying: when World of Warcraft announced their intentions to ban anonymity, female gamers voiced concerns of being forced to reveal their gender to other players, thus generating unwanted attention. [2]  As to the problem of trolling causing discussions under newspaper-articles and forums to go ‘bad’: this isn’t necessarily the case. A mediating factor could be the exact system in place for placing comments: comment systems like Disqus allow people to comment anonymously but still be judged for the quality of their contribution to the discussion. [3] If organizations care about the quality of their online discussions, they will implement systems like this by themselves and wouldn’t need any government regulation.  [1] ScienceNew, ‘Cyberbullying Does Not 'Cause' Teen Suicide’, October 20, 2012. URL:   [2] The Independent, ‘Rhodri Marsden: Online anonymity lets us behave badly’, July 14, 2010. URL:   [3] Silicon Valley Watcher, ‘Disqus: The Importance Of Trolls And Anonymity In Comments’, February 22, 2013. URL:

Banning internet anonymity doesn’t decrease illegal activities  Full traceability across the entire internet is difficult to implement: it would require a centralized worldwide agency certifying who has access to the internet – we don’t even have this for physical passports. But even if activities would be traceable to an IP-address, it doesn’t stop online illegal activities: criminals can remain anonymous by setting up anonymity servers, which allows them to rout their information through anonymous servers, even when their IP-addresses are known. [1] Even worse, malicious hackers can even recruit other people’s computers into engaging in illegal activities, for example in recruiting innocent people’s computers for collecting and distributing child pornography. [2]  [1] Bruce Schneier, ‘Schneier on security. Anonymity and the internet’, blogpost February 3, 2010. URL:   [2] Huffington Post, ‘Internet Virus Frames Users for Child Porn’, September 11, 2009. URL:

Internet anonymity leads to spam  Internet anonymity is a boon for spammers: even though spamming (sending unsolicited mass-emails) is illegal in many countries, the ability to send emails anonymously, either through altering the ‘sent-from’ address in the email or by opening and immediately closing an email address, enables spammers to keep on spamming. [1] Even if spam-fighters do find an email address and domain name from which spam is sent, then privacy protections still make it almost impossible to find out who exactly owns the domain name. [2] By restricting email traffic so that it can only be sent through official email-servers, we can ensure traceability of email senders and thereby increase the likelihood of catching spammers – which is what South-Korea, the world’s second largest generator of spam emails, recently proposed under the ‘Block 25’ proposal. [3]  [1] Spam Reader, ‘Why is it so difficult to catch a spammer?’, March 6, 2013. URL:   [2] Spam Resource, ‘Is Online Anonymity a Bad Thing?’, March 2, 2010. URL:   [3] BBC News, ‘Email spam 'Block 25' crackdown readied in South Korea’, 14 november 2011. URL:

Internet anonymity increases cyberbullying and trolling  In normal social life, people restrain themselves in what they say to others. When anonymously online, people behave differently: whatever they say and do can be said and done without consequence, because it isn’t traceable to them as persons, or, as comic artist John Gabriel is often paraphrased 'Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Idiot’. [1]  The consequences of this behaviour are ugly or downright harmful. Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games (MMPORGs) like World of Warcraft face a constant atmosphere of verbal abuse created by their players. And there’s worse than simple trolling like this: anonymity increases the effects bullying. For example, where schoolchildren originally were bullied in schools by bullies whose faces they knew, with online anonymity the bullying goes on anonymously online and invades every aspect of the victims’ lives – aggravating their suffering so much that in some cases they actually commit suicide, as for example did Canadian teenager Amanda Todd. [2]  That’s why organizations maintaining online communities, whether they be social networking sites like Facebook, MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and newspaper sites like The Guardian should (legally) be required to (publicly) verify the person behind an account or take it offline if it remains anonymous, as New York senators recently proposed. [3]  [1] The Independent, ‘Rhodri Marsden: Online anonymity lets us behave badly’, July 14, 2010. URL:   [2] Huffington Post, ‘Amanda Todd: Bullied Canadian Teen Commits Suicide After Prolonged Battle Online And In School’, October 11, 2012. URL:   [3] Wired, ‘New York Legislation Would Ban Anonymous Online Speech’, May 22, 2012. URL:

Internet anonymity allows internet users to engage in illegal activities  The internet is being used for illegal activities. Examples of these are trading and trafficking in child pornography, drug trading and planning and coordinating terrorist activities. [1] Anonymity makes it easier for these criminals as they can engage in their activities with less fear of being caught. [2]  By regulating internet anonymity, we can combat illegal activities better, because a key resource for criminals has been diminished. This is exactly why Eugene Kaspersky, founder of antivirus firm Kasperksy Labs, called for an ‘internet passport’ for every internet user, allowing everyone to be identified as persons. [3]  [1] UNODC, Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes, 2012. PDF can be downloaded here:   [2] Interpol, ‘Cybercrime’. URL:   UNICRI, ‘Terrorism and the internet’. URL:  2013  [3] Zdnet,’Microsoft OneCare was good enough’, October 16, 2009. URL:

Regulating the internet doesn’t stop spamming  Restricting internet traffic by blocking ports doesn’t reduce spam at all: spam networks will be able to find another means of sending mass-emails within hours, if not seconds. [1]  But there’s another consequence of regulating internet traffic this way: it makes internet traffic and email slower and more cumbersome, hampering small businesses and companies working mostly through online channels. It thus hinders the smooth functioning of the economy and hampers innovation. [2]  [1] Zdnet, ‘South Korea to block port 25 as anti-spam countermeasure’, November 15, 2011. URL:   [2] BBC News, ‘Email spam 'Block 25' crackdown readied in South Korea’, 14 november 2011. URL:

Mobile phones may help us keep in touch over long distances which is useful. However some doctors are concerned that keeping in touch by mobile phone comes at the cost of less face to face talking. When communicating by text message we are losing many parts of communication such as facial expression

Mobile phones enable us to keep in touch  Mobile communication is very useful and its main use is not to keep us safe but to make life easier. It is clearly useful that we can phone to ask to be picked up rather than always having to set a meeting time in advance. It is equally useful that a mobile phone can tell us if it is likely to rain, or if the train is late. We don’t need this information, but it certainly is helpful, and it is just as helpful for children as for adults.

These are certainly good things but we don’t need mobile phones for them. For example most people already have access to the internet. It is also not a good reason for why everyone should have one. If it is being used for learning phones can be used by more than one person.

Mobile phones make sure that we are safe  Mobile phones mean we are never out of contact with our friends, parents, guardians, or if necessary our school. They provide a way we can quickly contact someone if we are in trouble or are lost. Mobiles are most clearly helpful if caught in a large scale disaster such as a flood or earthquake as we can tell rescuers where we are. But they are also helpful for every day security. With a mobile phone parents know where we are and can be quickly contacted if we feel unsafe somewhere.

Phones are certainly a useful tool in helping to keep in contact so can be useful if you get into trouble. But they don’t always help because they don’t always keep us in contact. There are many reasons why a mobile may be useless. There may be no signal. Or the phone may have been turned off. Or the battery may have run low. If any of these things happen then it adds to parents worries as they can’t get in contact when they expected to be able to.

Increased independence for children is not always a good thing. Children should be supervised by adults and mobile phones are no substitute for this. Mobiles simply provide us with another means of communication with the outside world over which parents has little control. This is particularly relevant when the phone has internet access which is not restricted.

Mobile phones help us to learn  Having a mobile phone helps us to learn in a lot of different ways. First we learn about technology; about how to use the mobile phone. Second most phones today have apps (programs) to enable learning using the phone, or else through the internet. Phones can access online courses and lessons which can be provided in fun ways and can in some cases instantly tell you if you have the right answer. It may even sometimes be possible to do homework on a phone and send it to your teacher. Even without the internet phones can be used to provide short assignments, or to provide reminders to study.

Mobile phones lead to increased independence  Mobile phones bring us increased independence. Being able to use a mobile phone is clearly a basic skill to allow children to be independent. It means that they are not dependent on an adult being with them for parents to know where they are. The main reason for parents being unwilling to let children out on their own is fear for their safety. This is a fear that mobiles help prevent. This increased independence has other benefits, such as teaching us to be responsible for ourselves.

No research has shown health risks. The advice is only because we do not yet know the long term results. As studies continue for longer this final worry will also be ended.

Mobiles are not always a distraction. Research has shown that when allowed the use of mobile phones in school children do get better results. This is because it can increase motivation to work. For example, phones can be used to set reminders to do homework.

We should not be encouraging interest in material things  Mobile phones are a part of a desire to keep up with fashion and friends. We all want the biggest and the best. Mobile phone companies know this and regularly bring out flashy new models that are immediately the one everyone must have. The more children have mobiles the more are caught up in this fashion. Our compulsion to want new things all the time is not good for us. Mobile phones, as with many other electronics, are damaging to the environment. Since we buy them and often dispose of the phone only a couple of years later they pile up in gigantic rubbish dumps. Mobile phones are clearly a luxury not something that everyone should have, and we certainly should not keep buying new ones.

Mobile phones are expensive  Mobile phones are expensive. First there is the cost of buying the phone. Then there are all the charges for using it. Often there are more charges for downloading apps and other extras. Sometimes we go over the limits of our call time or data allowance and are charged extra. Finally there may be extra costs when the phone needs to be replaced or upgraded. The average cell phone bill in the United States is $70 for a month but it can sometimes be much higher. Clearly not every child can afford their own mobile and often parents cant either.

There are possible safety concerns  When mobile phones first came out there was a lot of worry about the possible effect on children’s health. We now know there is little risk. But the advice from health experts is still that children should avoid too much use of mobiles. Experts still worry that the use of mobiles could be linked with behavioural problems in children, this can mean problems such as being disruptive or having difficulty sleeping.

Mobile phones distracting  Mobile phones can easily distract us. They can be a particular problem in schools where they discourage us and those around us from working. Using a mobile phone while doing a piece of work will reduce your concentration making it more likely you will make mistakes. Mobile phones, like video games, are also a distraction from doing other things. We don’t just use phones for communication but also for games. Most young people spend well over an hour on their mobiles. As a result there is much less time for other activities.

The expense clearly depends on the kind of phone and how much it is used. Parents clearly have control over these costs; they decide on the deal that their child is on. The parents can then make sure there is little chance of their children running up large bills.

Something being a luxury does not mean it is not something everyone should have. The effect on the planet is minimal and can be reduced if we recycle any phones that we are going to throw away. It would certainly best for the planet if we did not keep buying upgrades but this is not necessary for every child to have a mobile phone.

First off, it is quite possible the gender ratio imbalance is not as large in China as it is thought to be because many families do not register their female children in order to circumnavigate the one-child policy.  Proposition thinks that trafficking will decrease under their policy. We would argue that it would increase or at the very least not decrease. These atrocities take root when a society finds more value in women as economic objects than as people. The cash transfer scheme does little to increase women’s value as people but explicitly and dramatically increases their value as economic objects. This plan does not reduce or create any disincentive for exploitation of women or girls, but it does guarantee a revenue stream from doing so  In some traditional cultures, women are used as tender to settle debts, through forced marriages, or worse. Presumably the cash transfers are to the families, not the girls themselves. This reinforces the powerlessness of women relative to their families and only reinforces their families' potential gain from economic exploitation. With the addition of cash, there would be an increased incentive reason to exploit this renewable resource. We on side Opp feel that this behaviour is dehumanizing and deplorable and the risk of increased objectification and exploitation is, by itself, sufficient reason to side with the Opposition. A higher female birth rate is not a good in of itself if these women are likely to be mistreated worse than the current female population as it is not only life we value but quality of life and it is surely unethical to set policies that will increase the number of people being born into lives of discrimination.

The policy will help alleviate the social problems arising from the imbalance  A balanced gender ratio allows that every man has a woman to marry – theoretically of course as not every individual wants to marry and not every individual is heterosexual. The majority of men and women do want to get married. In China, men face such competition to find a wife that they spend several years living in horrific conditions in order to save up enough money to have a property with which to present a prospective wife. Without a property these men will never find a wife. These men clearly have a desperate desire to find a woman. [1] There are 3 problems with this situation. 1) The dissatisfaction men experience when they strongly desire to marry but cannot is an unhappy thing and surely lowers their quality of life. By 2020 there will be 24 million Chinese men of marrying age with no wives. It has even been suggested that this dissatisfaction is contributing to a rising crime rate in China. [2] 2) Because men are so desperate they will take any woman they can get. The dating agency industry has grown massively in China and parents even gather in town squares to advertise their daughters, rejecting or accepting candidates based only on whether or not they have a property and a good job. This means couples are less likely to be compatible and, though divorce is not as popular in China as in the west, couples are more likely to be unhappily married. Divorce has increased a huge amount as the gender imbalance has increased. [3] 3) Those men who do not find wives often look to prostitution or possibly women trafficked into the country for companionship and sex. 42 000 women were rescued from kidnappers in China between 2001 and 2003. There are clear harms to the women involved in such activities and to women’s rights as a whole when this occurs. There are harms to society as a whole when this occurs in the name of HIV and other STDs. [4] 4) The prevalence of prostitution and trafficking as well as the focus on male wealth when it comes to dating and marriage placed women in a position where they are seen only as a financial asset or commodity to be sold, bought or traded. Placing women in this position will have psychological harms such as lowered self-esteem and more tangible harms when society treats them with less respect and women’s rights cease to develop in a positive direction.  [1] Gladstone, Alex and Well, Greg. “Material girls lose good men.” Shanghai Daily. 2011.   [2] Sughrue, Karen. “China: Too Many Men.” CBS News. 2009.   [3] “More women opt to end unhappy marriages.” China Daily. 2002.   [4] Raymond, Janice. “Health Effects of Prostitution.” The Coalition Against Trafficking of Women. 1999.

We agree that a policy to ban abortion is not conducive to the encouragement of women’s rights. We would argue, however, that more rigorous policing of prenatal gender determination could be effective. For example, an amnesty could be issued for handing in of illegally used ultrasound devices, possibly even with a financial reward for turning these in. Further investigation could be made into rumours of places where one might access prenatal gender determination. It may be difficult but all crime detection is difficult but we do it because it is important.  Propaganda has been known to change age old ideas. It is an extremely powerful force. China has shown the power of propaganda through its censorship of the internet, protectionist policies in the film industry and control of print and radio media which help ensure that the Communist party stays in power. Of course, propaganda can also be used to create positive effects. What’s important to note about propaganda is that it takes time. Propaganda in South Africa which aims to encourage the use of condoms and greater HIV awareness is only now beginning to work after ten years of running such campaigns. New infections in the teenage age group (the age group most exposed to HIV awareness particularly through schools) have decreased. [1] There is no reason why this cannot be a very effective tool in changing people’s mindsets about gender.  Furthermore, some of the changes in society will happen naturally as countries like China and India develop. As more women are educated and get jobs, people will start to realise women’s value and women will probably have more influence in the decision of whether or not to go through with a pregnancy. It is a historical trend that nations offer more freedoms and they become more economically developed. [2] Wealth leads to liberalisation and greater exposure to western ideals.  [1] “HIV/AIDS in South Africa.” Wikipedia.   [2] Mosseau, Michael, Hegre, Havard and Oneal, John. “How the Wealth of Nations Conditions the Liberal Peace.” European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 9 (2). P277-314. 2003. “HIV/AIDS in South Africa.” Wikipedia.

Gender equality  Men and women deserve to enjoy equal rights. In China and India women do not enjoy equal rights. By encouraging couples to produce girls we contribute to the resolution of two problems. Female children are likely to be treated poorly in comparison their brothers. They may be given smaller quantities of food, less education etc. It is not only the physical differences in the upbringing of boys and girls that are noteworthy but also the emotional. Particularly in families without sons, daughters are led to experience guilt and a sense of inferiority because their parents are disappointed in their gender. These girls will grow up in a home without gender equality and therefore will come to accept a smaller share of family wealth as an adult and be unfit psychologically to denounce male dominance. The girls are likely to later perpetuate gender inequality amongst their own children. [1] By making it beneficial for parents to have female children, we make parents less likely to make their daughters feel guilty and inferior for their gender. Furthermore, educational grants will allow girls access to education – which is both intrinsically valuable and valuable in that it will allow the possible financial independence and the confidence to denounce male domination. Similarly, men will receive a message that it is more praiseworthy to produce a son. In essence, allowing selective abortions to take place without taking action against this practise is allowing gender inequality to stagnate in the popular wisdom. It is important to take a stance especially in a country like China where government ideology heavily effects the people.  [1] Gupta, Monica. “Selective Discrimination against Female Children in Rural Punjab, India.” Population and Development Review. Vol.13, No.1, (Mar.1987), p77.

The shortage of women in China has a positive effect on gender equality because there is a shortage of women and men therefore have to compete for romantic attention. Women can afford to be picky. “Many Chinese women place high value on a husband with money and stability. In a now famous moment from a Chinese dating show, a female contestant rejected a suitor with the iconic line, "I would rather cry in the back of a BMW than laugh on the back of a bicycle." [1] One gentleman said, If you're poor, nobody will go with you." [2] This places women in a position of power.  Furthermore, simply increasing the number of female babies alive will not alter the gender dynamics because the preference for male children can be attributed to age old beliefs that men continue the family name and provide financial protection for their parents in their old age as well as to the dowry system in India. [3]  The following is mentioned in the People’s Daily Online regarding the traditional and cultural reasons for the gender ratio disparity: “Demographer Wang Guangzhou at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said that China’s strong preference for male children, coupled with the lack of social welfare, lay at the heart of the problem. ‘Traditional values will still prevail in some rural areas, where having male heirs is important for ensuring that the family bloodline is preserved,’ Wang said. ‘Furthermore, many Chinese families rely on their children to look after the elderly since a solid social welfare system is still unavailable for much of the population.’” [4]  For more argumentation as to why a discriminatory policy in favour of women will not address gender inequality see the opposition ineffectiveness argument.  [1] Adshade, Marina. “The Dating Surplus for Chinese Women.” 2010.   [2] Sughrue, Karen. “China: Too Many Men.” CBS News. 2009.   [3] Pande, Rohini and Malhotra, Anju. “Son Preference and Daughter Neglect in India: What happens to living girls?” International Center for Research on Women. 2006.   [4] “China faces growing gender imbalance.” BBC News.

We do not disagree that abortion is a generally undesirable thing. Even those who believe that abortion is ethical feel it would be preferable not to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. It may be very distressing for mothers if they have not made an autonomous choice to go through with the abortion but the proposition is wrong to assume that they have not. Cultural biases towards male children are often internalised by women. It makes sense that both mothers and fathers would be concerned about who will care for them in old age – not just men. Men and women from the same socio-economic and cultural background are also likely to have similar ethical views and therefore are unlikely to disagree on their ethical standpoint on abortion. Therefore, it is not the case that women suffer because they are forced or coerced into abortions.  Furthermore, this is not a problem exclusive to gender selective abortion. Whilst there is a greater prevalence of abortions of female babies, there are a lot of abortions of male babies as well. Assuming that abortion does cause women a lot of distress, this harm will not be removed by encouraging parents to have girls because they will continue to abort male foetuses. The solution for this problem is to educate people about alternative methods of contraception so that unwanted pregnancies do not occur and also to empower women in their marital relationships by encouraging them to have their own income and so on. This can be better targeted by self-help women’s groups and the like.

Ineffectiveness of alternatives  One possible alternative to our possibly is to better police prenatal sex determination. This is highly unfeasible. In 1982 the Chinese government distributed masses of small, light ultrasound devices to ensure that women who’d already had one child were either sterilized or continuing to wear their intrauterine device. Women started using these devices for prenatal sex determination and therefore “more than 8 million girls were aborted in the first 20 years of the one-child policy.” In China prenatal sex determination is illegal and, though ultrasounds are allowed in certain cases for medical reasons so long as they are on security camera, doctors who reveal the gender of the child can no longer work as doctors. The masses of distributed ultrasound devices, however, are the basis for a large and successful black market.  A second possible approach is propaganda. “The government has launched a campaign to convince parents that having daughters is a good thing: propaganda street banners preach that preferring boys over girls is old thinking.” This too has been unsuccessful. Posters and the like are unlikely to change age-old traditional ways of thinking. [1]  Abortions are still free and legal right up to the ninth month, even as the boy-girl imbalance grows. A third possible approach to the problem could be to ban abortions altogether. This is unlikely to be effective as, with such high demand, a black market for abortion is sure to spring up. Even if it is effective, it may drive parents to commit infanticide instead. It also seems an unfair policy. We promote women’s rights and women’s choice and it seems wrong to prevent women who have, for example, been raped from aborting a child that they had no choice in conceiving and will possible resent.  Therefore, there are seemingly no satisfactory alternatives.  [1] Sughrue, Karen. “China: Too Many Men.” CBS News. 2009.

Abortion  It is estimated that around 10 million female foetuses were aborted in the past 20 years in India. [1] These abortions were motivated by cultural and financial reasons discussed above e.g. dowry, parents fear that daughters can’t care for them in old age, need to continue male lineage. Regardless of what one believes about the ethics of abortion, abortion causes a lot of emotional distress to women. In some cases this is because the woman has formed an emotional attachment to her unborn child. In some cases it may be because the woman has an ethical disagreement with abortion but is unable to refuse the abortion. Women are especially unlikely to have this kind of decision making power in the very countries where men are valued more highly than women and husbands tend to have power over their wives. Our policy changes the incentives that families have to get an abortion. Whereas a female child was one a costly liability, our policy now makes having female children less of a liability, if not a financial asset. This means that fewer women will have to undergo abortions.  [1] Boseley, Sarah. “10 million girl foetuses aborted in India.” The Guardian. 2006.

Whilst the Indian government may have policies that empower women, they do not currently have programs that encourage more female children to be born. Thus, there is a reason to fund both of these independent programmes. This is an investment in creating a socially stable society in the long-run. The benefits of educating women have been seen in other nations. As women become more educated they gain more freedoms as they are better equipped to fight for them and their achievements make it hard for men to argue that they are inferior. This is a long term effect, however, that will not reap the mentioned benefits for some years though it is very important. Extra educational subsidies cna easily be run alongside other policies simply by being well organised and communicative. Again, opposition’s argument applies only to India while there are not educational programmes of this nature in other nations mentioned. Secondly, the pension programme we are proposing directly and immediately deals with the problem by saying to parents ‘Have a female baby and we will support you through old age so you don’t have to worry that the girl won’t do it’.

Our policy provides far more than these existing programmes (which are, we could mention, exclusive to India). By offering parents of females an annual lifelong pension we remove the fear that their female children will not support them in their old age. This will certainly encourage parents whose primary goal in reproducing is to be financially secure in old age to have girls. Giving parents preferential employment and housing benefits would certainly be an effective incentive as 42% of the Indian population lives below the bread line. [1] There are NGOs around the world concerned with women’s rights who will help to fund these initiatives and the UN has existing women’s rights projects in China. [2]  This policy is necessary to ensure that women are born in the first place so that there is a larger united group working towards gender equality within these nations. Furthermore men will not be disgruntled at all because the money that government is supposedly spending on women is in fact going into the pockets of these parents. Whereas tax money might go to roads in parts of the country one might never use or to help people poorer that the taxpayer, this policy places money directly in the pocket of any taxpayer who has a female child. It is very unlikely that men will hate their daughters for bringing in money and for not requiring costly education – if government offers to pay for female education.  [1] “Poverty in India.” Wikipedia.   [2] “United Nations Development Programme.”

Commodifying women.  Surely providing a financial incentive for families to produce women causes women to be likened to a product that needs to be manufactured. Families will continue to have a social stigma against female children and they will be viewed simply as a financial asset. This is not only bad for women in general in the country but for babies that are only alive because they provide income. These children are unlikely to be loved and cared for as a male child might be and it is cruel to encourage them to be brought into the world to live life in such a condition.  Furthermore, the commoditisation of money can only serve to worsen the problem of trafficking mentioned earlier by the proposition.

Autonomy (Please note that this argument cannot be run in conjunction with argument four as they are contradictory)  42% of the Indian population is under the international poverty line and it is they that contribute the most to imbalanced sex ratio due to economic concerns. [1] Offering a financial incentive for people to produce female children will undermine the autonomy of parents. In order for there to be autonomy, the individual needs to be able to make a rational, unforced decision. When someone is extremely impoverished, as many people are in developing economies like those of China and India, financial incentives are an offer that cannot be refused. Proposition would have you believe that we offer the parents an autonomous choice between having a female child and receiving money or not having the child and not receiving money. Of course they will take the money! Poverty removes the possibility of choice. In this way, poor parents are being forced to have female children to ensure their own survival and the survival of their already existing family.  Why is this problematic? Firstly, we believe choice is intrinsically valuable because the freedom to make choices is recognition of our fundamental humanity and individuality. If we cannot determine our own futures we are slaves. We value choice so much that we sometimes allow it when it risks causing wider social problems. For example, we allow people to smoke or eat unhealthily even though this may cost the health system a lot of money.  Secondly, people have the most empirical information about themselves and are therefore able to make the best choices for themselves. For example, a family may know that they do not have the space in their home or the time to raise another child. They may know that a boy will be better able to support the family financially later on because he will be more likely to get a job and in some cases this may even override the financial benefits offered by government. These are all important considerations that only individual families are able to take into account. A government is unable to know each family’s individual situation and therefore is not well suited to make this decision in place of the family.  [1] Poverty in India.” Wikipedia.

Financial incentives do not break down cultural bias  The reason why there is a bias towards male children in India is cultural. When women get married in India they become a part of their husband’s family and a dowry must be paid. As one Hindu saying goes, "Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbours’ garden." In order to change the gender ratio imbalance in India, therefore, it is important to deal with the underlying prejudices in society, not merely throw money at the problem. There are similar cultural prejudices in other countries with gender disparities. In China there is concern that female children cannot continue the family name as lineage is something male.  A good case study of a place where financial incentives have not altered the social climate regarding reproduction is Germany. Germany Kindergeld policy is particularly generous, giving 184€/month for 1 child and 558€/month for 3 until the children are at least 18 (regardless of gender). This is very similar to the Proposition plan but the birth rate has declined. In German culture there is a bias towards having fewer children and instead pursuing career but this cultural bias was not overcome by financial incentives.  The Germany Ministry of Statistics reported that the birthrate in 1970, 5 years before Kindergeld began, the birthrate per woman was 2.0. In 2005, despite ever increasing Kindergeld, the rate had dropped to 1.35. This trend is mirrored across all other European nations. [1] Of incredible significance is that the decline in birth rates is relatively even across all socioeconomic groups in Germany, indicating that even people with a low or no income do not have children for the sole purpose of receiving more money.  In order for the gender ratio to be rebalanced we need to do more than just offer money to parents who produce girls.  Governments often set blanket policies without coming to grips with the problems on the ground. It is likely that the problem is slightly different in different parts of China and that it has a far more intricate, psychological nature than proposition supposes. Cultural biases are taught to children from birth through everything language to observations of how their parents behave and these biases are internalised at a very young age. It is difficult to see how years of immersion in a culture can be overturned in adulthood by nothing more than the offer of money. There are probably more detailed reasons why male children are greater financial assets that government is not aware of. Perhaps in certain communities the prevalent industry requires strong male workers or refuses to employ females and this financial incentive will override the incentive proposed in propositions argument. In short, a blanket government policy will be unable to deal with the intricacies of the problem and a financial incentive may simply be the wrong approach.  [1] “Child Benefit Germany.” Wikipedia.

The proposition policy will interfere with current government policies  Prop's plan is not only redundant with some current government programs but is also wasteful of worthwhile government funds. For example, the plan pays for the education of young girls up through the high school level. This is targeting a problem that has been addressed with significant success. Currently, the rates for primary school enrolment among young girls and young boys are 94% and 97% respectively in 2007. This is a drastic change from the year 2000 when it was 77% and 94%, a 17% disparity. [1] Additional policies in the same area are inefficient and the additional bureaucracy risks disrupting this positive trend.  There are currently at least 27 ministries in the Indian government (account for almost 5% of total budget expenditure) that are allocated to providing programs for female empowerment, and of these most are taking a targeted approach that identifies actual needs within communities. [2] [2] Side Prop does not tell us how their plan will be different than any of these existing plans.  At best, Prop's plan is likely to be redundant when combined with existing policy and therefore a waste of money. At worst, it will work against established, valuable programs and actively cause harm.  More importantly, the fact that girls are attending schools in these numbers and yet a sex-ratio imbalance exists and has in fact worsened proves that better education for women does not solve or improve the problem of sex selective abortion. Therefore, prop’s policy of providing education grants is redundant.  [1] World Bank, ‘Adjusted net enrolment rate. Primary’, data.worldbank.org,   [2] Ministry of Women and Child Development, ‘Gender Budgeting in India,

It is ridiculous to say that a decision based on a financial incentive is not an autonomous decision. We allow poor people to make the decision to take on a job or sell items that they own even though these decisions are incentivised by money. We still regard these decisions as autonomous. Furthermore we do believe that families make careful considerations when they decide whether or not to have children. This is evidenced by the fact that families make the decision to abort female but not male children. Parents obviously consider the choice to have a child and we do not think that this will change when there is a government based financial incentive. This is especially the case because the reason that parents currently DO NOT have female children is for financial reasons. As you mentioned, male children tend to be more able to financially support their parents in their old age in these countries. Surely then a financial incentive is exactly the right kind to provide for these parents since it is financial incentives that are causing them not to produce females in the first place. If the opposition is concerned with financial incentives for the poor then they should be concerned with the status quo.  Furthermore, though governments may not know individual situations, they do know more about the widespread societal consequences of gender ratio imbalance and the long term predictions if these conditions continue to exist. They are also more likely to be concerned with the greater good of society whilst families make selfish decisions. Many of these families make decisions not based on rational reasoning or informed, educated plans but on cultural and social wisdom that may not produce the best decision. The bias towards men is cultural ‘wisdom’ of this nature.  Lastly, we’d like to thank the opposition for showing just how effective our policy will be at encouraging families to produce girls

Ineffectiveness  The policy will be ineffective in two ways. Firstly it will not even achieve the goal of a balanced gender ratio but secondly, even if it did, it will not reduce the divide between men and women and make women a more valued part of society.  1. How does this plan offer advantages to the families of girls in excess of what is already available? The Indian parliament's most recent budget includes several programs designed to increase the resources, specifically including medical and educational resources, available to women and children. Programs exist to provide education to women [1] . Most importantly where do these financial incentives come from? India is currently committed to cut budget deficits especially since “General government debt now stands at 82% of GDP.” [1]  2. The plan proposed by Prop will simply exacerbate resentment of women by men who see taxpayer funds preferentially directed towards women. Men will take this resentment out on the women in their lives.. It’s possible that in some cases, female children will be more valued for the money they bring in from the government than for their own personhood. We understand that some extent of financial or social benefits is necessary to redress historical oppression, but whenever possible, governments should seek to end gender-inequality by utilizing gender-neutral policies rather than picking sides. Widespread economic development will reduce the need for poorer families to select the sex of their children based on who can bring in the most income and therefore the gender ratio will begin to balance out without implementing discriminatory policies that create anger.  A perfect example of how discriminatory policies in the name of redress can create social divides is affirmative action in South Africa. Post-apartheid has an policy name Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) according to which companies gain benefits and status by fulfilling a certain race quota amongst their employees. South African universities accept black students with lower marks than white students in order to try to rebalance the demographics of the university. This means it is increasingly difficult for white people in South Africa to find jobs. Many white people feel resentful towards the beneficiaries of BEE and there is very aggressive debate at universities between white and black students as to whether racially based admissions policies are fair. If anything these policies have divided South Africans. [2] A discriminatory race policy in China and India will have much the same effect and therefore will not achieve its aims of addressing gender inequalities.  [1] Prasad, Eswar. “Time to tackle India’s Budget Deficit.” The Wall Street Journal. 2010.   [2] Mayer, Mark. “South Africans Continue to Seek Greener Pastures.” Sharenet Marketviews. 2008.

The German example is incomparable to the countries we are discussing.  It’s most likely the case that the policy in Germany did not work because the population is too wealthy to be motivated by a financial incentive. Germany is a developed country with GDP per capita 40,874 US dollar and a “luxury” state welfare system. High education, no financial worries about the life after retirement and the fact that women pursue careers all contribute to a low birth rate. India, on the other hand is a developing country with only GDP per capita 2,941 US dollar and poor state welfare system. Moreover, 42 percent of the Indian population is under the international poverty line. Hence a financial incentive is far more effective in these Asian nations. Unlike in India, Europeans tend to regard children not as investments but as an opportunity for emotional fulfilment. They are unlikely therefore to make a decision about child rearing based on financial reasons.  Furthermore, the sense of community culture that exists in Asian nations (for example the practise of age-old traditions and the lack of cultural westernisation) is not present in Germany and so the example does not take into consideration the strength of culture in effecting decisions.  Lastly, we would argue that you cannot compare a programme which encourages people to have children at all to a programme that encourages people to have female rather than male children. The incentives of the parents are different and the goals of the policies are different.  We would argue that this policy is far better suited to India than it is to Germany and that the comparison does not hold.

Encouraging families to have female children at least gives people a reason to value females at all, even if this is merely a financial value. In the current scenario women are not valuable in any sense. They are valued so little that their lives are ended without a flinch when they are only infants.

Western nations are not as powerful as they would like to think. Their “soft power” cannot propagate norms as effectively as they would like to think. The dominance of Western countries in institutions does not put them in a place of great influence, but rather puts them in a place to be accused of imperialism and exploitation. The West’s preaching to the rest of the world is not seen as constructive or admirable advice by the rest of the world, but rather is viewed as “moral arrogance” and cultural imperialism. It is highly unlikely that most places will change their laws because someone tells them that they do not agree with them, especially when those laws are rooted in a deeper moral or religious obligation.  Moreover, with the hypocritical nature of this particular policy due to countries like the USA not respected homosexual rights either, it is very easy to dismiss this policy as the West simply being hypocritical and telling the developing world to “do as I say, not as I do” and thus is easy to dismiss it as unimportant.

This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws  This will help change practices of sexuality-discrimination in nations across the world.  One of the most effective ways to engage the international community on swift action to protect certain rights is to make a clear, bold statement against a particular type of behaviour. By acting to not just condemn a certain behaviour, but actively circumvent states’ ability to carry out such a behaviour, the international community sends a message of the unacceptability of such practices.  Moreover, and more importantly, regardless of if the countries are persuaded into agreeing with the international community on the issues of LGBT rights, this action will still change state behaviour. This will happen for two reasons:  Fear of sanction and condemnation. Most countries in the world are heavily interdependent and specifically dependent on the West. Falling out of popularity with Western countries and their populations is a particularly risky situation for most countries. An action such as this signals seriousness of the international community on the issue of sexual orientation equality and can be used as an influential tool to convince leaders to liberalize sexual orientation laws.  Loss of internal support. One of the biggest losses a leader can have in terms of democratic support and the avoidance of violent unrest is being seen as impotent and weak. When the international community effectively sets up a system of immunity to your country’s laws and is more powerful is protecting people and helping people avoid the laws of your country than you are in implementing them, you lose face and integrity in the eyes of your constituents. This can make leaders look weak and incapable of administering justice and fulfilling the needs of society. Furthermore, it makes leaders seem weak and subservient to the rest of the world, removing perceived legitimacy. This loss of legitimacy and support is a major consideration for state leaders. As such, a declaration of an asylum policy for sexual orientation can persuade leaders into changing their anti-homosexuality laws to avoid asylum being granted to people from their country to save face and continue to look strong and decisive as a leader and avoid the damage such a policy would do to their rhetoric of strong leadership.  The best example of this is that due to strong and vocal condemnation of the Bahati Bill in Uganda which would have imposed the death penalty for the crime of homosexuality, the Cabinet Committee rejected the bill [1] .  Therefore, this policy is instrumental in changing state behaviour towards sexual orientation and making the first steps towards acceptance and ending discrimination.  [1] Muhumuza, Rodney. "Uganda: Cabinet Committee Rejects Bahati Bill." allAfrica.com 08 May 2010.

As explained in counterargument two, it is highly unlikely that countries will craft policy based on the preaching of the West.  Moreover, it becomes increasingly unlikely that countries will be receptive to discussions on liberalization of their policies on sexual orientation when the West outright condemns their views as immoral and abhorrent and takes active steps to stop them from enforcing what they see as their moral laws on their populations.

The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum  The LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum.  Asylum was created as a direct protection of Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) 1948 [1] which states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” [2] This article was created in order to protect the third article of the declaration “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” [3] This concept of asylum was created to develop a separate category of migration that would allow its applicants to breach normal immigration protocol and application procedures [4] on the basis that these people were in immediate danger and that without creating a specific bypass for them, they would endure great harm or death. The point of asylum as a specific and emergency measure and, indeed a moral necessity, was two-fold:  1) The immediate nature of the threat/danger to their person  2) That this threat was persecutory in nature  What is important to note is that “persecution” is fundamentally different than prosecution. The difference lay in the acceptability and justice of the punishment someone may or will endure. Persecution is a term used for a punishment that is unjust or morally abhorrent. Asylum has emerged as a category of protection we grant to people who we believe that we are morally obligated to help, because if we do not, they will receive a punishment they do not deserve and will severely harmed for something they deserve no harm for.  We, the proposition, believe that both of these criteria are filled by those fleeing persecution for sexual orientation and thus we are morally-obligated to grant them asylum. First, it is clear that they are facing immediate danger. Whether it is death penalties in places like Uganda [5] or vigilante justice against homosexuals such as the murder of David Kato [6] . In places like Uganda, local tabloids often publishes “Gay Lists” of individuals they believe are gay so that the community can track them down and kill them for their sexual orientation, which is how and why David Kato was murdered [7] . It is clear that whether by the state or by their neighbour, there is a clear and immediate danger to many LGBT people across the world.  The second criteria of the unacceptability of this persecution is also clear. We as Western Liberal democracies have in recent years become increasingly accepting of the LGBT community with the granting of gay marriage, application of anti-discrimination laws and even allowing of gay-adoption in many countries. The sexual orientation of an individual is in no indicative of one’s worth as a human being in the eyes of the Western Liberal Democracy and can never possible be a death sentence. It is inconceivable for us to consider sexual orientation a reason to not allow a person to raise a child, never mind view it as an acceptable reason for death.  [1] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [2] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [3] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [4] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [5] Dougherty, Jill. "U.S. State Department condemns 'odious' Ugandan anti-gay bill." CNN International. 12 May 2011.  [6] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.  [7] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.

There has yet to be an international consensus forged around LGBT rights and state treatment of sexual orientation.  Many countries around the world are not secular Western Liberal Democracies and operate on a completely different moral standard than the West does. Many religions, and in fact state religions, do not recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and specifically see it as a sin and a crime against the religious authority they uphold. It is not the West’s role to tell the rest of the world what their morality should be.  There is not even consensus amongst Western Liberal Democracies on this issue. The United States of America still does not recognize homosexuals as deserving of equal rights to heterosexuals and many states do not allow gay marriage or gay adoption as a result [1] . The west cannot circumvent the laws of other countries when they themselves do not even hold themselves to the legal and moral standard they would like to impose on others.  [1] Law, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. "Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness." American Political Science Review. 103.3 (2009): Print.

This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community  Global consensus on progressive rights for the LGBT community will be aided through this policy.  One of the most powerful weapons in the international community’s arsenal is the soft power of condemnation. One of the most important things the international community can do is use its weight and influence to advocate protection of vulnerable peoples and promote moral and social causes. The West with its immense wealth and importance in international institutions such as the United Nations have a lot of power when it comes to influencing discriminatory policies in other nations. Granting asylum to people on the basis of sexual orientation sends a clear message to the international community that it is not okay to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and that the West not only strongly disapproves of this behaviour, but that, more importantly, they will take active steps to counter-act your discriminatory policies. This has immense impact on pressuring governments to change their policies.  What is important to note here is that there is a gradual normative consensus that is manufactured under this system. Through the use of soft power, the policies of nations are slowly but surely moderated and a global consensus is created. Not only can this policy influence current state behaviour, but that the influence and change that creates becomes part of a larger global move towards universal acceptance of the norm and the diffusion of that idea throughout all strata of society.  This is important in two ways:  Creating a discourse centred on a universal consensus against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore making discourse be dominated by agreement with this principle and thus creating a dialogue that creates an accepting atmosphere through disseminating the norm of acceptance throughout the international community and global society.  This is important is forging international legal protections for the rights of the LGBT community. International law arrives from a consensus of opinion around a particular issue and its need to be legislated on. Making sexual orientation grounds for asylum creates the framework that explicitly states that legislative international protection is necessary for these groups. This policy therefore begins that process in and of itself. However, more importantly, the reduction of opposition and trend of nations removing discriminatory laws against sexual orientation consolidates this statement of legislative need and furthers the cause for international protection.  Making sexual orientation a category for asylum not only saves lives, but also sends a strong and influential message that helps craft policy in nations who use discrimination as a tool of oppression against the LGBT community. This begins the foundations of global consensus on equality for all sexual orientations and a lasting solution to the issue of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

As explained in counterargument two, the rationale behind this form of discrimination is nonnegotiable and absolutist due to its religious/moral nature. Consensus-building will not happen in the near future on this issue and even if the potentiality of social acceptance of the LGBT community was in the not-so-distant future, this does not offer any protection to those in danger now, nor remove our obligation to their protection from discrimination and unjust punishment.

Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.  The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.  This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.

This policy breaks down important inter-governmental dialogue on LGBT rights  This policy damages international discourse and progress in LGBT rights.  This policy makes it very unlikely that governments will be willing or receptive to discussions on liberalization of their LGBT laws and policies. Discourse and compromise only happens when both sides of the debate accept the validity of the other person holding the view that they do. If the West outright rejects the views of other nations as “immoral” or “unacceptable” these nations are unlikely to want to engage with the West on these issues as they feel that their opinions will not be respected or be treated fairly or equally. You effectively remove these countries from the negotiating table when you do this. This can be illustrated by countries deemed “backwards” or “immoral” such as Iran and North Korea, who become more isolationist the more they are categorized as and rejected for being “evil” or “unacceptable.” Construction engagement does not begin with the rejection of the other viewpoint’s right to be on the negotiating table.  Moreover, you create an antagonistic relationship between the West and those nations with anti-homosexual laws that hinders further discussion on the issue. By dealing with LGBT treatment in this manner, you effectively brand all acceptance of homosexuality as “Western”. This makes the concept of acceptance for the LGBT community nearly mutually-exclusive with religiously conservative nations or nations who have a historical and national narrative that dislikes the West and the concept of imperialism.

Asylum is not the best way of dealing with discrimination against LGBT people.  The vast majority of LGBT people who are discriminated or harassed on the grounds of their sexual orientation will never have a chance to claim asylum. Poor people from Africa or India may never be able to afford transport to countries that are more accepting of their lifestyle, and even if they could afford it they may not have the knowledge that they could go elsewhere.  As such any policy of asylum for LGBT people who are being discriminated against is never going to be a good solution. And indeed could even be considered to itself be discriminating against those who will never have the opportunity.  Instead countries who would want to consider sexual orientation grounds for asylum should be putting their energies into preventing the discrimination in the first place. As in the UN Declaration of Human Rights “All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination”, [1] all should mean all.  Pressure could be put on countries where the asylum seekers would be coming from in many ways. Diplomatic pressure could be applied and countries denied access to some international organisation. In the case of countries where aid is given the aid could be stopped unless laws are changed, for example in 2009 the UK gave Uganda £70 million in aid, [2] this money should translate into some leverage. Alternatively if the country does not receive aid it could have some form of sanctions against it or trade ties reduced.  [1] United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, 1948.  [2] Annie Kelly and Liz Ford, ‘Aid to Uganda: How the UK government is supporting the country’, guardian.co.uk, 30 January 2009.

This policy undermines the grassroots movements that are necessary for full and sustained protection of the LGBT community  Lasting change to anti-homosexual attitudes will only happen from the ground-up. This hinders the ability of governments to engineer more accepting attitudes toward the LGBT community.  Even if you could get countries to discuss their policies and liberalize them through this policy, this will not actually change the reality for the LGBT on the ground. Nations where anti-homosexuality laws are in place have large swathes of support for these laws as they represent and enforce the morality of the vast majority of their populace. Simply removing anti-homosexuality laws does not protect homosexuals in their home countries. Simply not being pursued by the government does not mean the government is willing or able to protect individuals from society. Moreover, it makes it nearly impossible for the government of that country to try to liberalize and engineer a more LGBT-friendly attitude in their country if they have submitted to Western pressures. Populations feel abandoned by their governments when they no longer reflect or uphold their wishes and what they view as their moral obligations. The government loses its credibility on LGBT issues if it abandons its anti-homosexual platform and thus cannot moderate or attempt to liberalize such views in the future. This simply leads to people taking “justice” against homosexuals into their own hands, making danger to homosexuals less centralized, more unpredictable and much less targeted.  A perfect example of this is in Uganda where the government’s “failure” to implement a death penalty for homosexuality led to tabloid papers producing “Gay Lists” that included people suspected of homosexuality [1] . The importance of this is two-fold. First, it shows that vigilante justice will replace the state justice and thus bring no net benefit to the LGBT community. Second, and more importantly, it means that the violence against LGBT individuals is no longer done by a centralized, controlled state authority, which removes all pretence of due-process and most importantly, makes violence against homosexuality become violence against suspicion of homosexuality. Thus, making it an even more dangerous place for everyone who could associate or in any way identify with what are viewed as “common traits” of the LGBT community.  [1] "Gay Rights in Developing Countries: A Well-Locked Closet." The Economist. 27 May 2010.

This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty  Asylum is a concept reserved for the direst cases of political persecution of individuals. It was created as a last resort protection mechanism for people being unlawfully or unjustly pursued by their home country when no other form of protection will work to guarantee the safety of these individuals. The reason it is such a last resort option is because it is effectively intervening within the sovereignty of a state and removing its monopoly on violence and coercive force within that state and administering a parallel system of justice.  No nation has the right to infringe on the sovereignty of another nation without just cause. The moral viewpoints of a nation and its peoples are not what can be considered ‘just cause.’ It is a religious and moral viewpoint to believe that homosexuality should be prosecuted and it is the obligation of any individual living in a state to abide by the laws of the state that they live in. It is not within the rights of other countries to decide if the domestic laws of another country are in line with their views nor is it legitimate for them to violate sovereignty on this basis.  If an individual wishes to break the laws of their society on moral grounds, they have knowingly and intentionally violated the law. Just as people who think any other law unjust and thus breaks it, the LGBT community is in no way less culpable for the breach of law nor is any state any more justified in allowing them to evade punishment.

International discourse on this issue has not been working.  When society is the one persecuting the LGBT community, the governments have plausible deniability in the matter and thus can skirt their responsibility in negotiations. This means that all talk and “dialogue” is meaningless as the government’s can claim a lack of responsibility or agree to protection for the LGBT community, but then not offer it because they are “unable” to.  Many times discrimination against sexual orientation is a religious one, and when it is not, it is a moral one. These views are not reconcilable with alternative moral claims as they are absolutist forms of thought. They are not negotiable or a matters of opinion; they are simply right. This will never lead to consensus-building through friendly dialogue.  Even if the leaders of these countries have made laws against certain forms of sexual orientation on a calculated political level, it will be because of the religious/moral views of the citizens within their country. This is important because, given the option of disagreeing with an international community that has no power over them or angering their domestic constituents that either keeps them in power through democratic support or the avoidance of violent unrest, leaders will pick the former. Thus, international consensus-building is bound to fail  These people need protection now. Regardless of any international dialogue about the future, real people are in real danger now. The reason asylum was created was to protect individuals in immediate danger when no immediate solution to the persecution is in sight. This is a perfect fit for the criteria of asylum.

Whilst it is important for people to remember the terrible troubles people have surviving in very poor countries, we must also remember that direct sponsorship is perhaps not the best way to help people out of poverty - there are a lot of downsides [7]. Would it not be better to hear of how an entire community was improved rather than just a single child or family? Ultimately you can’t force people to give to charity, and at times like these when even in wealthy countries people have trouble getting enough money it must be expected that charitable giving will drop.

Child sponsorship brings about greater understanding between people from different countries and cultures.  Personal letters, charity reports, photographs and even visits help to build a bridge between the developed and developing world[5]. More and more people are able to talk to each other around the world, and it is important that less fortunate people in poor countries are connected to the rest of us and have the opportunity to communicate with us. Sponsorship creates a personal connection - the children get to learn about their sponsors and the sponsors get to learn how their money helps people. This continued attention to the positive effects of sponsorship is really important to help poorer countries, especially at a time when worldwide economics are in trouble and charities are most at risk from begin forgotten [6].

The problem once with this form of giving is that it only provides for a single child, not an entire community - this is why many organisations refuse to offer single child adoption, and instead spend the money they receive on developing poor places for everyone that lives there [10]. By sponsoring a child rather than giving the money directly to a cause or organisation you add a layer of uncertainty to the process – you can't be sure exactly how your money is being spent, or if it really is being used to help all aspects of life. Some organisations only work through missionaries and churches [11]. Although giving to a single child may produce more tangible and immediate results, the work done by large charity organisations is likely to have more important long term benefits to many more people.

Sponsorship is better than other kinds of charity because it is a long term commitment.  Over the years $30 a month, or perhaps even more, adds up to thousands of dollars’ worth of aid spending - this is different to other forms of charity because the main focus here is on “long-term changes"[2]. Unlike a one-off donation, this method of giving ensures that poor people get support for a long time without costing people too much in one go. It also ensures that people keep giving to these needy causes, and makes people realise that they can afford to make a difference.

The long term nature of sponsorship implies that it does not fix the problems that cause poverty. Instead, many argue it can create dependency[3], meaning that the child and family will come to rely on their sponsor. This may discourage them from using their own efforts to escape poverty. For example, even if leaving their village to find work elsewhere could be best for them, they may stay where they are to keep receiving the sponsorship money and other benefits. By linking a single child to a single wealthy (rich) person it also creates a situation in which it is easy for the child to compare their own lives with those of their sponsors. This could make them unhappy or even jealous [4]. In the end it is still possible to help children through charitable giving, but sponsorship schemes create a more complicated relationship that could sometimes go wrong.

People should not need this kind of “feel good factor” in order to give to charity – it is very selfish. People all over the world need help from richer people, and instead of helping just one they have the ability to help many. By focusing in on one single example, people may also get a very narrow view of life in poorer countries – they may feel that the developing world can't look after itself and as a result won't support very important changes to things like government that could actually help the people more than their sponsorship. The “personal connection” is also sometimes made up by the charity organisations, who translate and edit letters sent between the rich and poor to make sure they do not get too emotionally attached to one another [13].

Sponsorship also contributes to all aspects of life.  This includes drinking water, food, education, medical care, shelter and sanitation - often charitable donations are more specific (they only provide for one of these aspects of life). By putting children at the heart of charity programs it is hoped that a stronger foundation will be made for the future - the young people who are helped today can maintain a better lifestyle in the future [8]. Giving all this to an individual child also produces more tangible results than giving to a vast organisation, whose work is can often over-ambitious and more open to corruption [9].

Sponsorship is a good way of getting people who otherwise wouldn't give to charity to donate their money.  Unlike most other forms of charity, sponsorship creates a direct link between the person giving money and the person receiving it. People are able to see the ways in which their money is helping others, and this makes them feel good about it – as World Vision International says - “You get to see and feel the difference your support makes" [12]. Although this is probably not the best reason for people to give their money to those in need, practically speaking (in the real world) it is one of the most effective (it works very well) in encouraging people to give.

In an ideal world it would be easy to say that charities should not try to change the religions and cultures of poor people, but given the dire nature of the situation for the poorest people in the world, surely we do not have the luxury to argue over what ideas should or should not be given to these people. Is it not better that they survive as Christians rather than die from hunger and disease? Religion provides the incentive many people need to think about giving money to charity. We must also consider that only a minority of organisations seek to change the people they help in this way – there is a lot of choice out there for people who don't want to impose cultural change [21] so this does not work as an argument against the idea of child sponsorship as a whole.

Stories about ridiculous administration costs are not only rare but are often untrue. For example, in the case of one of the largest sponsorship organisations - World Vision - “Of the funds given in 2010, 81.1 per cent went directly into programs that help children, 13.9 per cent went to fundraising services, 5.0 per cent was allocated to administration". Charities are not out to rip people off, their aim is to give money to people who need it most. There are always going to be some administration costs in any organisations, and even if those charities who offer child sponsorships have higher costs than others, the positive long term effects of this giving are far more important. Often it may be a choice between giving a sponsorship and not giving anything at all - helping some people is surely better than helping no-one at all.

We need to address the causes of poverty rather than treat the symptoms (outward signs).  There are better ways to help people. Helping single children, or even villages, treats the symptoms of poverty - it makes life better for a small minority. It does little to address the actual causes of poverty such as war, unclean water, bad government, HIV/AIDS, unfair world trade rules, etc. As these statistics show the problems of poverty and disease are truly massive in scale, and even if many thousands are helped by sponsorship schemes, many millions more are still left with nothing. If we really want to help lift people out of poverty for good, we should give to charities which focus on these bigger development issues - for example Christian Aid believes that “it is better to help whole communities through our partner organisations rather than sponsor individuals" [16]. We should also join campaigns to make rich world governments do more to help the developing world by increasing spending on aid [17], forgiving debt, and making the global trade rules fairer for developing countries.

Sponsorship is often more about the intentions of the donors rather than the needs of poor children.  Some schemes have a clear cultural and religious motive – a desire to give aid in such a way that it will affect and even impose (force) foreign ideas onto a vulnerable (weaker) society. Any organisation that has such a clear overlap between their own ideas of faith [19] and the practical side of helping people is ultimately imposing its ideas onto people without giving them any choice in the matter. Families may even come to think that they have to show belief in order to keep receiving sponsorship. For example, sponsored children may be encouraged to send cards at Christmas, even if they are not Christians. At the end of the day this comes down to a very serious question of choice – many would argue that by offering aid with the intention of turning children into adult Christians [20], organisations like “Compassion” are effectively manipulating charity into part of a conversion campaign.

Sponsorship is an inefficient way of giving to charity.  Sponsoring a child is a costly way to do good. More of the money given is taken up with administration (organising) compared to other ways of helping poor people, and although the cost of this administration varies greatly but often as much as 20% of the money donated does not reach the people who need it, and some of that loss is through high executive salaries. [14] For example, keeping track of each child and family needs time from an aid worker, who has to be paid. Organising and sending letters, photographs, school reports, etc. to the donor takes time and money. Translating letters and reports between both donor and child can be particularly costly. Giving the same amount of money to an aid charity would do much more for poor people.

Many of the organisations that run child sponsorship schemes are dedicated to improving all of these aspects of life – indeed the way in which these schemes focus on the improvement of a specific area or community make it perhaps a more complete way of giving money to the poor. Charities can hardly be expected to incite political change or cure deadly diseases instead of helping those who are sick. More than eight million children around the world are sponsored by Western sponsors [18] - giving this large number of children the basis for a good future and the possibility of them learning enough to get themselves and their future families out of poverty is surely a good enough reason to encourage the sponsoring of children to build for a better future alongside other charity projects.